City of - Tega Cay, SC
Transcript of City of - Tega Cay, SC
City ofTega Cay, South Carolina
_______________________________________________________________________
Regular City Council Meeting AgendaTega Cay Glennon Center - Lower Level
15077 Molokai Drive, Tega Cay, SC
7:00 P.M. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of SilenceSpecial Presentation
Proclamation Honoring Eagle Scout Christopher Putman
1A PROCLAMATION - CHRISTOPHER PUTMAN, EAGLE SCOUT.PDF
Proclamation Recognizing Spring Pick-Me-Up Week 2018
1B PROCLAMATION - SPRING PICK ME UP.PDF
Proclamation Honoring Vietnam Veterans
1C PROCLAMATION - VIETNAM VETERANS DAY.PDF
Presentation From Tega Cay Women's Club To TCPD
Presentation By The SC Human Affairs Commission, Saundra Ligon, Senior Consultant, Community Relations Dept.
Public Comments
Approval Of Minutes
3A DRAFT MINUTES 2.20.18.PDF
Committee AppointmentsA. Planning CommissionB. Board of Zoning AppealsC. Building Codes of AppealsD. Tega Cay Forever
Unfinished Business
2nd Reading Of An Ordinance To Amend The Zoning Code, Art. XIII, Sect. 19-401 Fences In Residential And Park Districts
5A1 2018_REVISED_FENCING REQUIREMENTS_RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.PDF
New Business
Resolution Supporting The FM School's Bond Referendum
6A1 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FMSD BOND REFERENDUM.PDF
Resolution Supporting The Law Enforcement Assistance And Support Agreement
6B1- RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT.PDF
Approval Of Reduction Of Escrow Account And Performance, Labor And Materials Surety Agreement For River Lakes Phase 3
6C1 PERFORMANCE LABOR AND MATERIALS SURETY AGREEMENT 2ND AMENDMENT - RIVER LAKE PH 3.PDF6C2 RIVER LAKE SIDEWALK BOND-SIGNED.PDF
Proposal For Study Necessary To Charge And Collect Impact Fees On New Construction In Tega Cay
TEGA CAY SC PROPOSAL (002).PDF
City Manager's Report
Council Comments
Adjournment
1.
1.a.
Documents:
1.b.
Documents:
1.c.
Documents:
1.d.
1.e.
2.
3.
Documents:
4.
5.
5.a.
Documents:
6.
6.a.
Documents:
6.b.
Documents:
6.c.
Documents:
6.d.
Documents:
7.
8.
9.
City ofTega Cay, South Carolina
_______________________________________________________________________
Regular City Council Meeting AgendaTega Cay Glennon Center - Lower Level
15077 Molokai Drive, Tega Cay, SC
7:00 P.M. Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Moment of SilenceSpecial Presentation
Proclamation Honoring Eagle Scout Christopher Putman
1A PROCLAMATION - CHRISTOPHER PUTMAN, EAGLE SCOUT.PDF
Proclamation Recognizing Spring Pick-Me-Up Week 2018
1B PROCLAMATION - SPRING PICK ME UP.PDF
Proclamation Honoring Vietnam Veterans
1C PROCLAMATION - VIETNAM VETERANS DAY.PDF
Presentation From Tega Cay Women's Club To TCPD
Presentation By The SC Human Affairs Commission, Saundra Ligon, Senior Consultant, Community Relations Dept.
Public Comments
Approval Of Minutes
3A DRAFT MINUTES 2.20.18.PDF
Committee AppointmentsA. Planning CommissionB. Board of Zoning AppealsC. Building Codes of AppealsD. Tega Cay Forever
Unfinished Business
2nd Reading Of An Ordinance To Amend The Zoning Code, Art. XIII, Sect. 19-401 Fences In Residential And Park Districts
5A1 2018_REVISED_FENCING REQUIREMENTS_RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.PDF
New Business
Resolution Supporting The FM School's Bond Referendum
6A1 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FMSD BOND REFERENDUM.PDF
Resolution Supporting The Law Enforcement Assistance And Support Agreement
6B1- RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENT.PDF
Approval Of Reduction Of Escrow Account And Performance, Labor And Materials Surety Agreement For River Lakes Phase 3
6C1 PERFORMANCE LABOR AND MATERIALS SURETY AGREEMENT 2ND AMENDMENT - RIVER LAKE PH 3.PDF6C2 RIVER LAKE SIDEWALK BOND-SIGNED.PDF
Proposal For Study Necessary To Charge And Collect Impact Fees On New Construction In Tega Cay
TEGA CAY SC PROPOSAL (002).PDF
City Manager's Report
Council Comments
Adjournment
1.
1.a.
Documents:
1.b.
Documents:
1.c.
Documents:
1.d.
1.e.
2.
3.
Documents:
4.
5.
5.a.
Documents:
6.
6.a.
Documents:
6.b.
Documents:
6.c.
Documents:
6.d.
Documents:
7.
8.
9.
City of
Tega Cay, South Carolina _______________________________________________________________________
PROCLAMATION
RECOGNIZING EAGLE SCOUT PROJECT BY
CHRISTOPHER PUTMAN
WHEREAS, Christopher Putman has proven himself to be an outstanding member of the Boy
Scouts of America, and
WHEREAS, it takes many years of dedication and commitment to achieve Eagle rank, and
WHEREAS, Eagle Scouts act as leaders and role models in the community, and
WHEREAS, the Eagle Scout Award is a distinction that will follow him throughout life and will
be a beacon to others of the leadership quality and commitment this young man has
shown, and
WHEREAS, citizens of the City of Tega Cay appreciate his hard work to raise funds, purchase
and install ten bike racks at the local parks including the Beach & Swim Center,
Windjammer, Runde, Windsong, Turner and Pitcairn Parks.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Mayor and Council of the City of Tega
Cay do hereby congratulate and recognize Christopher Putman for his achievement toward the
rank of Eagle Scout. We are proud to have him as a member of our community.
Signed this 19th day of March, 2018.
_________________________________
David L. O’Neal, Mayor
City of Tega Cay, South Carolina
City of
Tega Cay, South Carolina _______________________________________________________________________
PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING
SPRING PICK-ME-UP WEEK 2018
WHEREAS, April 21st through April 28th is “Spring Pick-Me-Up Week” in the City of
Tega Cay; and
WHEREAS, in celebration of Earth Day, the City recognizes the outstanding
collaboration and efforts of Keep America Beautiful, Palmetto Pride, Keep York
County Beautiful, City of Tega Cay staff and volunteers to coordinate and execute
Spring Pick-Me-Up Week; and
WHEREAS, the City will offer reduced costs for items requiring a disposal fee in
addition to free daily curbside pickup of yard debris, small household items; and
WHEREAS, the kick off starts at 9am at Trailhead Park on Saturday, April 21st for the
City-wide Clean Up. There you will receive instruction and supplies, culminating
with a picnic lunch at Noon at Windjammer Park; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O’Neal, Mayor of the City of Tega Cay, do hereby
proclaim April 21-28, 2017 as Spring Pick-Me-Up Week in this community and I call
upon all citizens to join in the efforts of city staff to volunteer to support Spring Pick-Me-
Up Week.
Dated this 19th day of March, 2018.
_______________________________
David L. O’Neal, Mayor
City of Tega Cay, South Carolina
City of
Tega Cay, South Carolina _______________________________________________________________________
PROCLAMATION HONORING
VIETNAM VETERANS
WHEREAS, over three million Americans served through more than a decade in the Vietnam
War and more than 58,000 did not return; and
WHEREAS, of those who survived, over 300,000 suffered physical injuries in combat, and an
even greater number developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other
psychiatric ailments as a result of their service; and
WHEREAS, our veterans answered our country’s call and served with honor, and on April 30,
1975, the last of our troops left Vietnam; and
WHEREAS, we reaffirm one of our fundamental obligations: to show all who have worn the
uniform of the United States the respect and dignity they deserve, and to honor their
sacrifice by serving them as well as they served us; and
NOW, THEREFORE, I, David O’Neal, Mayor of the City of Tega Cay, do hereby proclaim
March 29, 2018 as Vietnam Veterans Day in this community and I call upon all citizens to join
me in paying tribute and honoring their proud legacy with our deepest gratitude.
Dated this 19th day of March, 2018.
_______________________________
David L. O’Neal, Mayor
City of Tega Cay, South Carolina
DRAFT MINUTES UNTIL APPROVED BY COUNCIL
Councilmembers Present: Mayor David O’Neal, Mayor Pro Tem Heather Overman, Councilmembers Alicia Dasch and Ryan Richard. A quorum was present. Staff Present: Charlie Funderburk, City Manager; Steve Parker, Police Chief; Scott Szymanski, Fire Chief; Susan Britt, Planning & Development Manager; Sylvia Szymanski, Municipal Clerk; and City Attorney Bob McCleave The Press was duly notified of the meeting.
