mobility plans and fees: of transportation...

Tindale-Oliver & Associates Growth and Infrastructure Consortium1

Mobility Plans and Fees:The Future of Transportation Funding

Growth & Infrastructure ConsortiumGrowth & Infrastructure Consortium


November 4, 2010November 4, 2010

Tampa, FloridaTampa, Florida

Bob Wallace, P.E., AICP Bob Wallace, P.E., AICP –– TindaleTindale‐‐Oliver & Oliver & AssociatesAssociates

d ld l d ld l l &l &Steve Tindale, P.E., AICP Steve Tindale, P.E., AICP –– TindaleTindale‐‐Oliver & AssociatesOliver & Associates

Tyson Smith, Esq., AICP Tyson Smith, Esq., AICP –– White & Smith, LLCWhite & Smith, LLC

Jonathan Jonathan Paul, AICP Paul, AICP –– Alachua Alachua CountyCounty

Jeffrey Hays Jeffrey Hays –– Alachua CountyAlachua County

David Goldstein, Esq. David Goldstein, Esq. –– Pasco CountyPasco County


• Trends in Transportation Financing

• Legal Framework

Presentation Overview

Legal Framework

• Implementing Smart Growth Concepts

• Case Study: Alachua County

• Case Study: Pasco County

• Concluding ThoughtsConcluding Thoughts

History of Transportation Funding Florida Perspective

• 1985: Transportation Concurrency is Born

I l t ti l d t• Implementation led to:– Developer Contributions

– Last‐one‐in‐the‐door Problems

– Government and Developer “work‐arounds”

• Series of Responsive Amendments:– Concurrency Exception Areas

– Proportionate Share

– Mobility Fees


Historical Funding Sources in FL

• Gas Tax

• Impact Fees

• Local Option Sales Tax

• Ad Valorem

601.20 601.20

Why We Have Funding Issues

Standard

10

20

30

40

50

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Average Travel Sp

eed

Average Saturation Level

10

20

30

40

50

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Average Travel Sp

eed

Average Saturation Level Standard

Congestion

Average Travel Speed00.00

A

Year

00.00

A

YearExample Community

Average Travel Speed


• Consuming Road Capacity Faster than Building


• Too Dependent on Roads for Mobility

• Lack of Dedicated Funding Source(s)

• Florida’s 20‐year Statewide Transportation Funding Shortfall = $62.5B*

*Source: Estimating a Statewide Funding Shortfall Using MPO Long Range Plans , CUTR (March 2010)


Digging out of a hole….

N d I t t G Wid i• Needs vs. Investment Gap Widening

• Federal Fuel Tax Not Enough

– No adjustment for inflation

C l i l f 33%

Source: Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance (2009)

– Cumulative loss of 33% since last increase (1993)

– Highway Trust Fund going broke


Why We Have Funding IssuesFlorida: Higher‐than‐Average Fuel Tax

How Does Europe Deal With These Issues?

• Higher Fuel Taxes

• Emphasis on Transit/Dedicated Lanes

• User‐Fees

– Congestion pricing, managed lanes, and tolls


Total Cost per Gallon of Gas (1996‐2009)

Total Cost per Gallon of Gas (Europe vs. U.S.)

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

$9.00

$10.00

per Gallon

Europe 2010 Avg. = $7.84

Gap= $5.07

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$ p

Belgium

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

UK

US1996‐2009

U.S.

2010 = $2.77

Gas Tax per Gallon (1996‐2009)

Fuel Tax per Gallon (Europe vs. U.S.)

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

$5.50

er Gallon

Europe 2010 Avg. = $4.33

Gap=

$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$ pe

Belgium

France

Germany

Italy

Netherlands

UK

US1996‐2009

U.S.

