Florida Department of Transportation District 5. Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series. Workshop #2. Ocala Marion County TPO Lake Sumter MPO

Transcription

1 Florida Department of Transportation District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop #2 Ocala Marion County TPO Lake Sumter MPO Workshop Summary

2 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Overall Summary of Workshop # 2 INTRODUCTION This overall summary is separated into seven sec ons as follows: Sec on 1: Workshop # 2 Package Sec on 2: Brief Highlights from the Workshop Sec on 3: Summary of Feedback and Tool Box Surveys Sec on 4: Highlights of Exercise # 1 on Propor onate Share Sec on 5: Highlights of Exercise # 2 on The $100M Alloca on Challenge Sec on 6: Highlights of Exercise # 3a and 3b: Funding Preferences (Capital and Opera ng/maintenance) Sec on 7: Conclusion and Commentary Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2

3 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series S 1: W # 2 P Workshop # 2 Package is separated into the following parts: Part 1: Thank you le er from Susan Sadighi, P. E., Intermodal System Development Manager for District 5 Part 2: Workshop Agenda Part 3: Master Powerpoint Presenta on Part 4: A Tool Box of five (5) toolkits Part 5: Exercises Part 6: Glossary of Acronyms Part 7: Presenter Biographies Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2

4 Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop #2 Ocala Marion TPO Lake Sumter MPO Marion, Lake & Sumter Coun es

5 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Dear Workshop Participant: Thank you for your participation at the District s second Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series. This workshop series is in response to the interest expressed during the April 2011 Mobility Planning Workshop for smaller, more intimate workshops as well as to the new legislative direction from House Bill 7207 relative to transportation concurrency and proportionate share. We hope that you ind this workshop to be helpful in your community and transportation planning efforts. The District encourages opportunities for the exchanging and sharing of ideas and experiences so that we may all continue to do good planning for our communities. Sincerely, Susan Sadighi Susan Sadighi, P.E. Intermodal System Development Manager FDOT District 5 Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 2

6 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop 2 Agenda Ocala Marion TPO & Lake Sumter MPO Schedule Topic Presenters 8:15-8:35 Sign In and Networking 8:35-8: 40 Intro & Welcome Heather Garcia, FDOT District 5 8:40-8:55 Survey Results and Highlights of Workshop # 1 Judy Pizzo, FDOT District 5 8:55-9:25 Topic A: Concurrency Choice 8:55-9:10 Opting OUT Sue Farnsworth, Sumter County 9:10-9:25 Opting IN Jimmy Massey, Marion County 9:25-9:55 Topic B: Proportionate Share 9:25-9:40 State Perspective Kathy Neill, FDOT Central Office 9:40-9:55 Local Perspective Nick Uhren, Palm Beach County 9:55-10:05 Q & A for Presentation Topics A and B Judy Pizzo, FDOT District 5 10:05-10:15 Break 10:15-11:15 Topic C: Funding (State, Regional, Local Perspectives) 10:15-10:30 MPOAC Revenues Study Stephen Reich, CUTR/USF 10:30-10:45 Transportation Task Force Update Harry Barley, MetroPlan Orlando 10:45-11:00 Lake County Capital Facilities Transportation Task Force T.J. Fish, Lake-Sumter MPO 11:00-11:15 Pasco County Multimodal Transportation Funding Strategy David Goldstein, Pasco County 11:15-11:40 Q & A for Presentation Topic C Judy Pizzo, FDOT District 5 11:40-11:50 11:50-1:55 Break Group Activity and Working Lunch 11:50-12:05 Rules of Engagement/Tool Box Bob Wallace, TOA 12:05-1:50 Group Activity & Working Lunch All 1:50-2:00 Break 2:00-2:40 Discussion of Group Results Bob Wallace, TOA 2:40-2:45 Wrap Up / Final Q & A Judy Pizzo, FDOT District 5 Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 3