Mayor David O’Neal called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and noted it was a Regular City Council meeting. He then led the Pledge of Allegiance and a Moment of Silence. ITEM 1 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
A. Firefighter Kyle Graffeo gave his Oath of Office. B. Andrew Markners and Michelle Angledorf made a presentation on the FMSD Bond Referendum.
ITEM 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Jason Dayton, 369 Shoreline Parkway, noted his fencing concerns. 2. Mike Hall, 916 Knob Creek Lane, asked Council to consider small businesses, local developers and he would like to see the removal of the burned down house on Gold Hill Road in Fort Mill.
ITEM 3 APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no changes to the Regular Council Meeting minutes of 1/16/18 and they were approved. ITEM 4 COMMITTEE UPDATE A. Planning Commission Chair Chris Leonard updated Council on the commission’s recent workshop including Airbnb, a bike/pedestrian master plan, developing a land use development checklist, density requirements and a citizens’ survey on short term rentals. ITEM 5 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. Planning Commission Recommendation Regarding Amendments to the Zoning Code, Fences in Residential and Park Districts
Planning Commission Chair Chris Leonard recommended in favor of passing the revised Amendments to the Zoning Code, including verbiage on privacy fences and neutral materials.
B. 1st Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code, Art. XIII, Sect. 19-401 Fences in Residential and Park Districts
MOTION Mayor Pro Tem Overman motioned to approve the 1st Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code, Art. XIII, Sect. 19-401 Fences in Residential and Park Districts, seconded by Councilmember Richard and approved unanimously. ITEM 6 NEW BUSINESS A. Appointment of Committee Liaisons Mayor O’Neal named Councilmember Alicia Dasch as liaison to the Planning Commission and Heather Overman to the Economic Development Commission and to the Tega Cay Forever Foundation.
Regular City Council Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes
Philip T. Glennon Center – Council Chambers 15077 Molokai Drive, Tega Cay, SC
Tuesday, February 20, 2018 7:00 p.m.
Tega Cay Regular Council Meeting February 20, 2018
Page | 2
B. Approval of Candidate for Economic Development Commission Jerry Church was unanimously voted to the Economic Development Commission. ITEM 6 CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Funderburk asked Chief Parker to come to the floor to recognize several Camp Cadet partnerships which included American Burger Company, who will partner with TCPD on March 10 at the police station for free burgers from 11am-2pm. They will be accepting donations toward Camp Cadet. Also recognized was Jersey Mike’s Rob Bennett, Cliff Nichols for his photography contributions, and to Fire Chief Szymanski and his firefighters. Funderburk noted the Polar Plunge raised $17,000 on February 3 with 75 volunteers taking the plunge in 37-degree temperatures. Most of Council and the Assistant City Manager attended the Hometown Legislative Action Day. Council will have a strategic planning session with the help of the COG soon. To date, 1,600 kids have signed up for youth sports this spring. Residents were asked to slow down as they drive past practice and game sites. Trees between #10 and #18 holes are being thinned out over the next month.
ITEM 7 COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Richard noted he was in favor of the school bond referendum. Vote yes on March 20. Councilmember Dasch thanked staff for the orientation guide. She encouraged voting on March 20 and is in favor of the low impact fees that will facilitate with three additional schools. She asked about RFATS funding. City Manager Funderburk noted a February 22 meeting with SCDOT to discuss a sidewalk connecting Stonecrest Blvd. to Coralbell while the other project is extending an existing sidewalk from Tega Cay Drive to Molokai possibly down to Pago Pago. This is an amendment based on priority to the RFATS policy committee. SCDOT is the project manager. Therefore, we should expect a 25% increase. Mayor Pro Tem Overman also noted she was in favor of the school bond referendum. She thanked the Planning Commission for their hard work but asked them to review variance fees. She thanked Parks and Rec as her son had his first soccer practice. She thanked the City Manager and Chief for being proactive on Windjammer and having a plan of action in place on that street and in the park. Mayor O’Neal is also in favor of the bond referendum and would like to see Council pass a resolution at the March meeting in favor of it. ITEM 8 ADJOURNMENT MOTION
There being no further business, Councilmember Dasch motioned to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Councilmember Richard and approved unanimously.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. Respectfully Submitted,
[SEAL] ____________________________________________ Sylvia Szymanski, Municipal Clerk
APPROVED:
___________________________________________ David L. O’Neal, Mayor APPROVAL DATE: March 19, 2018
ARTICLE XIII. FENCING REQUIREMENTS
SECTION 19-400 - PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (A) Any person wishing to erect, alter, or relocate a fence or screen on any lot within the City of Tega Cay must first obtain a fence permit from the Zoning Administrator. (B) Due to the topography, site, design, safety, or type of housing unit, some residential units may have special fencing requirements. Fencing not meeting the standards outlined in Section 19-401(A) through 19-401(J) must be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals via a variance request (Section 19-92). (C) The request for a fence permit must be submitted by the property owner or his agent. (D) Each application for a fence permit must include a site plan which is drawn to scale and designates the exact location of the proposed fence including its height and width. The site plan shall be drawn according to an accurate survey on a plat of the lot. SECTION 19-401 - FENCES IN RESIDENTIAL AND PARK DISTRICTS (A) No fences are permitted in the established front yard. (B) Except for the provisions of Section 19-155 and 19-156 (Patio Houses) and under normal circumstances, fences or walls shall be limited to a maximum height of six feet (6’) in the rear or side yards. All heights are measured from finished grade. On an individual lot, if a fence is constructed on top of a freestanding wall or berm, the combined height of the fence and the wall or berm shall not exceed the maximum height that would apply to a fence or wall alone. In the case of retaining walls, a maximum four-foot (4’) fence may be constructed on top of the wall for safety, regardless of the height of the wall. (C) To eliminate an attractive nuisance, swimming pool fence enclosures must conform to the requirements established in the applicable, adopted City Building Codes. (D) Except for those fences in a Patio House District, perimeter fences shall be constructed only of treated wood or cedar, wrought iron, vinyl, aluminum, fiberglass or other composite. Clear coat preservatives may be applied to wooden fences. Other fence types or composites may only be neutral colors such as black, white, bronze or green. Such fences shall be horizontal split rail or vertical picket type with a minimum of one and ¾ inches (1 ¾”) and no more than three and one quarter inches (3 ¼”) between pickets. At the discretion of the lot owner, a wire mesh may be added from the top rail to the ground. The openings in the wire mesh must be 2" x 2”or greater, and it must be made of welded, galvanized or vinyl coated wire 12 gauge or lighter. The top rail shall not be higher than seventy-two inches (72”) above grade.
(E) Fences shall not have an unfinished side facing outward from the property. Fences with a shadowbox design shall be constructed as to hide support posts. (F) On a corner lot in any residential district, no planting, structure, sign, fence, wall or obstruction to vision between the height of two and one-half feet (2-1/2’) and ten feet (10) measured from the center line of the street or road shall be placed or maintained within the triangular area formed by the intersection of the street or road edge or back of curbing and extending twenty-five (25') feet in distance along the edge of street or road or back of curbing from the corner down both streets. Property owners are required to be in continued compliance after any possible street or road widening. (G) Chain link, barbed wire, electrified above grade fences and chain link animal enclosures are prohibited in residential and park districts except that chain link fences may be used as safety fences around property used for public and community recreational purposes in residential and park districts. Chain link fences, with or without barbed wire, are allowed in all districts for security purposes of public utilities or where security enclosures are required by a regulatory agency. (H) All fences shall be maintained in good repair and shall not obstruct sight and view of pedestrian and vehicular traffic from rights of ways or bicycle and walking trails and so as to not encroach onto neighboring and adjacent properties. (I) All fences are to be set back a minimum of two feet (2’) from the property line on each side of common driveways. (J) No fence or wall shall be installed in in such a manner as to block or divert drainage flow on to or off of any other land.
RESOLUTION 2018-03
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE 2018 FORT MILL
SCHOOL DISTRICT BOND REFERENDUM
WHEREAS, the City of Tega Cay strongly supports public education and recognizes the importance of
public schools; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tega Cay acknowledges the Fort Mill School District’s success in building a
reputation of providing outstanding academic opportunities for its students; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Mill School Board unanimously approved a referendum for March 20, 2018 to
provide Fort Mill and Tega Cay area residents an opportunity to vote on the issuance of $190
million in general obligation bonds to address facility-related needs resulting from the area’s
growth; and
WHEREAS, the bond funds would be utilized to address vital facility needs, including a new middle
school, two new elementary schools, technology improvements, land for future school sites,
major facility maintenance, and new buses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tega Cay supports the School District’s objectives of continually improving
facilities and upgrading technology to assist in properly preparing the future workforce,
remaining attractive to newcomers associated with new businesses moving to the area, and
addressing the contemporary needs of students/children of a well-educated community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Tega Cay, South
Carolina, in a meeting duly assembled, supports the Fort Mill School District’s plan and the passage of
the 2018 School Bond Referendum.
