models - growth & infrastructure...
TRANSCRIPT
Models for Regional & Multi-Jurisdictional Transportation Impact Fees
Presented by:Don GanerJohn GhilarducciTodd Chase
Models• Intergovernmental Agreements Model▫ Clackamas County/City of Happy Valley, Oregon▫ Columbia County, Oregon▫ Clark County, Washington▫ Deschutes County, Oregon▫ Others
Klamath County, OregonLane County, Oregon
• Regional Guidelines Model▫ Oregon City/Metro, Oregon
• Voter-Approval Model▫ Washington County, Oregon
2
Key Issues Impacting Success• Technical
▫ Calculation methodology▫ Data availability
• Political▫ History▫ Trust/distrust▫ Turf
• Policy▫ Governance▫ Accounting▫ Prioritizing expenditures▫ Equity
3
Models for Regional & Multi-Jurisdictional Transportation Impact Fees
4
Distinguishing Feature
Level of Collaboration
• High – partnership among jurisdictions; project completed jointly
• Medium – lead agency invites collaboration; joint effort/agreement
• Low – single agency completes project
5
Clackamas County/Happy Valley
ClackamasCounty
HappyValley
6
Clackamas County/Happy Valley• An interlocal agreement between Clackamas County
and the City of Happy Valley governs a joint area transportation SDC
• The joint area includes the entire City of Happy Valley and unincorporated areas adjacent to the City
• A methodology based on a list of transportation projects needed for this area was developed
• The City and County each adopted the joint area transportation SDC methodology by ordinance
7
Roles & Responsibilities
Planning / SDC Calculation
Permitting / SDC Collection
Accounting / SDC Sharing
Construction / Service
Provision
Clackamas County [uninc.] [uninc.] [uninc.] [uninc.]
Happy Valley
8
9
Columbia County
St. Helens
Scappoose
Columbia County• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with participating
cities, defining responsibilities for:▫ Planning in urban growth area outside cities
boundaries (UGA) [Cities]▫ Service provision in UGA [Shared as Agreed]▫ Fee adoption and collection [County]
• County collects and banks cities’ (St. Helens, Scappoose) SDCs (impact fees) in urban growth areas
• SDC revenues available to service provider• “County” SDC applied in rural County only
10
Roles & Responsibilities
Planning / SDC Calculation
Permitting / SDC Collection
Accounting / SDC
Distribution
Construction / Service
Provision
Columbia County[rural]
[UGA]
[rural]
[UGA]
St. Helens
Scappoose
FCS GROUP
11
11
Clark County, Washington
12
Clark County, Washington• Clark County is one of the fastest growing
counties in the state and nation• Adequate public facilities must be provided
consistent with County Growth Management Plan
• TIF helps new development pay “fair share”• Last major update to County TIF was in the early
2000s (no longer deemed equitable)
13
Roles & Responsibilities
Planning / SDC Calculation
Permitting / SDC Collection
Accounting / SDC
Distribution
Construction / Service
Provision
Clark County[rural]
[UGA]
[rural]
[UGA]
[rural]
[UGA]
[rural]
[UGA]
Vancouver (including UGA)
14
Clark County TIF Program• $690 Million (2007 $) for TIF project list• TIF rate calculations use new method
▫ Regional projects allocated to entire county▫ Local projects allocated to local districts▫ 7 Urban TIF Districts (including Vancouver)▫ 2 New Rural TIF Districts
• TIF rates vary by District ▫ Vancouver rates & policies apply within UGA
• Exemptions and reductions can reduce or eliminate the calculated TIF rate
15
TIF Boundaries
16
Regional & Local Projects Map
(9 regional projects & 25 local projects)
17
TIF Calculation Examples
Regional Project TIF Calculation
18
Clark County TIF Rate Table
TIF Rates Per ADTTIF Rates by District (with Intersection Improvements)
Mt.
Vis
ta
Haze
l Del
l
Orc
hard
s-N
orth
Orc
hard
s-So
uth
Ever
gree
n*Ea
st C
ity*
Rura
l 1
Rura
l 2
Local Projects $228 $209 $257 $62 $239 $244 $172 $0
NE 99th Street $10 $40 $126 $83 $31 $16 $11 $3
NE 119th Street $29 $30 $116 $32 $13 $4 $16 $12
NE 179th Street $177 $41 $13 $43 $11 $8 $62 $1
NE 50th Avenue $92 $16 $18 $17 $1 $1 $9 $5
NE 72nd Avenue $36 $0 $32 $10 $4 $1 $13 $0
NE 137th / 142nd Avenue $4 $0 $23 $0 $12 $4 $16 $7
Salmon Creek Interchange $33 $23 $3 $0 $0 $0 $2 $13
Andresen/Padden Parkway $8 $51 $42 $113 $26 $10 $0 $0
Padden/SR-503 $1 $4 $10 $14 $9 $1 $2 $0
Intersection Improvements $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31
Total - Updated 9/18/07 $649 $445 $672 $404 $377 $321 $334 $72
Total - From Worksessions $642 $443 $674 $403 $377 $321 $335 $71
* Assumes county adopts City of Vancouver's calculated TIF rate for this district.