7 FDOT District 5 Intro & Welcome Heather Garcia, FDOT District 5 Thank you to the City of Wildwood for use of Community Center Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series In response to the April 20, 2011 Mobility Planning Workshop and HB workshops by TPO/MPO Areas: Volusia/Flagler, Ocala Marion & Lake Sumter, MetroPlan Orlando, and Space Coast Next set of workshops: MetroPlan Orlando Areas: Mid May 2012 at District 5 Urban Office Space Coast TPO Areas: Late May 2012 (location to be determined) Continuing opportunity for information sharing and exchanging of ideas to continue to do good planning Housekeeping Agenda 8:15 8:35 Sign In 8:35 8:408:40 Introduction & Welcome 8:40 8:558:55 Workshop 1 Highlights/Survey Results 8:55 9:25 Presentations on Concurrency Choice 9:25 9:55 Presentations on Proportionate Share 9:55 10:05 Q & A for Concurrency & Prop Share Presentations 10:05 10: Break 10:15 11:15 Presentations on Funding 11:15 11:40 Q & A for Funding Presentations 11:40 11:50 Break 11:50 12:05 Rules of Engagement/Materials for Group Activities 12:05 1:50 Group Activity & Working Lunch 1:50 2:00 Break 2:00 2:40 Discussion of Group Results 2:40 2:45 Wrap Up / Final Q & A 1

8 Highlights of Workshop # 1 Judy Pizzo, FDOT District 5 Some Great Presentations Nick Uhren, Palm Beach County, Transportation Concurrency Bill Killingsworth, City of Jacksonville, 2030 Mobility Plan Live from District 4 Office Highlights of Workshop # 1 15 Local Governments 1 Transit Agency FDOT Central Office Highlights of Workshop # 1 Green Table: Jon Cheney (Volusia County), Ric Goss (Ormond Beach), Heather Blanck (VoTran), Tom Harowski (Holly Hill), and Tom Weitnauer (Daytona Beach) 2

9 Highlights of Workshop # 1 Resurfacing Great Information $113, per mile George Recktenwald, Volusia County $290, per mile Reclamation Survey December 2011 Surveys sent to department heads of the 23 local governments 7 responded (30%) Survey Results 1) How has the new GM legislation assisted or affected your community s efforts in achieving vision? Looking forward to eliminating transportation concurrency and lengthy state oversight The new growth management legislation has not affected our community vision yet. Currently, our growth has been non existent due to the economy. When the economy does become more favorable for investment, I think the new legislation will greatly enhance opportunities to further our community vision through streamlined state reviews and, perhaps with less interference by Tallahassee, smaller communities can get things moving much quicker! Without t the encumbrances of the previous legislation, Mount Dora has completed a new citywide vision plan that will be used as the basis of our new comprehensive plan. It will give us more flexibility to be responsive to the desires of our citizens in the form of projects, policies, and priorities. 3

10 Survey Results (cont d) 2) Relative to concurrency options in HB 7207, please select the concurrency option that best reflects your community. 14% => Has already opted out 57% => Plan to opt out 14% => Opting to implement local concurrency 14% => Still undecided Survey Results (cont d) 3) We asked: what types of funding strategies have you or do you plan to implement: 43% => Undecided 29% => Implement a multimodal mobility fee 14% => Use transportation impact fee/mobility fee as development incentive for jobs/growth 14% => Implement a transportation impact fee 14% => Suspend transportation impact fee/mobility fee 14% => Reduce fees for targeted land uses Survey Results (cont d) 4) Has your community conducted a visioning process and developed a vision plan to guide future growth and development activities? 86% => Yes 14% => No 4

11 Survey Results (Vision Plan follow questions) 5) Of the folks who said YES, we asked 3 follow questions. First, how does your vision plan address transportation? Top Choices at 67% each: Complete Streets, Bike, and Pedestrian facilities Second Choices at 17% each: Enhanced transit service and New Capital Funding Another 17% said the Vision Plan does not address transportation Survey Results (Vision Plan follow questions) 6) We also asked to what level the community has integrated the vision plan into the adopted Comp Plan for implementation? 17% Not integrated yet but will 17% Adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment 17% Land Development Regulations (LDRs) being updated 33% LDRs being updated and implemented 17% Undecided 17% Skipped the question Survey Results (Vision Plan follow questions) 7) Lastly, we asked, based on the Vision Plan, which tools or techniques is your community considering in order to achieve the right form, location and timing of development that is most desirable for attracting growth: Top Choice (67%): Mixed Use Centers 2 nd Choice (50% each): Activity Centers and Infill/ Redevelopment Areas 3 rd Choice (33%): Commercial Centers 5

