Mobility Fee Legislation

Transcription

1 Mobility Fee Legislation The Joint Report contains three recommended legislative options for mobility fees: 1. Require mobility fees statewide by a date certain 2. Require mobility fees in DULA counties and authorize mobility fees in all other counties 3. Authorize mobility fee pilot counties Based on recommendations from the ULI Report, the Board s Strategic Plan calls for the creation of an area-wide concurrency and mobility fee system in Pasco County by 2012 Creates a dilemma, because BOCC wants us to adopt a mobility fee by 2012, but we don t presently have any legislative authorization or legislative guidance to proceed. We are proceeding under the County s home rule powers We have requested that Pasco County be considered a pilot county for the mobility fee if the Legislature goes with the 3 rd legislative option. Pilot communities may be exempted from any conflicting future legislation relating to mobility fees, and may receive state funding and guidance Legislation in 2010 appears doubtful no bills filed Attempting to make Pasco mobility fee generally consistent with the Joint Report, and using consultants that helped create the Joint Report, in the hopes that the Legislature will ultimately sanction the results of this effort Other counties also proceeding forward, notwithstanding this risk 1

2 Joint Report contains the following guiding principle for mobility fees: Fairness and Funding: A mobility fee alone cannot address all of Florida s transportation needs. The approach should ensure all new development provides mitigation for its impacts on the transportation system. Development should not be required to pay for transportation backlogs caused by a shortfall in public investment in transportation infrastructure. The Board s adopted Strategic Plan specifically calls for the creation, by 2012, of at least two new transportation funding sources to reduce the County s dependence on transportation impact fees and gas tax, such as toll facilities and tax increment financing Pasco s existing funding sources to pay for transportation backlog are gas tax (first 6 cents and ninth cent), portion of the local government infrastructure sales tax (Penny for Pasco), and state and federal funds There is a credit for these existing funding sources in Pasco s existing transportation impact fee, to avoid charging twice for the same infrastructure Existing funding sources are not used to buy down the existing transportation impact fee 2

3 Tolls Additional Local Option Gas Tax Tax Increment Financing (a/k/a Transportation Concurrency Backlog Authority) Charter County Sales Tax Renewal of Infrastructure Sales Tax Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) Local Option Real Estate Transfer Tax (Doc Stamp Tax) Transportation Utility Fee 3

4 Tolls Suncoast Parkway is presently the only toll road in Pasco County At Pasco County MPO s request, the Turnpike Enterprise studied the feasibility of tolling (a) Ridge Road Extension, (b) Elevated Lanes on S.R. 54, and (c) Express Lanes on I-75I PROS (a) user fee that is generally considered to be a fair revenue source for transportation, (b) generally reliable source of revenue that can be bonded, (c) does not require new legislative authorization, (d) technology in place to avoid toll booths and toll by plate,, (e) can congestion price to help reduce congestion in peak hours CONS (a) politically unpopular to toll existing roads, (b) tolls are generally insufficient to fund the entire cost of a new roadway; need supplemental revenue sources, (c) existing Pasco County Expressway Authority law requires a referendum for toll projects, (d) Turnpike Enterprise has exclusive authority to toll some roads (i.e. I-75), I (e) administrative costs 4

5 Additional Local Option Gas Tax Pasco County presently imposes 7 cents (6 cents plus the 9 th cent) of local option gas tax Existing legislation allows Pasco County to charge up to an additional 5 cents of gas tax by referendum, or a 4/5ths vote of the BOCC PROS (a) allowed by existing legislation, (b) tax that is similar to a user fee, in that it generally taxes those who consume roadway capacity, (c) bondable revenue source, (d) can be used for operation and maintenance, (e) less noticeable than some other taxes, because of gas price volatility, (f) may encourage consumers to use electric vehicles and alternate modes of travel CONS (a) political opposition, (b) tax is not indexed for inflation, which minimizes the amount of revenue it can generate, (c) reliability of the revenue source will likely decrease over time, based on increased fuel efficiency of vehicles, more electric vehicles, more transit etc. 5

6 Tax Increment Financing (a/k/a Transportation Concurrency Backlog Authority ( TCBA )) Earmarks a percentage of the increased ad valorem tax resulting from increases in property values to transportation. TCBA percentage is 25% PROS (a) generally not considered a tax increase, (b) can be done for specific geographic areas, (c) revenue can be significant where property values increasing, (d) bondable revenue source, (e) can be used for operation and maintenance, (f) does not require legislative authorization CONS (a) results in loss to general fund, which could impact other public facilities, (b) doesn t tax users of Pasco County transportation system who live outside Pasco County, (c) not a reliable revenue source if property values decreasing 6