2010 = $0.47

$3.86


Issues to Overcome in Florida

• Inadequate Dedicated Funding

• Funding for Transit Operations

• Techniques to Incentivize Transit

• Congestion Pricing/Managed Lanes• Congestion Pricing/Managed Lanes

• Disincentives for Single Occupancy Vehicle use

No Easy Funding Solution

• No single funding solution

• Need a balanced revenue plan

• Funding burden shifted to local governments

Must balance “who pays”who pays in a fair and equitable manner



• Legal Framework


Legal Framework





Florida’s “Mobility Fee”

• 2009 “Community Renewal Act” (SB 360)R d C E d d i “DULA ”– Road Concurrency Ended in “DULAs”

– State directed to prepare Study on “mobility fees”

• Joint Report on the Mobility Fee– All new impacts should be mitigated

– Should not pay for backlogs

– Move away from concurrency

– At least countywide in scope

– Multi‐modal improvements/Mobility Plans


Florida’s “Mobility Fee,” cont’d

• Joint Report, cont’d

– Mobility Fee:

• Encourage infill, promote compact development

• Sensitive to vehicle‐ or person‐miles traveled

• Vary by location and development type

– Local flexibility retained, incl. impact fee as option

Current Case Law

• Compliance with Dual Rational Nexus Test

– Proof of Benefit and Need

– Person Miles of Travel

– Ties to Mobility Plan

• No Florida case law directly on point• No Florida case law directly on‐point


Variation by Geographic Area

• How to Create the Rural/Urban Differential?

Exemptions/Credits/“Buy Downs”– Exemptions/Credits/ Buy‐Downs

• Countywide

• Geographic sub‐area

• Most favored land uses (Traditional Neighborhood Development, Mixed Use, Transit Oriented Development)

• Lawful sources of buy‐down funds (special assessments, y ( p ,taxes)

– Level of Service Standard

– Demand, Cost and Credit


• Legal Framework


Legal Framework






Ingredients for a Successful Mobility Plan

• Community Buy‐In

• Infrastructure Needs

• Funding Sources

• Strategies/Policies

• Consider Land Use and Transportation

Mobility Plan

Mobility Plan: Guide to Strategic Vision

Mobility Fee Issues

Land Use Strategies

Funding the Mobility Plan

Implementation Plan

The Strategic Vision


• Right Development, Right Place, Right Time

Encouraging Smart Growth

• Pay and Go and Protected Areas

• Growth Rates and Impact Fee Credits

• Funding Infrastructure

• Buy Down of TIF and Mobility Fees

• Growth Strategy

• Investment and Concurrency

Right Development, Right Place, Right Time

• Investment and Concurrency

• Developer Fees


Exurb


Growth StrategyExurb

Suburb

Core

TOD Corridor


Investment Concurrency

No public investment

Strict Concurrency

Limited publicinvestment

Consider Prop Share

Pay-&-go

Major investment

Primarily pay-&-go


Higher fees- Rural areas


Developer Fees

- Low growth

Moderate fees- Suburban areas- Moderate growth

Lower feesLower fees- Urban areas- High growth

Reduced fees- TOD corridor








Pay and Go

Plan Implementation, Comp. Plan

Amendments, Code Changes and Fee

Ordinance

Flexibility

Pay and Go and Protected Areas

• Targeted Growth Districts

o Pay‐and‐Go

o Expedited Review Requirements

City of TampaStrategic Vision

Pay andGo

Pay and Go Flexibility



Ordinance


Pay-and-Go (or)R d d R i R i


• Major Transit Corridors

o Pay‐and‐Go

o Expedited Review Requirements

Reduced Review RequirementsBus Rapid Transit

Corridors

Streetcar Service Area

Transit Centers

Bus Transfer Centers


Protected Neighborhoods



Ordinance


• Protected Areas

o Stringent Review Requirements

o Must Meet Concurrency









Impact Fee = (Cost of New Growth) –

Growth Rates and Impact Fee/ Mobility Credits

(New Growth Revenue)

Impact Fee = (Demand in VMT x Unit Cost) – (Credit)

Credit = ((New Growth Revenue)