12 Survey Results (rest of survey questions) 8) 2 Part Question: Please provide your best estimate of how your community travels today and how it would like to travel within the next 15 to 20 years: TODAY: Majority (80%): Singleoccupancy vehicle FUTURE: Single occupancy vehicle still the majority vote but dropped to 52% 2nd Choice (8%): Public transportation 3rd Choice (~4%): Other (including horseback riding) Public transportation remains at second but increased to 22% 3 rd Choice: Biking moved to third place at 11% Survey Results (rest of survey questions) 9) 2 Part: What financing revenues are being relied upon to fund multimodal transportation plan CAPITAL needs and OPERATING costs? CAPITAL: Majority (86%): Sales Tax OPERATING: Majority (57%): Undecided 2nd Choice (71%): Local Options Gas Tax 3rd Choice (57%): Public/Private Partnerships (PPP) 2nd Choice (43% each): Sales Tax and Local Options Gas Tax 3rd Choice (14% each): Ad valorem and Mitigation Assessment Survey Results (rest of survey questions) 10) What information or guidance do you want to gain from a Community Planning Workshop? Top Choice (71%): Identification of alternate revenue sources 2nd Choice (57%): Strategies to make the transition from road impact fees to multimodal transportation impact fees 3rd Choice (29%): Educational strategies/materials for citizens 6

13 Survey Results (Rest of the survey questions) 11) Finally, we asked has your community been involved with or supported Central Florida s How Shall We Grow? Initiative? 14% => Don t accept/not involved 14% => Accepted the plan/initiative 57% => Coordinated with regional partners 14% => Unsure Agenda 8:15 8:35 Sign In 8:35 8:40 Introduction & Welcome 8:40 8:55 Workshop 1 Highlights/Survey Results 8:55 9:25 Presentations on Concurrency Choice 9:25 9:55 Presentations on Proportionate Share 9:55 10:05 Q & A for Concurrency & Prop Share Presentations 10:05 10:15 Break 10:15 11:15 Presentations on Funding 11:15 11:40 Q & A for Funding Presentations 11:40 11:50 Break 11:50 12:05 Rules of Engagement/Materials for Activity 12:05 1:50 Group Activity & Working Lunch 1:50 2:00 Break 2:00 2:40 Discussion of Group Results 2:40 2:45 Wrap Up / Final Q & A Sumter County Division of Planning and Development Sumter County Focus on Coordination and Cooperation Sue Farnsworth Sumter County Planning and Development 7

14 Sumter County Division of Planning and Development Population 96,615(2011) 2500 COs last year Sumter County Division of Planning and Development Sumter County utilizes a proactive approach to assure the availability of infrastructure to support economic development Compact, efficient growth plan Highly coordinated planning process with city-county, school district, and MPO partnerships Cooperative and responsive relationship with the development community Sumter County Division of Planning and Development Concurrency Management Discourages development within urban/built-up areas Complex, difficult, & expensive LOS deficiencies are primarily on State roads Discourages creative solutions focuses on automobiles and single-family development 8

15 Sumter County Division of Planning and Development Schools School-age population is stable Retain Interlocal Agreement with the Sumter County School District (less concurrency) Parks and Recreation ISBAs with Cities to provide active recreational facilities while the County focuses on passive facilities Coordination with State Agencies for public access/recreation on State lands Active recreational facilities are provided by DRIs Sumter County Division of Planning and Development Transportation Transitioning from concurrency to a Congestion Management System to prioritize road capacity needs Require improvements to sub-standard d roads and site access at time of development Voluntary Proportionate Fair Share Agreements for improvements and related impact fee agreements Sumter County Division of Planning and Development Sue Farnsworth, Planner Sumter County Division of Planning & Development Sue.Farnsworth@sumtercountyfl.gov 9

16 Concurrency Choice Marion County Jimmy Massey, Director Marion County: Talking Points Opting In Not necessarily a permanent situation Interlocal Agreements Cross jurisdictional Impacts within Marion County Concurrency more important Along S.R. 441 (City of Belleview) Density in City of Ocala Marion County: Talking Points Unincorporated Areas & Rural Characteristics > No concurrency issues S.R. 40 (through forest) Impacts to adjacent counties (Lake and Sumter Counties) Private vs. Public Responsibilities Maximize private enterprise 10