Approved this 19th day of March, 2018.
SIGNED: CITY OF TEGA CAY
___________________________________
David L. O’Neal, Mayor
[SEAL]
___________________________________
Heather Overman, Mayor Pro Tem
___________________________________
Alicia Dasch, Councilmember
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Ryan Richard, Councilmember
_________________________________
Charlie Funderburk, City Manager
Certificate of Adoption
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the resolution passed at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Tega Cay, South Carolina, held on the 19th day of March, 2018.
Sylvia Szymanski, Municipal Clerk
____________________________
RESOLUTION 2018-04
A RESOLUTION APPROVING
LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, South Carolina Code Ann. § 23-20-10, et seq., authorizes mutual aid agreements on behalf
of a law enforcement authority for the purpose of providing the proper and prudent exercise of
public safety functions;
WHEREAS, law enforcement authorities for the entities described herein and City of Tega Cay Police
Department desire to participate in such agreements for the purposes of securing the benefits of
mutual aid for requested public safety functions;
WHEREAS, it is the desire and intent to pursue their joint undertaking for the provision of mutual aid
and assistance by the assignment of officers and agents between jurisdictions for requested public
safety functions to the fullest extent as is allowed by law; and
WHEREAS, Tega City Council must approve the mutual aid agreements, and does so now for the purpose
of satisfying statutory requirements.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Tega Cay does hereby
approves the Law Enforcement Assistance and Support Agreements for each the York County Sheriff’s
Office, Town of Fort Mill, City of Rock Hill, City of York and Town of Clover attached and included
herein by reference and authorizes the Chief of Police to execute such agreement with each Agency.
Adopted this 19th day of March, 2018.
[Signatures on following page]
Resolution 2018-04
CITY OF TEGA CAY
_____________________________
David L. O’Neal, Mayor
_____________________________
Heather Overman, Mayor Pro Tempore
_____________________________
Alicia Dasch, Councilmember
_____________________________
Ryan Richard, Councilmember
ATTEST:
______________________________
Charlie Funderburk, City Manager
Certificate of Adoption
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the resolution passed at the regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Tega Cay, South Carolina, held on the 19th day of March, 2018.
_________________________________
Sylvia Szymanski, Municipal Clerk
1
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA PERFORMANCE, LABOR
and MATERIALS AGREEMENT
COUNTY OF YORK AMENDMENT
THIS PERFORMANCE, LABOR and MATERIAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (the
"Amendment") is made and entered into as of the th day of March, 2018 between MCHANNA
PROPERTIES, LLC a South Carolina limited liability company, (the "Obligor") and the CITY OF TEGA
CAY, a South Carolina municipality (the “Obligee” and at times the “City”). At times herein, the Obligor
and Obligee are collectively referred to as the “parties” or individually as a “party”.
Statement of Purpose
Obligor previously requested, and was granted final plat approval by the City for the subdividing and
improving of a tract of land described on the Final Plat for River Lake Phase 3 submitted to the City in
regards to said development (the “Previous Final Plat”). As a condition precedent to the approval of the
above described Previous Final Plat by the City, the Obligor furnished a Performance, Labor and Material
Agreement dated January 9, 2012 (“Initial Performance Agreement”) and posted a bank account in favor
of the City in the amount of $42,175.00 As of the date first appearing hereinabove, Obligor has completed
certain portions of the improvements required by the Initial Performance Agreement, and has requested a
reduction in the amount of security posted with the City. Obligor and the City have agreed that the amount
of security posted shall be $2,737.75, to continue to be posted with the City in the aforementioned bank
account. The purpose of this amendment is to recognize the reduction in the amount of security posted,
and to extend the date on which completion of the improvements is due.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises herein contained, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto
agree:
1. Sections B(1) and B(2) of the Initial Performance Agreement is amended to remove the date
January 15, 2015, and replace it with the date of June 30, 2019.
2. Except as modified in this Amendment, Obligor and Obligee hereby ratify and affirm
all terms of the Initial Performance Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed by
their officers thereunto authorized the th day of March, 2018.
WITNESSES: OBLIGOR
McHanna Properties, LLC
By:
Its:
WITNESSES: OBLIGEE
City of Tega Cay
By: Charlie Funderburk
Its: City Manager
2
STATE OF CAROLINA )
) COUNTY OF )
PROBATE
PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME the undersigned, who states under oath that he
was present and witnessed execution of the foregoing instrument by ,
as , acting for and on behalf of McHanna Properties, LLC, a
South Carolina limited liability company.
(Witness #1)
Sworn to and Subscribed Before Me
This Day of , 2018:
Notary Public for
My Commission Expires:
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA )
) COUNTY OF YORK )
PROBATE
PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME the undersigned, who states under oath that
he was present and witnessed execution of the foregoing instrument by Charlie Funderburk,
acting as City Manager, for and on behalf of the City of Tega Cay, South Carolina, a South
Carolina municipality.
(Witness #1)
Sworn to and Subscribed Before Me
This Day of , 2018:
Notary Public for S.C.
My Commission Expires:
Main Office 2160 Filbert Highway York, SC 29745 P.O. Box 296 Clover, SC 29710 Tel.: (803) 684-3390 Fax.: (803) 628-2891 Kings Mountain, NC 104 N. Dilling St. Kings Mountain, NC 28086 P.O. Box 296 Clover, SC 29710 Tel.: (704) 739-2565 Fax.: (704) 739-2565
JOEL E . WOOD & ASSOC IATES P L A N N I N G • E N G I N E E R I N G • M A N A G E M E N T
January24,2018
Ms. Susan Britt, Planning Director City of Tega Cay P.O. Box 3399 Tega Cay, SC 29715 REF: RIVER LAKE SUBDIVISION BOND REQUIREMENTS
Dear Ms. Britt:
As requested, I have reviewed the measurements made by Mr. Chad Holland of the City of Tega for the amount of 4 foot sidewalk remaining to be installed in the above referenced subdivision. The amount of sidewalk is 233 feet. We have calculated the cost to install this amount of sidewalk using the same unit prices as provided by Mr. Steel in December of 2011. I believe that the work not yet completed, along with the 1.25 multiplier required by the City, brings the total bond requirements for River Lake Subdivision sidewalk to $2,737.75. To the best of my information and belief, the amount shown above is an appropriate amount for the sidewalk Bond and complies with the City’s Bond requirements. Should you have additional questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, JOEL E. WOOD & ASSOCIATES Christopher E. Wood, PE President
i
Proposal for an Impact Fee Study
Tega Cay, South Carolina
March 16, 2018
ii
Section 1: Cover Letter of Interest 1
Section 2: Qualifications and Experience 3
Section 3: Consultant Team Comparable Projects/References 8
Section 4: Project Team 12
Section 5: Project Approach and Suggested Scope of Work 18
Section 6: Schedule and Fees 25
Table of Contents
1
Section 1: Cover Letter of Interest
March 16, 2018
Mr. Charlie Funderburk, City Manager
City of Tega Cay
7725 Tega Cay Drive
Tega Cay, South Carolina 29708
RE: Proposal for an Impact Fee Study
Mr. Funderburk,
TischlerBise is pleased to submit our qualifications to prepare am Impact Fee Study for the City. We feel
that our Firm is ideally suited to undertake this project based on our extensive national and South
Carolina impact fee experience. There are several points we would like to note that make our
qualifications unique:
1. Depth of Experience. TischlerBise has been in business now for forty years. Our firm specializes
in fiscal/economic impact analysis, development fees and infrastructure financing strategies, and
market analysis. consulting firm. Our qualified team of six professionals bring an unparalleled
depth of experience to this assignment. We have prepared over 900 impact fee studies across
the country – more than any other firm. We are innovators in the field, pioneering approaches
for credits, impact fees by size of housing unit, and distance-related/tiered impact fees. More
importantly, a TischlerBise impact fee methodology has never been challenged in a court of law.
2. Technical Knowledge of Land Use Planning and Local Government Finance. The City
requires consulting expertise in the areas of infrastructure planning/finance, land use planning
and growth management in the State of South Carolina. Many communities overlook the fact
that impact fees are a land use regulation. The TischlerBise team will apply years of
development fee experience within the context of overall City financial needs, land use, and
economic development policies. This will lead to a work product that is both defensible and that
promotes equity.