Impact Fee = (Cost of New Growth) –


(New Growth Revenue)

Impact Fee = (Demand in VMT x Unit Cost) – (Credit)

Credit = ((New Growth Revenue) + (Existing Development Revenue Credit X Policy Adjustment Factor))y j ))


Far NE HeightsI-25 Corridor

Geographical Policy Fee Reduction


NE Heights($0)

Far NE Heights($1,585)

Downtown($0)

NW Mesa($3,933) Near North Valley

($0)

I 25 Corridor($3,160)

West Mesa($4,372)

SW Mesa($4,046)

- 2003 Study, Updated 2004- Albuquerque, NM- Single Family Residential Fee Example








Revenue Source Capital Operating

Impact Fees X

Funding Infrastructure

Gas Tax X X

Sales Tax X X

Ad Valorem Tax/General Fund X X

Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) X X

Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) X X

Utility Fees X XAvailability toUtility Fees X X

Mitigation Assessment Fees X X

Transfer Fees X X

Tax Increment Financing X X

Public/Private Partnerships (Proportionate Share) X X

Transportation Backlog Authority X X

Availability to Fund Capital vs. Operating

Revenue Source Volatility Flexibility Area

Impact Fees Volatile Low Countywide


Gas Tax Consistent High Countywide

Sales Tax Consistent High Countywide

Ad Valorem Tax/General Fund Volatile High Countywide

Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) Volatile High Subarea

Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) Consistent Low Subarea

Volatility, Utility Fees Consistent Low Subarea

Mitigation Assessment Fees Consistent Low Subarea

Transfer Fees Volatile High Subarea

Tax Increment Financing Volatile High Subarea

Public/Private Partnerships (Proportionate Share) Volatile Low Subarea

Transportation Backlog Authority Volatile High Subarea

y,Flexibility, and

Geographic Application


Flexibility

Transitioning from Road to Mobility FeesMix of Capital Assets

(roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) and Differential Fees and Benefit Districts

• Combine each mode

– Roads

– Bicycle & Pedestrian

– Transit

Bicycle & Pedestrian

Transit

Transportation Assets Today

Roads

Flexibility

Mobility Fee ApproachMix of Capital Assets

(roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) and Differential Fees and Benefit Districts

• Combine modes

• Blend assets

• Person miles of travel

• Allocate revenues based on “Strategic Vision”

Bicycle & Pedestrian

Transit

Strategic VisionRoads

Future Transportation Investment


Balanced Program: All Revenue Sources

versus Capital Projects and Operating Costs

Orange CountyInnovation Way MMTD

20 Year Capital and


PropertyAssessment

1.25 mills (Special District)

Tax IncrementFinancing

(33% to MMTD)

Impact Fees &Credits (50%

Collected in MMTDSpent in MMTD)

20 Year Capital and Operating Funding Plan

Transit Operating20% From Farebox

Federal TransitCapital Subsidy 25%








Buy‐down Incentives:

Buy Down of Mobility Fees

• Helps Direct Development and Fund Plan

• “Right Place Right Time” Concept

• Buy‐down Must be Affordable

• Buy‐down Subsidized by Other Revenue Sources

100 Existing HomesG t $10 000 ($100/h )

Buy‐Down Example : 1% Growth

Generates $10,000 per year ($100/home)

= $10,000 Mobility Fee

1% Growth = 1 new homeCounty can buy down 100% of fee for the 1 new home



2% Growth = 2 new homesCounty can buy down 50% of fee for each new home


3% Growth = 3 new homesCounty can buy down 33% of fee for each new home



• Legal Framework


Legal Framework






• Legal Framework


Legal Framework






Pasco County Mobility Fees

• Multi‐Modal 2035 LRTP

• Market Areas

• Issues To Be Addressed

• Credit/Buy‐Down of Fees

Multi‐Modal 2035 LRTP


Original Market Areas/ Mobility Fee Zones

NorthEast

West Central

South

Revised Market Areas/ Mobility Fee Zones

• Consolidated Market Areas with i il h t i ti

North

similar characteristics

South/West

Central/East


Adopted Countywide Transportation Impact Fees

Single Family (2ksf) = $10,302 (per du)