17 Agenda 8:15 8:35 Sign In 8:35 8:40 Introduction & Welcome 8:40 8:55 Workshop 1 Highlights/Survey Results 8:55 9:25 Presentations on Concurrency Choice 9:25 9:559:55 Presentations on Proportionate Share 9:55 10:05 Q & A for Concurrency & Prop Share Presentations 10:05 10: Break 10:15 11:15 Presentations on Funding 11:15 11:40 Q & A for Funding Presentations 11:40 11:50 Break 11:50 12:05 Rules of Engagement/Materials for Activity 12:05 1:50 Group Activity & Working Lunch 1:50 2:00 Break 2:00 2:40 Discussion of Group Results 2:40 2:45 Wrap Up / Final Q & A Statewide Perspective on Proportionate Share Methodology Kathleen Neill FDOT Central Office Palm Beach County TRANSPORTATION CONCURRENCY That was then, this is now A recent history of Palm Beach County Nick Uhren, P.E. Palm Beach County Engineering pbcgov.com/engineering 11

18 Concurrency What is It? 1. Trying to provide mobility after development happens - once we get fed up with congestion 2. A means of exacting exorbitant sums from developers to fix existing transportation deficiencies 3. The provision of infrastructure when development needs it Development and Transportation Development creates traffic Infrastructure moves traffic BALANCING GAME When to build new roads to accommodate new development? At the same time: CONCURRENCY Transportation Concurrency Timeline 1985 Florida Legislature passes Growth Management Act 1987 First PBC Traffic Standard (unincorporated area only) 1988 County Charter Amendment to authorize countywide standard 1990 BCC adoption of countywide traffic standard 0.5 mil Ad Valorem tax and aggressive road program to catch up Standard applies only to County and State roads 2 DECADES OF CONCURRENCY Added 25,000 people per year 98.5 % of road network meets adopted LOS today 2009 SB 360 no longer requires concurrency in Palm Beach Co Local option concurrency, Peak direction standard 2011 HB 7207 no longer requires concurrency anywhere in FL, but creates rules and suggestions for locals that want to do it 12

19 The Way it Used to Work (true concurrency) Developer wants to build 2,000 homes on 1,200 acres Southern Blvd. will be over capacity needs to be 6 lanes Developer has 3 options: Wait for State to build road Reduce project to avoid road failure Commit to fund and construct road themselves But Doesn t Concurrency Inhibit Growth and Constrain the Economy? NO! 166 Approved Residential Projects 466 Approved Commercial Projects Approved but Unbuilt Totals: 44,500 Residential Units 45,600,000 sf Non-residential (Retail, Office and Industrial) Well, HB 7207 Thought So No State requirements anymore Sounds like more local freedom, but If local governments want transportation concurrency, they must follow state rules and guidelines 13

20 HB 7207 Shoulds Favor urban infill/redevelopment Exempt de minimis impacts Favor job creation Support multimodal solutions Adopt areawide LOS Assign second priority to vehicle mobility favor walking and transit Establish multimodal LOS Reduce impact fees for multimodal projects HB 7207 Shalls Include funded and unfunded projects in CIE to meet LOS Consult with FDOT on their roads Exempt public transit Allow everyone to use Prop Share, provided that: Prop Share amount pays for 1+ mobility improvement Required mitigation does not exceed Prop Share amount Background failures are not in Prop Share calculation PBC Traffic Division The Way it Works Now (HB 7207) Developer wants to build 2,000 homes Southern Blvd. will be over capacity: LOS D: 4L = 3,000; 6L = 4,500 Background = 2,900 Project = 700 Total = 3,600 Developer has 1 option: Make Prop Share Payment = 40% of 6L Road Cost Road is now 40% overcapacity but we only have 40% of money to fix it PROP SHARE IS NOT CONCURRENCY The Way it Works Now (cont.) 2 nd Developer wants to build 3,000 homes Southern Blvd. is now 73% over capacity: LOS D: 4L = 3,000; 6L = 4,500 Background = 3,600 Project = 500 Total = 4,100 Developer has 1 option: Make No Payment because the road is failing due to background traffic Road is now 73% overcapacity but we still only have 40% of money to fix it HB 7207 IS NOT PROP SHARE 14