3. National Thought Leaders. Both of the TischlerBise principals for this assignment are
considered national thought leaders on the subjects of impact fees, infrastructure financing
strategies, and fiscal/economic sustainability. Carson Bise, AICP, recently Chaired the American
Planning Association’s Paying for Growth Task Force and was recently named an Affiliate of the
National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education. Mr. Bise also serves on the Board of
Directors for the Growth and Infrastructure Consortium, where he is a frequent presenter at the
annual conference. Both Mr. Bise and Ms. Herlands are frequent speaker on impact fees and
infrastructure financing at the state and national level for the American Planning Association,
National Association of Homebuilders, Urban Land Institute, and the Government Finance
Officers Association.
2
4. South Carolina Experience. TischlerBise has considerable fiscal, economic and infrastructure
finance consulting experience in the State of South Carolina. This includes several impact fee
studies, infrastructure financing strategies for Abbeville County and Beaufort County, as well as
several fiscal/economic analyses for land use plans (e.g., Horry County) and annexation (e.g.,
Rock Hill).
5. Consensus Builders. Our seasoned Project Team has actively participated in legislative body
meetings and citizen committees to educate stakeholders regarding the technical process of
impact fee calculations as well as the pros and cons of impact fees,
As the President of TischlerBise, I have the authority to negotiate and contractually bind the firm. We look
forward to the possibility of working with Tega Cay and are committed to providing cost-effective, high-
quality support for this assignment.
Sincerely,
L. Carson Bise II, AICP, President
TischlerBise
4701 Sangamore Road S240
301.320.6900 x12
3
Section 2: Qualifications and Experience
TischlerBise, Inc., was founded in 1977 as Tischler, Montasser & Associates. The firm became Tischler &
Associates, Inc., in 1980 and TischlerBise, Inc., in 2005. The firm is a Subchapter (S) corporation, is
incorporated in Washington, D.C., and maintains offices in Bethesda, Maryland and Bradenton, Florida.
The firm’s legal address is:
Principal Office
L. Carson Bise, AICP, President
4701 Sangamore Rd, Suite 240
Bethesda, MD 20816
301.320.6900 x12 (w) | 301.320.4860 (f)
TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in fiscal/economic impact
analysis, impact fees, market feasibility, infrastructure financing studies, and related revenue strategies.
Our firm has been providing consulting services to public agencies for over thirty years. In this time, we
have prepared over 700 fiscal/economic impact evaluations and over 900 impact fee/infrastructure
financing studies – more than any other firm. Through our detailed approach, proven methodology, and
comprehensive product, we have established TischlerBise as the leading national expert on revenue
enhancement and cost of growth strategies.
TischlerBise consistently exceeds our client’s expectations, which is due in large part to the heavy
involvement of our highly skilled principal-level professionals. We are proud of the fact that most of
our clients retain TischlerBise for return engagements.
TischlerBise South Carolina Experience
In addition to our unsurpassed national experience, an important factor to consider related to this work
effort is our relevant experience working in the State of South Carolina, which makes us quite familiar with
the local government revenue structures as well as the planning issues facing South Carolina jurisdictions.
A summary of our South Carolina impact fee experience is shown below.
CLIENT
Feas
ibili
ty A
nal
ysis
Ro
ads/
Tran
spo
rtat
ion
Sew
er
Wat
er
Sto
rmw
ater
Law
En
forc
eme
nt
Fire
/EM
S
Par
ks a
nd
Re
crea
tio
n
Trai
ls/O
pe
n S
pac
e
Lib
rari
es
Ge
ne
ral G
ove
rnm
en
t
Sch
oo
ls
Aiken County
Anderson County
Georgetown County
Horry County
Summerville
4
TischlerBise National Experience
TischlerBise is the national leader in advancing the “state of the practice.” For example, TischlerBise
pioneered development fees by housing size and/or bedroom count, tiered transportation fee schedules,
techniques for mitigating high fees for nonresidential development, and integrating transportation impact
fees as part of an overall funding strategy. While every community is unique, this national experience
provides invaluable perspective for our clients. A summary of our national development fee
experience over the past five years is shown below.
ST
AT
E
CLIENT
Fe
asib
ilit
y A
na
lysis
Ro
ad
s/T
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
Sew
er
Wate
r
Sto
rmw
ate
r
La
w E
nfo
rcem
en
t
Fir
e/E
MS
Park
s a
nd
Recre
ati
on
Tra
ils/O
pen
Sp
ace
Lib
rari
es
Gen
era
l G
ov
ern
men
t
Sch
oo
ls
AZ Apache County
AZ Apache Junction
AZ Avondale
AZ Buckeye
AZ Casa Grande
AZ Cave Creek
AZ El Mirage
AZ Eloy
AZ Flagstaff
AZ Gilbert
AZ Glendale
AZ Goodyear
AZ Maricopa
AZ Navajo County
AZ Peoria
AZ Phoenix
AZ Pinal County
AZ Queen Creek
AZ Safford
AZ San Luis
AZ Sedona
AZ Show Low
AZ Sierra Vista
AZ Somerton
AZ Surprise
AZ Taylor
5
ST
AT
E
CLIENT
Fe
asib
ilit
y A
na
lysis
Ro
ad
s/T
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
Sew
er
Wate
r
Sto
rmw
ate
r
La
w E
nfo
rcem
en
t
Fir
e/E
MS
Park
s a
nd
Recre
ati
on
Tra
ils/O
pen
Sp
ace
Lib
rari
es
Gen
era
l G
ov
ern
men
t
Sch
oo
ls
AZ Wellton
AZ Yuma
CA El Centro
CA Imperial County
CA Mammoth Lakes
CA Suisun City
CA Temecula
CA Tulare
CA Visalia
CO Boulder
CO Castle Rock
CO Colorado Springs
CO Erie
CO Evans
CO Fort Collins
CO Greeley
CO Larimer County
CO Longmont
CO Louisville
CO Mead
CO Thornton
CO Vail
FL Islamorada
FL Manatee County
FL Manatee County Schools
FL Miami
FL North Miami
FL Parkland
FL Pasco Co. School Board
FL Port St. Lucie
FL Punta Gorda
FL South Miami
FL Stuart
GA Effingham County
GA Roswell
6
ST
AT
E
CLIENT
Fe
asib
ilit
y A
na
lysis
Ro
ad
s/T
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
Sew
er
Wate
r
Sto
rmw
ate
r
La
w E
nfo
rcem
en
t
Fir
e/E
MS
Park
s a
nd
Recre
ati
on
Tra
ils/O
pen
Sp
ace
Lib
rari
es
Gen
era
l G
ov
ern
men
t
Sch
oo
ls
ID Hailey
ID Hayden
ID Post Falls
ID Sandpoint
ID Shoshone Co. Fire Dept
ID Victor
LA Covington
MD Frederick
MD Frederick County
MD Hagerstown
MD Hampstead
MT Belgrade
MT Bozeman
MT Corvallis School District
MT Manhattan
MT Missoula
MT Missoula Co.
MT Polson
MT Ravalli County
NC Orange County
NM Las Cruces
NV North Las Vegas
NV Nye County
NV Washoe County
OH Delaware
OH Lebanon
RI Middletown
UT Mapleton
UT North Logan
UT Pleasant Grove
UT Sandy City
UT Spanish Fork
UT West Jordan
VA Stafford County
VA Suffolk
7
ST
AT
E
CLIENT
Fe
asib
ilit
y A
na
lysis
Ro
ad
s/T
ran
sp
ort
ati
on
Sew
er
Wate
r
Sto
rmw
ate
r
La
w E
nfo
rcem
en
t
Fir
e/E
MS
Park
s a
nd
Recre
ati
on
Tra
ils/O
pen
Sp
ace
Lib
rari
es
Gen
era
l G
ov
ern
men
t
Sch
oo
ls
WV Jefferson County
WY Casper
WY Cheyenne
8
Section 3: Consultant Team Comparable Projects/References
Below are summaries of previous projects that highlight our Team’s capacity and ability to complete the
City’s project. We have only listed projects with which our Project Team members were associated.
