Mobility Plans and Fees: The Future of Transportation Funding

Transcription

1 Mobility Plans and Fees: The Future of Transportation Funding Mobility Plans and Fees: The Future of Transportation Funding Growth & Infrastructure Consortium November 4, 2010 Tampa, Florida Bob Wallace, P.E., AICP Tindale Oliver & Associates Steve Tindale, dl P.E., AICP Tindale Oliver dl l & Associates Tyson Smith, Esq., AICP White & Smith, LLC Jonathan Paul, AICP Alachua County Jeffrey Hays Alachua County David Goldstein, Esq. Pasco County 1

2 Presentation Overview Trends in Transportation Financing Legal Framework Implementing Smart Growth Concepts Case Study: Alachua County Case Study: Pasco County Concluding Thoughts History of Transportation Funding Florida Perspective 1985: Transportation Concurrency is Born Implementation ti ldt 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 2

3 Historical Funding Sources in FL Gas Tax Impact Fees Local Option Sales Tax Ad Valorem Why We Have Funding Issues Average Saturation Level 1.20 Standard Congestion Average Travel Speed Average Travel Speed Example Community Year 3

4 Why We Have Funding Issues 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) Why We Have Funding Issues Digging out of a hole. Needs vs. Investment tgap Widening i Federal Fuel Tax Not Enough No adjustment for inflation Cumulative loss of 33% since last increase (1993) Highway Trust Fund going broke Source: Paying Our Way: A New Framework for Transportation Finance (2009) 4

5 Why We Have Funding Issues Florida: 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 5

6 Total Cost per Gallon of Gas (Europe vs. U.S.) Total Cost per Gallon of Gas ( ) $10.00 $9.00 $8.00 $7.00 Europe 2010 Avg. = $7.84 $ per Gallon $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 Gap= $5.07 Belgium France Germany $3.00 $ = $2.77 Italy Netherlands UK US $1.00 $ U.S. Fuel Tax per Gallon (Europe vs. U.S.) Gas Tax per Gallon ( ) $5.50 $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 Europe 2010 Avg. = $4.33 $3.50 er Gallon $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 Belgium $1.50 France Germany $1.00 Italy $0.50 Netherlands $ pe UK $0.00 US U.S. Gap= $ = $0.47 6

7 Issues to Overcome in Florida Inadequate Dedicated Funding Funding for Transit Operations Techniques to Incentivize Transit 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 in a fair and equitable manner 7

8 Presentation Overview Trends in Transportation Financing Legal Framework Implementing Smart Growth Concepts Case Study: Alachua County Case Study: Pasco County Concluding Thoughts Florida s Mobility Fee 2009 Community Renewal Act (SB 360) Road dconcurrency Ended di 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 8

9 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 9

10 Variation by Geographic Area How to Create the Rural/Urban Differential? Exemptions/Credits/ Buy 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 (p assessments, taxes) Level of Service Standard Demand, Cost and Credit Presentation Overview Trends in Transportation Financing Legal Framework Implementing Smart Growth Concepts Case Study: Alachua County Case Study: Pasco County Concluding Thoughts 10

11 Ingredients for a Successful Mobility Plan Community Buy In Infrastructure Needs Funding Sources Strategies/Policies Consider Land Use and Transportation Mobility Plan: Guide to Strategic Vision Mobility Plan Mobility Fee Issues Land Use Strategies The Strategic Vision Funding the Mobility Plan Implementation Plan 11

12 Encouraging Smart Growth Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Pay and Go and Protected Areas Growth Rates and Impact Fee Credits Funding Infrastructure Buy Down of TIF and Mobility Fees Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Growth Strategy Investment and Concurrency Developer Fees 12

13 Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Growth Strategy Exurb Suburb Core TOD Corridor Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Investment Concurrency No public investment Limited public investment Strict Concurrency Consider Prop Share Major investment Primarily pay-&-go Pay-&-go 13

14 Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Developer Fees Higher fees - Rural areas - Low growth Moderate fees - Suburban areas - Moderate growth Lower fees - Urban areas - High growth Reduced fees - TOD corridor Encouraging Smart Growth Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Pay and Go and Protected Areas Growth Rates and Impact Fee Credits Funding Infrastructure Buy Down of TIF and Mobility Fees 14

15 Pay and Go and Protected Areas Plan Implementation, Comp. Plan Amendments, Code Changes and Fee Ordinance Pay and Go City of Tampa Strategic Vision Flexibility Targeted Growth Districts o Pay and Go o Expedited Review Requirements Pay and Go Pay and Go and Protected Areas Plan Implementation, Comp. Plan Amendments, Code Changes and Fee Ordinance Pay and Go Flexibility City of Tampa Strategic Vision Major Transit Corridors o Pay and Go o Expedited Review Pay-and-Go (or) Requirements Reduced d Review Requirements Bus Rapid Transit Corridors Streetcar Service Area Transit Centers Bus Transfer Centers 15