Office (50ksf) = $4,778 (per ksf)Office (50ksf) $4,778 (per ksf)

Commercial (100ksf) = $8,877 (per ksf)

Adopted Countywide Transportation Impact Fees

South/West Area:

a Existing Urbanized Areaa. Existing Urbanized Area

b. Promote Redevelopment & Infill Development

c. Higher Density

d. Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development

South/West


Issues To Be Addressed

• Growth Assumptions

• Construction/Right of Way Costs

• Modes

– Roads/Transit/Bicycle & Pedestrian

• System Applicability• System Applicability

– i.e. Interstate/Expressway Travel

• Quality of Service/System Performance

– LOS by Market Area

Issues To Be Addressed

• Fee Differential by Market Area & Land Use

Type (structuring fee to “promote compact,

mixed use, and energy efficient

development”)

• Revenue Sharing & Coordination with FDOT, g ,

TBARTA and municipalities

• Alternative Revenue Sources (Credits and Buy‐

downs)


Buying‐Down Mobility Fees

Buy‐down Incentives:

• Helps Direct Development

• “Right Place Right Time” Concept

• Buy‐down Must be Affordable

B d S b idi d b O h R S• Buy‐down Subsidized by Other Revenue Sources


• Policy Decision

– Municipal Services Benefit Unit concept

– $50 annual assessment per home

• Average Annual Credit = $1.35/daily person miles of travel

• Present Value of Credit = $674/home• Present Value of Credit = $674/home



• Existing Creditable Revenue Sources ~ 23% credit

$0.317


• Existing Creditable Revenue Sources ~ 23% credit• MSBU adds 5% to Credit ~ 28% Growth CreditMSBU adds 5% to Credit 28% Growth Credit

$0.317



• Existing Creditable Revenue Sources ~ 23% credit• MSBU adds 5% to Credit ~ 28% Growth CreditMSBU adds 5% to Credit 28% Growth Credit• Buy down concept ‐‐ 50 % or more of fee