City of Longmont, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
Project Contact: Joni Marsh, Planning and Development Services Director
Address: 385 Kimbark Street, Longmont, CO 80501
Phone: (303) 774-4398
E-mail: [email protected]
Project Budget: $77,480
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Julie Herlands
TischlerBise was retained to review and update the City of Longmont’s impact fee program. Three fee
categories were included—Recreation, Public Buildings, and Transportation. This assignment included
updating capital improvement plans and calculating impact fees for each fee category. The Recreation
fee evaluated both a plan-based approach and consumption based approach in order to gauge the
magnitude of City General Fund exposure/commitment. The Transportation fee includes both capacity
and multimodal improvements. A unique aspect of the transportation impact fee was the two-tiered
structure to encourage redevelopment in the downtown core. Urban areas like downtown Longmont
have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce vehicle trips, such as higher internal
capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking, and superior transit service.
Pasco County School Board, Florida – Education Impact Fee Study
Project Contact: Ray Gadd, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services
Address: 7227 Land O’ Lakes Boulevard, Land O’ Lakes, FL 34638
Phone: (813) 794-2860
E-mail: [email protected]
Project Budget: $55,520
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise
TischlerBise has completed five assignments with the District School Board of Pasco County calculating
impact fees. In 2016/2017, TischlerBise revised the impact fee methodology to reflect more current pupil
generation rates by type of housing unit, updated construction and land costs, 2017 level-of-service
standards and current revenue projections. In addition, TischlerBise held several meetings with an
advisory group made up of County and School District representatives, citizen groups, and the
development community.
City of Boulder, Colorado – Multimodal Transportation Impact Fee Study
Project Contact: Chris Meschuk, Senior Planner
Address: 1739 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302
Phone: (303) 441-4293
E-mail: [email protected]
Project Budget: $153,320
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Julie Herlands, Dwayne Guthrie
9
TischlerBise recently prepared our third impact fee/excise tax assignment for the City of Boulder. This
update included updates for fire/rescue, parks, trails, police, general government and libraries. In addition,
TischlerBise completed a multimodal impact fee methodology. This update included preparation of
progressive housing multipliers (i.e. the fee increases with the size of the dwelling unit). An extensive
stakeholder outreach strategy was conducted throughout the process.
Orange County, FL—Law Enforcement Impact Fees (2012) Project Contact: Glen Finnell, Director of Research and Development
Address: 201 S. Rosalind Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801
Phone: (407)-254-7470
E-Mail: [email protected]
Project Budget: $34,500
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, AICP
TischlerBise completed an update to the County’s law enforcement impact fee methodology. The Orange
County Sheriff’s Office provides both countywide services as well as services directed only to residents of
the unincorporated County (e.g., patrol-related functions). As part of this study, TischlerBise compiled
demographic data for the County’s unincorporated area as well as Countywide. Consideration was also
given for the need to establish benefit areas relative to County Growth Centers and the County’s
Urban Services Area. In addition, TischlerBise prepared two versions of the impact fee. The first version
is consistent with the methodology utilized in the County’s current impact fee methodology. The second
version presents an alternative approach that we feel results in better proportionality for between
residential and nonresidential land uses.
City of Louisville, Colorado - Citywide Impact Fee Study (2016)
Project Contact: Heather Balser, Deputy City Manager
Address: 740 Main Street, Louisville, CO 80027
Phone: (303) 335-4530
E-mail: [email protected]
Project Budget: $48,630
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Ben Griffin
The City of Louisville recently retained TischlerBise for the fourth time to update impact fees for
parks and recreation, public buildings, library, roads, and police. As the City begins to approach
buildout, one issue is whether certain impact fees should remain in place, and/or should other financing
sources be pursued. In addition, there is less need for traditional transportation capacity projects, and an
increasing need for multimodal improvements. As a result, TischlerBise has prepared the transportation
fee using a “mobility fee” approach.
Pinal County, Arizona – Road Impact Fee Study (2015)
Project Contact: Kathleen Ball, Impact Fee Coordinator
Address: 31 North Pinal Street, Florence, AZ 85132
Phone: (520) 866-6321
E-mail: [email protected]
Project Budget: $172,710
10
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Ben Griffin
Pinal County is the fastest growing county in Arizona and one of the five fastest growing counties in the
country. The County initially hired TischlerBise in 2006 to calculate transportation development fees. The
County subsequently retained TischlerBise in 2008 and again in 2014 to update our original work.
Trip Generation Data and Analysis: The Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation
Manual, 8Th Edition, 2008 was the source of average weekday trip generation rates as well as
pass-by trip and diverted link percentages for commercial land uses. In addition, TischlerBise
developed unique pass-by and diverted trip link adjustments for medical-dental offices using the
questionnaire from Figure 5.17 of the Trip Generation Handbook, 2nd edition, an ITE
recommended practice, June 2004; Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Travel Demand Database Forecasting Modeling: TischlerBise created a traffic demand model
that was used to determine demand on the County’s network from new and existing development.
Using development projections and projected lane miles needs for each impact fee area (IFA),
average trip lengths were then calculated for each area.
Data Collection and Analysis for Transportation Infrastructure: The County’s adopted
Regionally Significant Routes for Mobility and Safety served as the basis for determining the
capital improvements to be included in the impact fees. In collaboration with County staff,
TischlerBise allocated planned projects to each of the County’s seven IFA’s. When considering
projects for inclusion in the transportation CIP for each IFA, TischlerBise used two
methodologies: the marginal cost approach was used for projects which were the result of new
development only, while the average cost approach was used for planned capacity improvements
that resulted from both existing and future development.
Roadway Level-of-Service Analysis: The impact fee calculations utilized the County’s planned
LOS. TischlerBise also evaluated the existing LOS to ensure that new development was not
being assessed a higher LOS than what was currently being provided to existing development.
Impact Fee Credit Allocation/Analysis: The County’s primary sources of funding for
transportation included gas tax revenues from the state (Highway Users Revenue Funds or
HURF) and a dedicated half-cent sales tax. A credit was not considered as these revenues are
used for maintenance needs.
Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance Reviews: TischlerBise provided assistance and
feedback to the County’s attorneys during their preparation of the County’s impact fee ordinance.
Conduct Public Meetings/Workshops: Each engagement with the County has included an
extensive outreach component involving several public meetings in different areas of the County
with the development community.
11
Town of Erie, Colorado - Townwide Impact Fee Study (2016)
Project Contact: Steve Felten, Finance Director
Address: 645 Holbrook Street, Erie, CO 80516
Phone: (303) 926-2751
E-mail: [email protected]
Project Budget: $59,440
TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Julie Herlands
The Town of Erie retained TischlerBise to update impact fees for parks and recreation, public buildings,
stormwater, roads, and law enforcement. The Town’s current impact fees were 20 years old and not in
compliance with the State enabling statutes, nor do they reflect current state of practice. TischlerBise
prepared a comprehensive update of the fees, which included multiple worksessions with the Board of
Trustees and development community. The fees passed unanimously.
12
Section 4: Project Team
To successfully navigate through the City’s impact fee study, the successful consultant must possess
specific, detailed, and customized knowledge, not only of the technical analysis, but also of the context of
the impact fee structure in achieving the City’s land use, transportation, and economic development policy
goals. Our Project Team for this assignment includes our most senior and experienced impact fee
professionals. We have unsurpassed experience performing projects requiring the same expertise as
that needed to serve the City. The role of each team member and their qualifications are briefly discussed
in this section, and the organizational chart shows our project team for this assignment.
Carson Bise, AICP, President of TischlerBise, will serve as Principal-In-Charge and coordinate our
Project Team’s interaction with Tega Cay to ensure that all work is completed properly, on time, and
within budget. He will work closely with Julie Herlands and Ben Griffin, developing and reviewing all
aspects of the project and providing overall quality assurance for the project.
Julie Herlands, AICP, is Vice President of TischlerBise, and has been selected as Project Manager for
this project because of her substantial experience preparing impact fees and financing strategies, as well
as her strong project management skills. Ms. Herlands will be responsible for controlling the work in
progress, providing feedback to project team members and staff, and will be responsible for the technical
requirements of the project. Most importantly, Ms. Herlands, in conjunction with Mr. Bise, will ensure
constant collaboration and communication between City staff and our team through frequent progress
memorandums, conference calls, and in-person meetings.
Complete staff resumes are provided below.
Tega Cay
Carson Bise, AICP
Principal-In-Charge
(Bethesda, MD)
Julie Herlands, AICP
Project Manager
(Bethesda, MD)
13
L. Carson Bise, II, AICP, President
Carson Bise has twenty-four years of fiscal, economic, and planning experience and has conducted fiscal
and infrastructure finance evaluations in thirty-six states. Mr. Bise is a leading national figure in the
calculation of impact fees, having completed over 250 impact fees for the following categories: parks
and recreation, open space, police, fire, schools, water, sewer, roads, municipal power, and general
government facilities. In his seven years as a planner at the local government level, he coordinated
Capital Improvement Plans, conducted market analyses and business development strategies, and
developed comprehensive plans. Mr. Bise has also written and lectured extensively on fiscal impact
analysis and infrastructure financing. His most recent publications are Next Generation
Transportation Impact Fees and Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners, both
published by the American Planning Association, a chapter on fiscal impact analysis in the book Planning
and Urban Design Standards, also published by the American Planning Association, and the ICMA IQ
Report, Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today’s Decisions Affect Tomorrow’s Budgets. Mr. Bise is currently
on the Board of Directors of the Growth and Infrastructure Finance Consortium and recently
Chaired the APA’s Paying for Growth Task Force. He was also recently named an Affiliate of the
National Center for Smart Growth Research & Education.