16 Pay and Go and Protected Areas Plan Implementation, Comp. Plan Amendments, Code Changes and Fee Ordinance Protected Neighborhoods City of Tampa Strategic Vision Protected Areas o Stringent Review Requirements o Must Meet Concurrency Encouraging Smart Growth Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Pay and Go and Protected Areas Growth Rates and Impact Fee Credits Funding Infrastructure Buy Down of TIF and Mobility Fees 16

17 Growth Rates and Impact Fee/ Mobility Credits Impact Fee = (Cost of New Growth) (New Growth Revenue) Impact Fee = (Demand in VMT x Unit Cost) (Credit) Credit = ((New Growth Revenue) Growth Rates and Impact Fee/ Mobility Credits 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)) 17

18 Growth Rates and Impact Fee/ Mobility Credits Geographical Policy Fee Reduction I-25 Corridor ($3,160) NW Mesa ($3,933) Near North Valley ($0) West Mesa ($4,372) Downtown ($0) Far NE Heights ($1,585) NE Heights ($0) SW Mesa ($4,046) Study, Updated Albuquerque, NM - Single Family Residential Fee Example Encouraging Smart Growth Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Pay and Go and Protected Areas Growth Rates and Impact Fee Credits Funding Infrastructure Buy Down of TIF and Mobility Fees 18

19 Funding Infrastructure 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 Availability to X X Mitigation Assessment Fees Fund Capital vs. Operating X X Transfer Fees X X Tax Increment Financing X X Public/Private Partnerships (Proportionate Share) X X Transportation Backlog Authority X X Funding Infrastructure 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 Utility Fees Volatility, Flexibility, and Consistent Low Subarea Mitigation Assessment Fees Geographic Consistent Low Subarea Transfer Fees Application Volatile High Subarea Tax Increment Financing Volatile High Subarea Public/Private Partnerships (Proportionate Share) Volatile Low Subarea Transportation Backlog Authority Volatile High Subarea 19

20 Transitioning from Road to Mobility Fees Flexibility Transit Bicycle & Pedestrian Mix of Capital Assets (roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) and Differential Fees and Benefit Districts Combine each mode Roads Bicycle & Pedestrian Transit Roads Transportation Assets Today Mobility Fee Approach Flexibility Mix of Capital Assets (roadways, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit) and Differential Fees and Benefit Districts Transit Bicycle & Pedestrian Roads Combine modes Blend assets Person miles of travel Allocate revenues based on Strategic Vision Future Transportation Investment 20

21 Funding Infrastructure Balanced Program: All Revenue Sources versus Capital Projects and Operating Costs Property Assessment 1.25 mills (Special District) Tax Increment Financing (33% to MMTD) Orange County Innovation Way MMTD 20 Year Capital and Operating Funding Plan Impact Fees & Credits (50% Collected in MMTD Spent in MMTD) Transit Operating 20% From Farebox Federal Transit Capital Subsidy 25% Encouraging Smart Growth Right Development, Right Place, Right Time Pay and Go and Protected Areas Growth Rates and Impact Fee Credits Funding Infrastructure Buy Down of TIF and Mobility Fees 21

22 Buy Down of Mobility Fees Buy down Incentives: Helps Direct Development and Fund Plan Right Place Right Time Concept Buy down Must be Affordable Buy down Subsidized by Other Revenue Sources Buy Down Example : 1% Growth 100 Existing Homes Generates $10, per year ($100/home) 1% Growth = 1 new home County can buy down 100% of fee for the 1 new home = $10,000 Mobility Fee 22

23 Buy Down Example : 2% Growth 2% Growth = 2 new homes County can buy down 50% of fee for each new home Buy Down Example : 3% Growth 3% Growth = 3 new homes County can buy down 33% of fee for each new home 23

24 Presentation Overview Trends in Transportation Financing Legal Framework Implementing Smart Growth Concepts Case Study: Alachua County Case Study: Pasco County Concluding Thoughts Presentation Overview Trends in Transportation Financing Legal Framework Implementing Smart Growth Concepts Case Study: Alachua County Case Study: Pasco County Concluding Thoughts 24

25 Pasco County Mobility Fees Multi Modal 2035 LRTP Market Areas Issues To Be Addressed Credit/Buy Down of Fees Multi Modal 2035 LRTP 25

26 Original Market Areas/ Mobility Fee Zones West South North Central East Revised Market Areas/ Mobility Fee Zones Consolidated Market Areas with similar il characteristics ti North South/West Central/East 26

27 Adopted Countywide Transportation Impact Fees Single Family (2ksf) = $10,302 (per du) Office (50ksf) = $4,778 (per ksf) Commercial (100ksf) = $8,877 (per ksf) Adopted Countywide Transportation Impact Fees South/West Area: a. Existing Urbanized Area b. Promote Redevelopment & Infill Development c. Higher Density d. Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development South/West 27

28 Issues To Be Addressed Growth Assumptions Construction/Right of Way Costs Modes Roads/Transit/Bicycle & Pedestrian 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, TBARTA and municipalities Alternative Revenue Sources (Credits and Buydowns) 28