$0.317


Identification of Targeted Land Uses

• SB 360 promotes compact, mixed‐use, energy efficient development

• Elasticity of desired land uses vs. fees

• Urban Land Institute Report

• Adopted Strategic Plan

• Comprehensive Plan policy implementation

• Fiscal impact/benefit of targeted land uses



• Buy‐down Concepts by Market Area

Developer County

Residential 100% 100% 0%

Commercial 100% 100% 0%

Office 100% 100% 0%



Contribution

North

Central/East

Market

Area

Land

Use

Total

Fee

Office 100% 60% 40%



Office 100% 40% 60%

Mixed‐Use/TOD 100% 0% 100%

South/West

Example Buy‐Down Concept

Net Fee $9 200

Existing Creditable Sources, $2,600

Total Fee = $11,800

Existing Creditable Sources = $2,600

DRAFT

Net Fee, $9,200

Net Fee = $9,200

South/West Market Area – Mixed‐Use/TOD Land Use



Total Fee = $11,800

Net Fee $8 600

MSBU (new), $600

Existing Creditable

Sources, $2,600

ota ee $ ,800


MSBU (new) = $600DRAFT

Net Fee, $8,600

Net Fee = $8,600



Total Fee = $11 800

Existing Creditable

Sources, $2,600

MSBU (new), $600Buy‐Down,

$8,600

Total Fee = $11,800


MSBU (new) = $600

DRAFT

,

Buy Down (100%) = $8,600

Net Fee = $0



2035 LRTP Financing of Multi‐Modal Transportation System

Existing 2035 LRTP Financingg g

Capital Operating Total

State, Federal, SIS 19.4% 1.4% 20.8%

Local

Transportation Impact Fees 38.4% 0.0% 38.4%

Gas Tax 1.3% 2.5% 3.8%

PercentSource

Local Option Sales Tax 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

Transit Surtax 3.3% 7.6% 10.9%

Proportionate Share 8.0% 0.0% 8.0%

Developer Contributions 17.3% 0.0% 17.3%

Total (Local Revenues) 69.1% 10.1% 79.2%

Total (Local, State, Federal, SIS) 88.5% 11.5% 100.0%

2035 LRTP Financing of Multi‐Modal Transportation System

• Distribution of Funding Sources Will Change

Capital Operating Total

State, Federal, SIS 19.4% 1.4% 20.8%

Local

Transportation Impact Fees 38.4% 0.0% 38.4%

PercentSource

Mobility Fee

• Facilitates Buy‐Down Concept

Replacement Revenue Source:

– Mobility Fee

Potential New Revenue Sources:

2nd Local Option Gas Tax Gas Tax 1.3% 2.5% 3.8%

Local Option Sales Tax 0.8% 0.0% 0.8%

Transit Surtax 3.3% 7.6% 10.9%

Proportionate Share 8.0% 0.0% 8.0%

Developer Contributions 17.3% 0.0% 17.3%

Total (Local Revenues) 69.1% 10.1% 79.2%

Total (Local, State, Federal, SIS) 88.5% 11.5% 100.0%

– 2nd Local Option Gas Tax

– MSBU

Range of Pay‐and‐Go

– Varies by geographic area



• Legal Framework


Legal Framework





Transportation Funding Summary

• No single funding solution

• Need a balanced revenue plan

• Funding burden shifted to local governments

Must balance “who pays”who pays in a fair and equitable manner


Revenue Source Capital Operating

Impact Fees X


Gas Tax X X

Sales Tax X X

Ad Valorem Tax/General Fund X X

Municipal Services Taxing Unit (MSTU) X X

Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) X X

Utility Fees X XAvailability toUtility Fees X X

Mitigation Assessment Fees X X

Transfer Fees X X

Tax Increment Financing X X

Public/Private Partnerships (Proportionate Share) X X

Transportation Backlog Authority X X

Availability to Fund Capital vs. Operating

Variation by Geographic Area

How to Create the Rural/Urban Differential?

1. Exemptions/Credits/“Buy‐Downs”

• Countywide

• Geographic sub‐area

• Most favored land uses (Traditional NeighborhoodMost favored land uses (Traditional Neighborhood

Development, Mixed Use, Transit Oriented Development)

2. Different Level of Service Standards

3. Different Credits, Demand and Cost



• Buy‐down Concepts by Market Area

Developer County



Office 100% 100% 0%



Contribution

North

Central/East

Market

Area

Land

Use

Total

Fee

Office 100% 60% 40%



Office 100% 40% 60%

Mixed‐Use/TOD 100% 0% 100%

South/West


Total Fee = $11 800

Existing Creditable

Sources, $2,600

MSBU (new), $600Buy‐Down,

$8,600

Total Fee = $11,800


MSBU (new) = $600

DRAFT

,

Buy Down (100%) = $8,600

Net Fee = $0



How Do We Get There?

• Do it Like Europe?

• If Florida adopted an additional $1 of gas tax, it has the potential to generate ~ $10B per year for transportation*

$4.33$4.00

$5.00US (existing)

$0.48

$1.48

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$

Average Gas Tax

US (additional)

Europe

*Assumed annual revenue per penny generated is $1.6M

Questions or Comments?Questions or Comments?


Questions or Comments?Questions or Comments?

Bob Wallace: [email protected] Wallace: [email protected]

David David Goldstein: [email protected]: [email protected]

Jeffrey Hays: [email protected] Hays: [email protected]

Jonathan Jonathan Paul: [email protected]: [email protected]

Tyson Smith: Tyson Smith: [email protected]@planningandlaw.com

Steve Tindale: [email protected] Tindale: [email protected]

mobility plans and fees: of transportation...

Documents