21 So what is our way forward? Concurrency sought to balance demands with capacity That system is gone Prop Share seeks equity for developers This system creates funding gaps, forces local govt. to prioritize improvement HB 7207 seeks free ride for developers Incentivizes congestion without even partial funding solutions Current County Approach Annual report of LOS for all roadways with CIE update Show improvements (funded and unfunded) for those that can be widened per Comp Plan, change adopted LOS for those that can t Require prop share for improvable failures caused by project trips Give concurrency approval for improvable failures caused by background May recommend denial of development though Deny concurrency to all projects with sig. impact on ultimate failures Failure can be due to background or project traffic Developer can petition BCC to change LOS to accommodate project Can HB 7207 Be Fixed? Yes with 3 simple changes: 1. Require Prop Share Payment for all projects that significantly impact a deficient facility Allows for pooling of money to solve big problems 2. Include all costs (e.g. design, ROW, etc.) in construction term of prop share calculation Forces real cost of improvement in equation 3. Limit impact fee credits to improvements that are legal use of impact fees Current impact fee credit allows non-road improvements to receive road impact fee credits Concurrency & Prop Share Presentations 15

22 B R E A K 10 Minutes Agenda 8:15 8:35 Sign In 8:35 8:40 Introduction & Welcome 8:40 8:55 Workshop 1 Highlights/Survey Results 8:55 9:25 Presentations on Concurrency Choice 9:25 9:55 Presentations on Proportionate Share 9:55 10:05 Q & A for Concurrency & Prop Share Presentations 10:05 10: Break 10:15 11:1511:15 Presentations on Funding 11:15 11:40 Q & A for Funding Presentations 11:40 11:50 Break 11:50 12:05 Rules of Engagement/Materials for Activity 12:05 1:50 Group Activity & Working Lunch 1:50 2:00 Break 2:00 2:40 Discussion of Group Results 2:40 2:45 Wrap Up / Final Q & A MPOAC REVENUE STUDY Study Update FDOT Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Stephen Reich University of Florida/CUTR 16

23 Study History 2008 Florida Senate Bill 1688 Recommend funding mechanism 13 members 3 governor s, 3 Senate, 3 House, FDOT, MPOAC, FL Association of Counties, League of Cities $400,000 in non recurring general funds to finance the study effort 2009 Florida Senate Bill 582 Report due January 1, months +/ 13 members in SB 1688 plus labor $450,000 in federal metropolitan planning funds 2010 Fall 2009 MPOAC Policy & Technical Subcommittee recommended proceeding w/o legislation Subcommittee discussed and reviewed draft scope December 2009 Final Scope of Work reviewed and approved by Staff Directors and MPOAC Board Orlando, January 28, 2010 Work commenced June 2010, RSAC established, met in September and December MPOAC REVENUE STUDY Purpose Develop legislative approaches to implement a set of revenue measures that address transportation funding needs in Florida. Recommendations will focus on the identification of sustainable, innovativei and politically i ll acceptable measures to assist in meeting the mobility needs for Floridians. MPOAC REVENUE STUDY 50 MPOAC REVENUE STUDY MPOAC Revenue Study Process Task 2 Collect Needs Data Analyze Trends Frame Current Condition White Paper Task 3 Inventory State Sources New Sources i.e. VMT Laundry List Assess Stability/ Barriers Project Revenue MPOAC Narrows Options Task 4 Economic Analysis Revenue Forecasts Matrix of Options RSAC Recommends MPOAC Selects Tasks 5 &6 Draft Legislation Prepare Report/ Presentations MPOAC Review/ Approve Final Report Publication Presentations/ Education 51 17