EDUCATION
M.B.A., Economics, Shenandoah University
Bachelor of Science, Geography/Urban Planning, East Tennessee State University
Bachelor of Science, Political Science/Urban Studies, East Tennessee State University
SELECTED IMPACT FEE AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STRATEGY EXPERIENCE
▪ City of Apache Junction, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Avondale, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Buckeye, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ Town of Camp Verde, Arizona – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Coolidge, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Glendale, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Eloy, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Flagstaff, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ Town of Payson, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ Town of Pinetop-Lakeside, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Safford, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of San Luis, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Sedona, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Sierra Vista, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Somerton, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ Town of Wellton, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Yuma, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Avenal, California – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of National City, California – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Temecula, California – Impact Fee Study
14
▪ City of Tulare, California – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Boulder, Colorado – Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study
▪ City of Evans, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Greeley, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Longmont, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Louisville, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Steamboat Springs, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Thornton, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
▪ Town of Vail, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
▪ DeSoto County, Florida – Impact Fee Study
▪ Manatee County, Florida – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of North Miami, Florida – Impact Fee Study
▪ Pasco County, Florida – School Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Hagerstown, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Town of Hampstead, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Salisbury, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Talbot County, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Washington County, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Wicomico County, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Worcester County, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Broadwater County, Montana – Impact Fee Feasibility Study
▪ City of Bozeman, Montana – Impact Fee Study
▪ Gallatin Canyon/Big Sky, Montana – Capital Improvement and Funding Plan
▪ City of Great Falls, Montana – Impact Fee Feasibility Study
▪ City of Las Cruces, New Mexico – Water and Sewer Impact Fee Study
▪ Aiken County, South Carolina – Impact Fee Study
▪ Georgetown County, South Carolina – Impact Fee Study
▪ Horry County, South Carolina – Impact Fee Study
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
▪ Fiscal Impact Assessment, AICP Training Workshop, APA National Planning Conference
▪ Dealing with the Cost of Growth: From Soup to Nuts, ICMA National Conference
▪ Demand Numbers for Impact Analysis, National Impact Fee Roundtable
▪ Calculating Infrastructure Needs with Fiscal Impact Models, Florida Chapter of the APA Conference
▪ Economic Impact of Home Building, National Impact Fee Roundtable
▪ Annexation and Economic Development, APA National Conference
▪ Economics of Density, APA National Conference
▪ The Cost/Benefit of Compact Development Patterns, APA National Conference
▪ From Soup to Nuts: Paying for Growth, APA National Conference
▪ Growing Pains, ICMA National Conference
▪ Mitigating the Impacts of Development in Urban Areas, Florida Chapter of the APA
▪ Impact Fee Basics, South Carolina Chapter of the APA
15
▪ Impact Fee Basics, National Impact Fee Roundtable
▪ Fiscal Impact Analysis and Impact Fees, National Impact Fee Roundtable
▪ Are Subsidies Worth It?, APA National Conference
PUBLICATIONS
▪ “Next Generation Transportation Impact Fees,” APA, Planners Advisory Service
▪ “Fiscal Impact Analysis: Methodologies for Planners”, APA
▪ “Planning and Urban Design Standards”, APA, Contributing Author on Fiscal Impact Analysis
▪ “Fiscal Impact Analysis: How Today’s Decisions Affect Tomorrow’s Budgets”, ICMA Press
▪ “The Cost/Contribution of Residential Development”, Mid-Atlantic Builder
▪ “Smart Growth and Fiscal Realities”, ICMA Getting Smart! Newsletter
▪ “The Economics of Density”, AICP Training Series, 2005, Training CD-ROM (APA)
Julie Herlands, AICP, Principal
Julie Herlands is a Principal with TischlerBise and has 15 years of planning, fiscal, and economic
development experience. Prior to joining TischlerBise, Ms. Herlands worked in the public sector in Fairfax
County, Virginia for the Office of Community Revitalization and for the private sector for the International
Economic Development Council (IEDC) in their Advisory Services and Research Department. For IEDC,
she conducted a number of consulting projects including economic and market feasibility analyses and
economic development assessments and plans. Her economic, fiscal impact, and impact
fee/infrastructure finance experience includes a wide-range of assignments in over 15 states. She is a
frequent presenter at national and regional conferences including serving as co-organizer and co-
presenter at a half-day AICP Training Workshop entitled Fiscal Impact Assessment at the American
Planning Association National Planning Conference. A session on impact fees and cash proffers
presented at the APA National Conference is available through the APA training series, Best of
Contemporary Community Planning. She is currently the Immediate Past Chair of the Economic
Development Division of the APA and recently chaired the APA Task Force on Planning and
Economic Development.
EDUCATION
Masters of Community Planning, University of Maryland
Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, University of Buffalo
SELECTED IMPACT FEE AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING STRATEGY EXPERIENCE
▪ Apache Junction Water Company, Arizona – Water System Connection Fees
▪ City of Apache Junction, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Avondale, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ Town of Cave Creek, Arizona Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Glendale, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Peoria, Arizona – Development Impact Fees
▪ City of Prescott, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ Town of Queen Creek, Arizona – Development Impact Fees
▪ City of Show Low, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
▪ City of Sedona, Arizona – Land Use Assumptions, IIP and Development Fee Study
16
▪ City of Tolleson, Arizona – Development Impact Fees
▪ City of Bentonville, Arkansas – Development Impact Fees
▪ City of Chino Hills, California – Development Impact Fees
▪ City of Clovis, California – Sewer Impact Fee
▪ City of Temecula, California – Development Impact Fee
▪ Arapahoe County, Colorado – Rural Road Funding Strategy
▪ City of Boulder, Colorado – Development Excise Taxes
▪ Town of Castle Rock, Colorado – Impact Fee Study
▪ Plant City, Florida – Impact Fee Study
▪ Port St. Lucie, Florida – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Stuart, Florida – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Kellogg, Idaho – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Post Falls, Idaho – Impact Fee Study
▪ Shoshone Fire District, Idaho – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Evanston, Illinois – Impact Fee/Excise Tax Study
▪ Anne Arundel County, Maryland – Revenue Strategies
▪ Caroline County, Maryland – Schools Excise Tax Study
▪ Dorchester County, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of Salisbury, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Town of Easton, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Talbot County, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Wicomico County, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ Worcester County, Maryland – Impact Fee Study
▪ City of North Las Vegas – Impact Fee Study
▪ Nye County/Town of Pahrump, Nevada – Impact Fee Study
▪ Cabarrus County, North Carolina – Voluntary Mitigation Payment Studies (Two School Districts)
▪ Catawba County, North Carolina – School Impact Fee Studies (Three School Districts)
▪ Chatham County, North Carolina – School Impact Fee Study (One School District)
▪ Orange County, North Carolina – School Impact Fee Study (Two School Districts)
▪ Abbeville County, South Carolina – Infrastructure Financing Study
▪ Beaufort County, South Carolina – Infrastructure Financing Study
▪ Henrico County, Virginia – Impact Fee Study; Cash Proffer Study
▪ Prince George County, Virginia – Cash Proffer Study
▪ Prince William County, Virginia – Impact Fee Study
▪ Spotsylvania County, Virginia – Impact Fee Study
▪ Stafford County, Virginia – Impact Fee Study
SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS
▪ What Are the Costs to Serve Development?, APA National Planning Conference
▪ Local Fiscal Challenges and Planning Solutions, APA National Planning Conference
▪ Cash Proffers and Impact Fees, APA Virginia Chapter Annual Conference
▪ Fiscal Sustainability, APA Webcast
▪ Infrastructure Financing: Funding the Gap, APA National Planning Conference
17
▪ Economic Development for Planning Practitioners, Training Workshop, APA National Planning
Conference
▪ Voluntary Mitigation Payments: An Alternative to Impact Fees, APA National Planning Conference
▪ Proffers vs. Impact Fees: The Virginia Experience, National Impact Fee Roundtable
▪ Impact Fee—Or Is It?, APA National Planning Conference
▪ Integrating Planning with School Demands, APA National Planning Conference
▪ Planning and Fiscal Reality, APA National Planning Conference
PUBLICATIONS
▪ “Should Impact Fees Be Reduced in a Recession?”, Economic Development Now, August 10, 2009
(International Economic Development Council)
▪ “Agreements, Fees, and CIP”, The Best of Contemporary Community Planning, 2005, Training CD-
ROM (APA and Lincoln Institute of Land Policy)
18
Section 5: Project Approach and Suggested Scope of Work
Project Approach
Impact fees are fairly simple in concept, but complex in delivery. Generally, the jurisdiction imposing the
fee must: (1) identify the purpose of the fee, (2) identify the use to which the fee is to be put, (3) show a
reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project, (4) show a
reasonable relationship between the facility to be constructed and the type of development, and (5)
account for and spend the fees collected only for the purpose(s) used in calculating the fee.
Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating impact fees involves the following two steps:
1. Determine the cost of development-related improvements, and
2. Allocate those costs equitably to various types of development.
There is, however, a fair degree of latitude granted in constructing the actual fees, as long as the
outcome is “proportionate and equitable.” Fee construction is both an art and a science, and it is in this
convergence that TischlerBise excels in delivering products to clients.
Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees for the City. Each method
has advantages and disadvantages given a particular situation, and to some extent they are
interchangeable because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development.
In practice, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many variables
involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for capital facilities. The following
paragraphs discuss the three basic methods for calculating impact fees and how those methods can be
applied.
Plan-Based Fee Calculation - The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of future
improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a CIP. In
this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost per unit
of demand. The plan-based method is often the most advantageous approach for facilities that
require engineering studies, such as roads and utilities.
Cost Recovery Fee Calculation - The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new
development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities from which
new growth will benefit. To calculate an impact fee using the cost recovery approach, facility cost is
divided by the ultimate number of demand units the facility will serve. An oversized wastewater
treatment plant is an example.
Incremental Fee Calculation - The incremental expansion method documents the current level-of-
service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on
an existing service standard such as square feet per capita or park acres per capita. The LOS
standards are determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by
property insurance companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, clients do not use the
funds for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, the jurisdiction uses the impact fee
revenue to expand or provide additional facilities as needed to accommodate new development. An
19
incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular
increments with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community.
Evaluating Alternatives. Designing the optimum impact fee approach and methodology is what sets
TischlerBise apart from our competitors. Unlike most consultants, we routinely consider each of the three
methodologies—cost recovery, incremental expansion, and the planned approach—for each component
within a fee category. The selection of a particular methodology for each component of the impact fee
category will be dependent on which is most beneficial for the City. In a number of cases, we will prepare
the impact fee using several methodologies and will discuss the various trade-offs with the City. There are
likely to be policy and revenue tradeoffs. We recognize that “one size does not fit all” and create the
optimum format that best achieves our clients’ goals.
Lending a Sense of Market Reality to the Development Projections. Projecting future residential and
nonresidential development is more difficult now than in the past due to the recent economic downturn.
This is compounded by shifting trends in the housing market as a result of changing demographics and
lifestyle choices. Changes in the retail sector combined with existing surpluses of retail space in many
communities are also a concern. TischlerBise’s extensive national experience conducting market
analysis and real estate feasibility studies is invaluable in determining the appropriate
development projections used in the impact fee calculations. These projections include both the
amount of development and the geographic location. Depending on the methodology employed, overly
optimistic development projections can increase the City’s financial exposure if impact fee revenue is less
than expected.
GIS Technology. TischlerBise routinely utilizes GIS technology to add value to the evaluation of
infrastructure needs and to assess financing alternatives. This includes assessing existing land use and
performing GIS-based land suitability analyses that can be used to define service areas, project demands
for facilities, and coordinate CIP investment for the City. TischlerBise used GIS in our engagement
with Missoula/Missoula County, Montana, to establish a nexus for fire/EMS impact fees that
increased with distance from the County center based on the ratio of capital cost to development units
in three service areas (urban, suburban, and rural). Similar GIS evaluations were used in Glendale, AZ;
Manatee County, FL; Greeley, CO; Pitkin County, CO; Vail, CO; and Sandpoint, ID.
Public Outreach. TischlerBise believes that open communication and meaningful public involvement are
the cornerstones of any process involving impact fees and/or infrastructure funding options. Based upon
our experience with impact fees and infrastructure funding efforts across the country, we anticipate that
this study may attract controversy. Therefore, it is important to build a coalition of support early in the
process to educate and inform the public and other key stakeholders about the purpose of the study, and
to explain how it will benefit both key constituents (developers) and the general public. It is critical to
develop a communications strategy that will offset and correct any misinformation that might proliferate
and to provide clear and compelling logic for public adoption of an updated impact fee program. Every
community is different, and public engagement should be tailored to the specific needs and desired
outcomes of the client.
20
Work Scope
The following is our suggested scope of work for this assignment.
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION / DATA ACQUISITION
During this task, we will meet with City staff to establish lines of communication, review and discuss
project goals and expectations related to the project, review (and revise if necessary) the project
schedule, request data and documentation related to new proposed development, and discuss City staff’s
role in the project. The objectives of this initial discussion are outlined below:
▪ Obtain and review current demographics and other land use information for the City.
▪ Review and refine work plan and schedule.
▪ Discuss current and previous work efforts related to this topic.
▪ Assess additional information needs and required staff support.
▪ Identify and collect data and documents relevant to the analysis.
▪ Identify any major relevant policy issues.
Meetings:
One (1) on-site visit to meet with City project management team/City staff as appropriate.
Deliverables:
1) Revisions to project schedule, if necessary. 2) Data request memorandum.
TASK 2: PREPARE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
The purpose of this task is to review and understand the current demographics of the City as they relate
to growth and development and determine the likely development future for the City in terms on new
population, housing units, employment, and nonresidential building area over the next 10-20 years.
Information from the City, as well as TischlerBise’s experience preparing market analyses throughout the
country will serve as the basis for preparing projections of residential and nonresidential development for
consideration by staff. TischlerBise will prepare a plan that includes projections of changes in land uses,
densities, intensities, and population for specific service areas. A map of the area(s) to which the land use
assumptions apply will also be included in this task.
Meetings:
Discussions with the City Planning Department will be held as part of Task 1, as well as conference calls
as needed. This trip can also be timed to include a meeting with City Council to discuss the fee update
process.
Deliverables:
TischlerBise will prepare a draft technical memorandum discussing the recommended land use factors
and projections. After review and sign-off by the City, a final memorandum will be issued, which will
become part of the final Impact Fee Report.
21
TASK 3: DETERMINE CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS AND SERVICE LEVELS
This Task as well as Tasks 4-6 may vary somewhat depending on the methodology applied to a particular
impact fee category. The impact fee study for each facility type would be presented in separate chapters
in the impact fee report.
Identify Facilities/Costs Eligible for Impact Fee Funding. As an essential part of the nexus analysis,
TischlerBise will evaluate the impact of development on the need for additional facilities, by type, and
identify costs eligible for impact fee funding. Elements of the analysis include:
▪ Review facility plans, fixed asset inventories, and other documents establishing the relationship
between development and facility needs by type.
▪ Identify planned facilities, vehicles, equipment, and other capital components eligible for impact
fee funding.
▪ Prepare forecast of relevant capital facility needs.
▪ Adjust costs as needed to reflect other funding sources.
As part of calculating the fee, the City may include the construction contract price; the cost of acquiring
land, improvements, materials, and fixtures; the cost for planning, surveying, and engineering fees for
services provided for and directly related to the construction system improvement; and debt service
charges, if the City might use impact fees as a revenue stream to pay the principal and interest on bonds,
notes or other obligations issued to finance the cost of system improvements. All of these components
will be considered in developing an equitable allocation of costs.
Identify Appropriate Level of Service (LOS) Standards. We will review needs analyses and LOS for
each facility type. Activities related to this Task include:
▪ Apply defined service standards to data on future development to identify the impacts of
development on facility and other capital needs. This will include discussions with staff of the
existing versus adopted LOS, as appropriate.
▪ Ascertain and evaluate the actual demand factors (measures of impact) that generate the need
for each type of facility to be addressed in the study.
▪ Identify actual existing service levels for each facility type. This is typically expressed in the
number of demand units served.
▪ Define service standards to be used in the impact fee analysis.
▪ Determine appropriate geographic service areas for each fee category.
Meetings:
One (1) to two (2) meetings with City staff to discuss capital facility needs and levels-of-service.
Deliverables:
Memoranda as appropriate. Results integrated into Draft/Final Impact Fee Reports.