29 Buying Down Mobility Fees Buy down Incentives: Helps Direct Development Right Place Right Time Concept Buy down Must be Affordable Buy down Subsidized d by Other Oh Revenue Sources Buying Down Mobility Fees Policy Decision Municipal Services Benefit Unit concept $50 annual assessment per home Average Annual Credit = $1.35/daily person miles of travel PresentValue ofcredit = $674/home 29

30 Buying Down Mobility Fees Existing Creditable Revenue Sources ~ 23% credit $0.317 Buying Down Mobility Fees Existing Creditable Revenue Sources ~ 23% credit MSBU adds 5% to Credit ~ 28% Growth Credit $

31 Buying Down Mobility Fees Existing Creditable Revenue Sources ~ 23% credit MSBU adds 5% to Credit ~ 28% Growth Credit Buy down concept 50 % or more of fee $0.317 Buying Down Mobility Fees 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 31

32 Buying Down Mobility Fees Buy down Concepts by Market Area Market Area North Central/East South/West Land Use Total Fee Contribution Developer County Residential 100% 100% 0% Commercial 100% 100% 0% Office 100% 100% 0% Residential 100% 100% 0% Commercial 100% 80% 20% Office 100% 60% 40% Residential 100% 85% 15% Commercial 100% 70% 30% Office 100% 40% 60% Mixed Use/TOD 100% 0% 100% Example Buy Down Concept Total Fee = $11,800 Existing Creditable Sources, $2,600 Existing Creditable Sources = $2,600 Net Fee = $9,200 DRAFT Net Fee, $9,200 South/West Market Area Mixed Use/TOD Land Use 32

33 Example Buy Down Concept Total Fee = $11,800 Existing Creditable Sources = $2,600 MSBU (new) = $600 Existing Creditable Sources, $2,600 MSBU (new), $600 DRAFT Net Fee, $8,600 Net Fee = $8,600 South/West Market Area Mixed Use/TOD Land Use Example Buy Down Concept Total Fee = $11,800 Existing Creditable Sources = $2,600 MSBU (new) = $600 Buy Down (100%) = $8,600 DRAFT Buy Down, $8,600 Existing Creditable Sources, $2,600 MSBU (new), $600 Net Fee = $0 South/West Market Area Mixed Use/TOD Land Use 33

34 2035 LRTP Financing of Multi Modal Transportation System Existing 2035 LRTP Financing Source Percent 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% 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 Facilitates Buy Down Concept Replacement Revenue Source: Source Percent Capital Operating Total Mobility Fee State, Federal, SIS 19.4% 1.4% 20.8% Potential New Revenue Sources: Local 2 nd Local Option Gas Tax Mobility Transportation Fee Impact Fees 38.4% 0.0% 38.4% Gas Tax 1.3% 2.5% 3.8% MSBU Local Option Sales Tax 0.8% 0.0% 0.8% Range of Pay and Go Transit Surtax 3.3% 7.6% 10.9% Varies by geographic area 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% 34

35 Presentation Overview Trends in Transportation Financing Legal Framework Implementing Smart Growth Concepts Case Study: Alachua County Case Study: Pasco County Concluding Thoughts Transportation Funding Summary No single funding solution Need a balanced revenue plan Funding burden shifted to local governments Must balance who pays in a fair and equitable manner 35

36 Funding Infrastructure 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 Availability to X X Mitigation Assessment Fees Fund Capital vs. Operating X X Transfer Fees X X Tax Increment Financing X X Public/Private Partnerships (Proportionate Share) X X Transportation Backlog Authority X X 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 Neighborhood Development, Mixed Use, Transit Oriented Development) 2. Different Level of Service Standards 3. Different Credits, Demand and Cost 36

37 Buying Down Mobility Fees Buy down Concepts by Market Area Market Area North Central/East South/West Land Use Total Fee Contribution Developer County Residential 100% 100% 0% Commercial 100% 100% 0% Office 100% 100% 0% Residential 100% 100% 0% Commercial 100% 80% 20% Office 100% 60% 40% Residential 100% 85% 15% Commercial 100% 70% 30% Office 100% 40% 60% Mixed Use/TOD 100% 0% 100% Example Buy Down Concept Total Fee = $11,800 Existing Creditable Sources = $2,600 MSBU (new) = $600 Buy Down (100%) = $8,600 DRAFT Buy Down, $8,600 Existing Creditable Sources, $2,600 MSBU (new), $600 Net Fee = $0 South/West Market Area Mixed Use/TOD Land Use 37

38 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* *Assumed annual revenue per penny generated is $1.6M $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 $0.48 $1.48 $4.33 Average Gas Tax US (existing) US (additional) Europe Mobility Plans and Fees: The Future of Transportation Funding Questions or Comments? Bob Wallace: bwallace@tindaleoliver.com David Goldstein: dgoldstein@pascocountyfl.net Jeffrey Hays: Jhays@alachuacounty.us Jonathan Paul: JBPaul@alachuacounty.us Tyson Smith: tsmith@planningandlaw.com Steve Tindale: stindale@tindaleoliver.com 38