24 Revenue Study Advisory Committee Florida Airports Council Florida Transportation Builders Association Florida Chamber of Commerce Florida League of Cities Floridians for Better Transportation Florida Association of Counties The Nature Conservancy in Florida Florida Trucking Association MPOAC Staff Directors Representative Chair Florida Ports Council Chair MPOAC Governing Board Florida Transportation Commission American Public Works Association, Florida Chapter Public Transportation Association MPOAC REVENUE STUDY 80 Florida Metro Area Transportation Funding Shortfall Estimates $ Billions Review 2002 Review Review $'s 2010 $'s MPOAC REVENUE STUDY Variables Affecting The Purchasing Power of Transportation Revenues Sources: FDOT 2009 Source Book of Florida Highway Data, Oct 2011 REC & CAFE Preliminary Estimate 90% 82% 80% 70% 69% 60% 57% Percen nt Increase 50% 40% 30% 33% 25% 20% 10% 7% 8% 0% 99/00 01/02 03/04 05/06 07/08 09/10 11/12 13/14 15/16 17/18 19/20 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Fuel Efficiency (CAFE Adjusted) Inflation (CPI) Highway Fuel Use (CAFE Adjusted) MPOAC REVENUE STUDY 54 18

25 Transportation Taxes and Fees Purchasing Power Value Lost Due to Inflation Rate Increases Required to Restore Lost Purchasing Power Table Excludes the Surcharges to General Revenue Enacted in 2009 Tax/Fee Years Last STTF Since Rate (to Unit of Rate Last STTF) Measure Increase Increase CPI-U Index Level Inflation Adjusted Value of $1.00 To Restore Original Purchasing Power % Rate Inflation Rate Increase Adjusted Increase Needed Rate Needed State Fuel Use 12.3 per gal $1.00 0% SCETS 6.8 per gal $1.00 0% Off Highway 12.0 per gal $1.00 0% Federal Highway Fuel 18.4 per gal $ % Federal Highway Diesel 24.4 per gal $ % Local Option Fuel 12.0 per gal $ % Title Fee various one time $ % various various Aviation Fuel 6.9 per gal $ % Initial Registration Fee $ one time $ % $ $72.07 Rental Car Surcharge $2.00 per day $ % $3.44 $1.44 MVL Fees various annual $ % various various Municipal Fuel 1.0 per gal $ % Constitutional Fuel 2.0 per gal $ % County Fuel 1.0 per gal $ % Purchasing Power Calculations for Non-Indexed Taxes & Fees Are Calculated Using April 2011 CPI Index of The 2010 General Revenue Surcharges imposed on MVL Fees, Initial Registation Fees, Title Fees and Rental Car Surcharges are excluded from this analysis since they did not impact the purchasing power of the respective share of revenues directed to the State Transportation Trust Fund. MPOAC REVENUE STUDY 55 State Transportation Taxes & Fees $12.1 Billion In Lost Purchasing Power In Current $ - Adjusted for Growth In Vehicle Miles Traveled $5,000 $4,500 $4,000 $3,500 In $ Millions $3,000 $2,500 $2,000 $1,500 $1,000 $500 $ MPOAC REVENUE STUDY Non Indexed Taxes, Fees & Surcharges Indexed Motor Fuel Taxes Doc Stamps, Local Option Distribution & Take Backs Revenue Needed to Maintain FY 99/00 Purchasing Power Per VMT Adjusted for Inflatioin 56 RSAC recommendations for further analysis MPOAC Adopted 1. Fuel Tax examine various levels and indexing those not currently indexed Analyze indexing of federal 18.4 cents for STTF Investigate raising of Local Option Motor Fuel Tax 2. Fees look at indexing of existing fees remitted to the State Transportation Trust Fund 3. Vehicle Sales Tax currently not going to STTF. Research various levels to the Trust Fund 4. Cost Savings investigate revisions to property acquisition procedures 5. Return Fees to STTF examine implications of returning fee increase revenues to STTF by Sales Tax on Motor Fuels research replacing cents per gallon state fuel tax with a percentage tax including a floor 7. VMT Charges examine replacement of state motor fuel tax with a vehicle miles traveled charge that is basic in its implementation 8. Maximization of Local Option Taxes research issues surrounding incentives to take advantage of existing avenues to raise transportation revenue 9. Mobility Fees document previous research and analyze financial impacts of statewide adoption 10. Toll Rate Making research options for authority to set toll rates on state facilities 11. Regional Transportation Financing Authorities review legislative proposals on the concept and develop potential alternatives 12. Sales Tax on Motor Vehicle Parts/ Accessories investigate revenue potential of assessing or dedicating an existing portion of sales tax on vehicle related goods and services to the STTF 13. Optional Municipal Sales Tax for Transportation research and document the potential for broadening the Local Option Sales Tax to municipalities of a certain size 14. County Vehicle Registration Fee investigate the issues surrounding and revenue potential of a county decal program 15. Alternative Fuel Decal Program Changes re examine the existing state requirement for an alternative fuel decal and fee 16. Expansion of Tolls and Increase Local Expressway Authority Role explore options to increase contributions by existing or new expressway and transportation authorities MPOAC REVENUE STUDY 57 19

