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.

https://www.tegacaysc.org/e85ae955-bc09-43b1-884c-eeec3a063a1b

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


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.

_______________________________



City of


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.

_______________________________



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

___________________________________


[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

_____________________________


_____________________________

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

[email protected]

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)

[email protected]

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



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



TischlerBise Staff: Carson Bise, Julie Herlands, Dwayne Guthrie

mailto:[email protected]

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]


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



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



mailto:[email protected]

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



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

27

•

Principal Office

4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240 |

Bethesda, MD 20816

301.320.6900 x12 (w) | 301.320.4860 (f) |

[email protected]