7 Charter County Sales Tax Additional 1% sales tax that must be used for transportation. Up to 25% can be used for roads; remainder for transit Presently only limited to charter counties; Pasco seeking legislation that would extend to non-charter counties in TBARTA LRTP does not assume this revenue source until TBARTA transit arrives in Pasco County (approximately 2018) PROS (a) generally stable source of revenue--bondable, (b) it is percentage tax, so revenues increase as costs increase, (c) distributes some tax burden to residents outside of Pasco County, (d) can be used for operation and maintenance, (e) provides greater revenue than most other taxes, (f) deductible on federal taxes CONS (a) requires legislative authorization, (b) requires referendum; could be politically unpopular, (c) generally considered a regressive tax, (d) amount may not relate to actual consumption of roadway capacity 7

8 Potential Transportation Funding Sources To Supplement or Replace Impact Fees/Mobility Fees Renewal of Infrastructure Sales Tax (Penny for Pasco) 22.5% of Penny for Pasco is allocated for transportation infrastructure ructure Raises approximately 5.5 million annually for transportation infrastructure Due to expire in 2014 PROS (a) already approved once by referendum, (b) allowed by existing legislation, (c) generally stable source of revenue bondable, (d) distributes some tax burden to residents outside of Pasco County, (e) deductible on federal taxes CONS (a) cannot be used for operation and maintenance, (b) requires another referendum, (c) generally considered a regressive tax, (d) amount may not relate to actual consumption of roadway capacity, (e) may be difficult to pass this tax and the charter county sales tax, if both are used for transportation 8

9 Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU) Additional ad valorem tax dedicated to transportation for specific geographic area Similar to Pasco County s existing MSTU for Fire/EMS PROS (a) can result in significant revenue for transportation, depending on the millage rate, (b) does not impact County s general fund, (c) can be adopted for a specific geographic area, (d) can be used for operation and maintenance, (e) deductible on federal taxes; (f) does not require legislative authorization CONS (a) considered a tax increase; could be politically unpopular, (b) subject to constitutional and statutory caps on revenue (i.e. Amendment 1), (c) not a stable revenue source where property values are declining, (d) does not tax users of Pasco County transportation system who live outside of Pasco County, (e) amount may not relate to actual consumption of roadway capacity 9

10 Municipal Service Benefit Unit (MSBU) Special assessment for transportation based on special benefit to the property Assessment must be fairly and reasonable apportioned among the properties that receive a benefit Pasco presently uses similar concept for paving projects (PVAS); also basis for Capacity Assessment Unit (CAU) concept PROS (a) not presently subject to constitutional and statutory caps, (b) can be done for specific geographic area, (c) stable source of revenue; does not increase or decrease based on property valuation, (d) bondable, (e) does not require legislative authorization CONS (a) appears on property tax bill, (b) may not be feasible if property has other special assessments (CDD, PVAS etc.), (c) apportionment methodology can be complex for collectors/arterials, (d) can t be applied to properties outside Pasco who may receive a benefit 10

11 Local Option Real Estate Transfer Tax (Doc Stamp Tax) Additional documentary stamp tax dedicated to transportation Only existing local option transfer tax is limited to affordable housing, and only for charter counties PROS (a) not as noticeable as other taxes, due to volatility in real estate prices, (b) doesn t t tax anyone out of home; only pay at transfer, (c) fairly stable source of revenue bondable, (d) more equitably distributes payment for infrastructure among home owners CONS (a) requires legislative authorization; real estate agents opposed to legislation, (b) doesn t t tax users of Pasco County transportation facilities who live outside of Pasco County, (c) amount may not relate to actual consumption of roadway capacity 11

12 Transportation Utility Fee Fee based on actual usage of the roadway system (miles traveled), similar to water/sewer bill Not presently authorized by state law PROS (a) generally fair, since charge is based on actual consumption of roadway capacity, (b) will likely encourage use of alternate modes of transportation, (c) reliable revenue source bondable, (d) can be used for operation and maintenance CONS (a) administrative cost of reading odometers or other measure of consumption, (b) fraud enforcement, (c) requires legislative authorization, (d) could be politically unpopular and considered intrusive, (e) except for tolls, public generally is not accustomed to paying for roadway capacity in this manner, (f) may be difficult to enforce for vehicles outside the jurisdiction adopting the fee 12