26 RSAC Recommendations for Consideration by MPOAC Option 1.c Increase state motor fuel sales tax 2 cents per year for 5 years indexed Option 3.e State sales tax on all electric vehicles to State Transportation Trust Fund Option 5.d Redirect 2009 General Revenue Motor Vehicle License Fee Surcharges and Initial Registration Fee Surcharges from the State General Fund to the State Transportation Trust Fund Option 6.b Replace existing State Motor Fuels Sales Tax and the SCETS Tax with a 6% tax on motor fuels on the retail price existing tax with index as a floor Option 7. VMT Study Development of a User Fee Business Plan to guide the implementation of a mileage based transportation funding mechanism. Option 8.a Establish a 5 cent diesel fuel tax in each county (the 1 to 5 cent local option tax) for the purpose of investments in projects to enhance commercial traffic Option 10.a Create a State Toll Rate Setting Commission to independently study evaluate and establish toll rates for State owned toll facilities based upon criteria established by the Governor and Florida Legislature Florida Transportation Commission is an option. Option 11. Create and fund Regional Transportation Authorities with incremental new revenue sources Option 12.b Shift Sales Tax on vehicle accessories, parts, repairs and service from General Revenue Fund to State Transportation Trust Fund Option 13. One cent local option Municipal Sales Tax for Transportation for cities over 150,000 or for the largest municipality in a county with none larger than 150,000. Cannot exceed one cent in combination with the current County Option Option 14. Optional County Vehicle Registration Fee for Public Transportation $10 per vehicle, each county can elect to implement, targeted for public transit (operating or capital) bondable revenue stream Option 15. Expand current alternative fuel decal program to all vehicles using alternative fuels or not propelled via an internal combustion engine (e.g. electric) pro rata for hybrid electric Option 16.a Increase the levels of State Funding invested in the Florida Turnpike Enterprise and Regional Expressway Authorities in order to leverage new project toll revenues and increase total transportation infrastructure financing capacity. Use incremental new revenue. MPOAC REVENUE STUDY 58 Summary of Revenue Yields $millions Revenue Option 8 yr Total Annual Average 1.c 2 cent increase indexed STTF e Sales Tax BEV to STTF (GR) d Return MVL, Reg., Title increases to STTF (GR) b State Sales Tax@ 6% in lieu of fuel taxes, w/ floor VMT Study 8.a 5 cent local diesel tax Toll Rate Making 11. Regional Trans Financing $100mill/ yr b Sales tax on MV parts & Services (GR) cent Muni Optional Sales Tax County $10 Reg. Fee Alt. Fuel Decal Expansion A $100 mill in new toll projects MPOAC REVENUE STUDY Study Schedule TASK MONTH Task 1: Project Management 6/10 7/10 8/10 9/10 10/10 11/10 12/10 1/11 2/11 3/11 4/11 5/11 6/11 7/11 8/11 9/11 10/11 11/11 12/11 1/12 2/12 3/12 Task 2: Inventory of Transportation Needs and Review of Recent Trends Task 3: Revenue Option Identification Task 4: Data Analysis and Impacts Estimation Task 5: Recommendation Development and Legislation Preparation Task 6: Final Report and Presentations Indicates meeting of the Revenue Study Advisory Committee MPOAC REVENUE STUDY 20

27 Regional Transportation Funding Task Force Harold W. Barley Executive Director Purpose of presentation History of Regional Transportation Funding Task Force Task Force Activities Task Force Recommendations What s Next MetroPlan Orlando Board Three counties; 19 voting members Local governments Operating agencies Honorable Bob Dallari Board Chairman 21