TASK 4: EVALUATE DIFFERENT ALLOCATION METHODOLOGIES
The purpose of this Task is to determine the methodology most appropriate for each impact fee category.
Selection of the particular methodology for each component of the impact fee category will depend on
22
which is most beneficial for the City. In a number of cases, we will prepare the impact fees for a particular
infrastructure category using several methodologies and will discuss the trade-offs with the City. This
allows the utilization of a combination of methodologies within one fee category. For instance, a plan-
based approach may be appropriate for a new building while an incremental approach may be
appropriate for support vehicles and equipment. By testing all possible methodologies, the City is assured
that the maximum supportable impact fee will be developed. Policy discussions will then be held at the
staff and City Council level regarding the trade-offs associated with each allocation method prior to
proceeding to the next task.
Meetings:
One (1) meeting with City staff and City Council to discuss issues related to allocation methodologies
Deliverables:
“Storyboard” presentation on fee categories. See Task 7.
TASK 5: DETERMINE NEED FOR “CREDITS” TO BE APPLIED AGAINST CAPITAL COSTS
A consideration of “credits” is integral to the development of a legally valid impact fee methodology. There
is considerable confusion among those who are not immersed in impact fee law about the definition of a
credit and why it may be required.
There are two types of “credits” that are included in the calculation of impact fees, each with specific,
distinct characteristics. The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations. This could occur
when a property owner will make future contributions toward the capital costs of a public facility covered
by an impact fee. The second is a credit toward the payment of an impact fee for the required dedication
of public sites and improvements provided by the developer and for which the impact fee is imposed.
Both types of credits will be considered and addressed in the impact fee study.
Deliverables:
Memoranda as appropriate. See Task 7.
TASK 6: CONDUCT FUNDING AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
In order to prepare a meaningful capital funding strategy, it is important to not only understand the gross
revenues, but also the capital facility costs and any deficits. In this case, some consideration should be
given to anticipated funding sources. This calculation will allow the City to better understand the various
revenue sources possible and the amount that would be needed if the impact fees were discounted. The
initial cash flow analysis will indicate whether additional funds might be needed or if the funding strategy
might need to be changed to have new growth pay its fair share of new capital facilities. This could also
affect the total credits calculated in the previous task. Therefore, it is likely that a number of iterations will
be conducted in order to refine the cash flow analysis reflecting the capital improvement needs.
Deliverables:
See Task 7.
23
TASK 7: PREPARE IMPACT FEE REPORTS, PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS
TischlerBise will prepare a draft report for the City’s review. The report will summarize the need for impact
fees (by category) in Tega Cay and the relevant methodologies employed in the calculations. It will also
document all assumptions and cost factors. The report will include at a minimum the following information:
▪ Executive summary.
▪ A detailed description of the methodologies used during the study.
▪ A detailed description of all LOS standards and cost factors used and accompanying rationale.
▪ A detailed schedule of all proposed fees listed by land use type and activity.
▪ Other information which adequately explains and justifies the resulting recommended fee
schedule
▪ Cash flow analysis.
▪ Implementation and administration procedures.
Following the City’s review of the draft report, we will make mutually agreed upon changes to the impact
fee report and issues a final version.
TischlerBise’s report(s) will have flow diagrams clearly indicating the methodology and approach, a series
of tables for each activity showing all of the data assumptions and figures, and a narrative explaining all of
the data assumptions, sources and the methodologies. The report will be a stand-alone document clearly
understood by all interested parties. Because of the firm’s extensive experience in calculating impact fees
and preparing such reports, we have developed a very succinct written product that leaves a well-
understood paper trail.
Meetings:
One (1) meeting/presentation to present the draft and final Impact Fee Study with the City Council.
Deliverables:
Draft and final reports and presentation materials for meetings.
TASK 8: PUBLIC OUTREACH
TischlerBise recommends the City establish an Advisory Committee to assist in the development and
review of land use assumptions, capital improvement plans, and impact fees. The purpose of this
committee is to allow interested parties designated by the City to understand assumptions and raise
questions about the technical demographic, cost, revenue, credit and other data and supporting
documentation that is being used in the calculation of impact fees. This will not be a forum to discuss the
political and/or philosophical use of fees. Rather it will be an opportunity for these interested parties to
understand the soundness and the reasonableness of the technical impact fee methodology.
Deliverable:
Draft and final reports and presentation materials for meetings.
Meetings:
Two (2) meetings with Impact Fee Advisory Committee.
24
Management/Communication Plan
TischlerBise is a small consulting firm and therefore has to actively and carefully monitor current and
projected workloads. The firm does not include personnel on a proposal unless said personnel can
devote the time and resources necessary to complete the assignment on time and within budget. We are
amenable to a penalty clause once a final work scope and contract have been agreed upon.
TischlerBise utilizes a project management process which ensures our projects are completed on time
and within budget, and, most importantly, they yield results that match our clients’ expectations. Our
project management plan employs the following principles for successful projects:
• First, we begin by defining the project to be completed. Based on discussions that occur as
part of our Project Initiation task, Carson Bise will identify the final project goals and objectives in
collaboration with City staff, list potential challenges to the process, and develop a plan to ensure
successful outcomes and effective communication.
• Second, we will plan the project schedule. As part of the Project Initiation task, Mr. Bise will
work with City staff to create an agreed-upon timetable to meet the project schedule. Prior to
beginning the project, Mr. Bise will assign roles that will ensure that the project schedule is met
on time and within budget.
• Third, we will actively manage the project process. Mr. Bise and Ms. Herlands have a long
history of strong project management skills that are supported by past project successes (we
encourage you to contact our references in this regard). Mr. Bise will manage the work in
progress, provide guidance and oversight to staff, and be accountable to the City for meeting the
schedule, budget, and technical requirements of the project.
• Finally, we will review all project deliverables and communication through a formal quality
assurance process that requires review at the peer level, project manager level, and executive
officer level. Prior to the delivery of work product to the City, deliverables will go through a
structured quality assurance process involving up to three levels of review and utilizing a formal
checklist tool. The first level involves a peer-to-peer review of work products and computer
models. Next, Mr. Bise will be responsible for a second set of reviews comparing the work
product to the completed quality checklist form.
25
Section 6: Schedule and Fees
Project Schedule
The following table provides our proposed schedule for completion of this assignment, assuming the
contract is approved and Notice to Proceed occurs by early April.
Project Fees
The following table presents our proposed project fee schedule for this assignment and encompasses the
tasks, our anticipated number of meetings, and anticipated deliverables. Please note that this is a fixed
fee, not-to-exceed, proposal and includes direct expenses related to the project. The hourly rates for our
Project Team are; Carson Bise $210 and Julie Herlands $190.
Tasks Anticipated Dates Meetings* Meetings/Deliverables
Task 1: Project Initiation/Data Acquisition April, 2018 1 Data Request Memorandum
Task 2: Prepare Land Use Assumptions and
Development ProjectionsApril, 2018 1
Technical Memorandum Outlining
Recommended Land Use Assumptions
Task 3: Determine Capital Facility Needs and
Service LevelsApril - June, 2018 2 Memoranda as Appropriate
Task 4: Evaluate Different Allocation
Methodologies June, 2018 1 "Storyboard" Presentation on Fee Options
Task 5: Determine Need for "Credits" to be Applied
Against Capital CostsMay, 2018 0 See Task 7
Task 6: Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis June, 2018 0 See Task 7
Task 7: Prepare Impact Report, Public Presentations June - July, 2018 1 Draft and Final Impact Fee Report
Task 8: Public Outreach April - June, 2018 2 Presentation Materials as Appropriate
*In some cases it is assumed meetings are held with multiple departments over one (1) trip. For example, Stakeholder Committee
meetings can be held on project visits.
IMPACT FEE PROJECT SCHEDULE FOR TEGA CAY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Project Team Member: Bise Herlands
Job Title:Project
Manager
Project
Analayst
Hourly Rate* $210 $190
Project Initiation / Data Acquisition 8 8 16 $3,200
Prepare Land Use Assumptions and Development Projections 4 20 24 $4,640
Water Impact Fee Calculation 8 24 32 $6,240
Parks Impact Fee Calculation 16 36 52 $10,200
Police Impact Fee Calculation 8 24 32 $6,240
Fire Impact Fee Calculation 12 32 44 $8,600
Pubic Outreach 16 2 18 $3,740
Subtotal: 72 146 218 $42,860
* Hourly rates are inclusive of all costs.
PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE FOR TEGA CAY, SOUTH CAROLINA
Total
Hours Cost
26
27
•
Principal Office
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240 |
Bethesda, MD 20816
301.320.6900 x12 (w) | 301.320.4860 (f) |