19
TIF Rates by District (with Intersection Improvements)
TIF Rates Per ADT
Mt.
Vis
ta
Haze
l Del
l
Orc
hard
s-N
orth
Orc
hard
s-So
uth
Ever
gree
n*
East
City
*
Rura
l 1
Rura
l 2
New Rates $649 $445 $672 404$ 377$ 321$ 334$ 72$
Current Rates 337$ 180$ 182$ 182$ 204$ 219$ 0 0
* Assumes county adopts City of Vancouver's calculated TIF rate for this district.
Clark County TIF Schedule
20
Deschutes County
21
Bend
Redmond
Deschutes County• Pre-existing interlocal agreements authorize
cities of Redmond and Bend to permit development in urban growth areas
• Cities calculate, set, and collect SDCs in UGAs• New “County” SDC applied in rural County only
22
Roles & Responsibilities
Planning / SDC Calculation
Permitting / SDC Collection
Accounting / SDC
Distribution
Construction / Service
Provision
Deschutes County[rural]
[UGA]
[rural]
[UGA]
[rural]
[UGA]
[rural]
[UGA]
Bend
Redmond
23
Other Models (in progress)
• Klamath County▫ Interlocal agreement
authorizes County to permit development in entire Klamath Falls UGB
▫ County and City of Klamath Falls collaborate to establish charge to apply in UGB
▫ Coordinating committee will prioritize spending
▫ No rural fee
• Lane County▫ Interlocal agreements
authorize cities of Eugene and Springfield to permit development in urban growth boundaries
▫ Cities calculate, set, and collect SDCs in UGBs
▫ “County” SDC needed for rural County and for County facilities in cities
24
Models for Regional & Multi-Jurisdictional Transportation Impact Fees
25
Oregon City
26
Oregon City• Metro publishes “Promoting Vibrant Communities with
System Development Charges”• Metro funds consideration of report recommendations
into Oregon City Transportation SDC Study• Oregon City integrates select recommendations into
SDC methodology:▫ Full cost recovery▫ Buy-in component
▫ Location-based differential▫ Green design
27
Roles & Responsibilities
Planning / SDC Calculation
Permitting / SDC Collection
Accounting / SDC Sharing
Construction / Service
Provision
Oregon City
Metro
28
Models for Regional & Multi-Jurisdictional Transportation Impact Fees
29
Washington CountyBanksNorth PlainsHillsboroForest GroveCorneliusBeavertonGastonTigardKing CityDurhamTualatinSherwoodWilsonville
30
Washington County• In 2008, voters approved an updated county-wide Transportation
Development Tax (TDT)• The TDT is collected by all cities and by the county in unincorporated areas• Projects on which TDTs can be used are included in an updateable County
transportation project list• Each project identifies the growth-required, TDT-eligible percentage of
costs• Cities bank TDTs collected within each city and can use them for any
project included in the list• TDT rates collect less than 28% of eligible costs• Cities can adopt supplemental transportation SDCs to collect all or a portion
of the 72% not included in the TDT
31
Roles & Responsibilities
Planning / TDT Calculation
Permitting / TDT Collection
Accounting / TDT Sharing
Construction / Service
Provision
Washington County
Cities
32
32
These models are all technically valid, but there are some advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered
33
Intergovernmental Agreements Model
Advantages DisadvantagesProvides mechanism for addressing unique needs in targeted urbanizing areas Promotes cost equity Fosters policy coordination Governance lead/support roles can be adjusted depending on unique political environment
Political support can change over time as elected officials changeAgreements can be rescinded Enforcement and accounting issues may arise Potential turf battles can arise
34
Regional Guidelines Model
Advantages DisadvantagesProvides regional perspective on growth management Intended to accomplish regional transportation & land use policies Offers guidance to smaller jurisdictions that may otherwise have limited perspective
Regional government may lack legal authority Regional policies may have limited technical basisRegional coordination may be perceived as another layer of government in the formulation of rates
35
Voter-Approval Model
Advantages DisadvantagesVoters approve and support Uniform rate; all jurisdictions collectDoes not require interlocal agreementsNo opting out or inCity flexibility on supplemental rates
Cities may collect more or less than they needDifficult to update; requires voter approval to change methodologyRisks and costs associated with voter approval
36