28 Year 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan Begin with the end in mind. -Stephen Covey Regional Transportation Funding Task Force Established by MetroPlan Orlando Board Larger than three-counties Other Stakeholders Task Force Partnership 22

29 Task Force Charge Develop a regional, dedicated transportation funding source Guiding Principle Focus on transit Maintain current levels of service Improve bus and paratransit service Future rail-related expenses Highway projects in future years SunRail is on the way FFGA signed July 2011 PHASE 2 Construction begins 2012 Phase I Operation 2013 Phase II 2015 PHASE 1 PHASE 2 23

30 Dedicated Funding Approach Review regional transportation plans Understand the regional need Review funding options available Learn from experiences elsewhere Identify potential strategies Develop recommendations Funding Options Gas tax Property Tax Funding Options Short-term Long-term Local Option Rental Car Surcharge Sales Tax User Fees (tolls, farebox, VMT) Other Fees (License, tag, title) Other Income (concessions, advertising, lease revenue, etc.) 24

31 Most Viable Options Charter County & Regional Transportation Surtax Local Option Rental Car Surcharge Local Option Gas Tax Local Option Gas Tax Seminole County: Orange County: Osceola County: +5 cents +6 cents +5 cents Alachua Broward Charlotte Citrus Collier* Desoto Hardee Highlands Lee Manatee Martin Marion Okeechobee Palm Beach Polk Putnam St. Lucie Sarasota* Suwannee Volusia* * 9 th cent approved by referendum Source: Florida Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations 25

32 Georgia Transportation Funding Legislation House Bill 277; signed into law June 2, % sales tax for transportation; voter referendum 159 counties divided into 12 special districts Approval based on total district vote Projects being identified; goes to voters 2012 Challenges Economy times have changed. Legislative climate has changed. Local some decisions have changed. What s Next? Monitor Georgia initiative Continue discussions ssions of regional approach Expand conversations to Tampa Bay, South Florida, Jacksonville Develop strategies based on regional values Poise for future action 26

33 Cost Feasible projects identified in the MPOs long range plan are defined as those projects priorities that likely can be funded over the next 25 years given available revenues Cost Feasible projects are the projects next in line to be funded in the county s Capital Improvement Plan, FDOTs Transportation Improvement Plan, and are consistent with the MPOs List of Priority Projects TRANSPORTATION 2035, the MPOs recently adopted long range transportation plan, includes cost feasible projects tied to DRI and sub-dri projects required to contribute at least 50% of project costs 27

34 Costs developed by improvement type and by maintenance responsibility FDOT Long Range Estimates (LRE) for State Roads Lake County Impact Fee Study for City / County Improvements City/County State Roads Roads Cost Per Mile Cost Per Mile in in $1,000s $1,000s New 2 Lane Road $5,800 $5,000 New 4 Lane Road $8,800 $7,000 Widen Road (2 to 4 Lanes) $5,800 $5,000 Widen Road (4 to 6 Lanes) $8,800 $5,000 Widen Road (2 to 6 Lanes) $11,700 $7,000 New Interchange $25,000 $1,000s Phasing of Projects (PD&E, PE, ROW & Construction) were developed based on percentages of total cost estimate. Costs by yp phase for each project were reviewed and adjusted by Technical Advisory Committee and MPO staff to reflect recent studies or cost estimates) FDOT developed inflation rates applied to 2010 Cost to estimate for Year of Expenditure DEV PROJECT NAME FROM TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2010 COST YOE COST PORTION N HANCOCK EXT CR 50 SR 91 (FL TURNPIKE) WIDEN TO 4 LANES $8.4 $ % HARTWOOD MARSH RD SR 25 (US 27) HANCOCK RD WIDEN TO 4 LANES $4.6 $6.8 CR 48 PALATLAKAHA BRIDGE CR 33 WIDEN TO 4 LANES $20.0 $23.5 CR 470 SUMTER COUNTY CR 33/CR 48 WIDEN TO 4 LANES $39.2 $ % CR 500A (OLD 441) SR 19 DISSTON AVE/FCR CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 CR 500A (OLD 441)/CR 19A/CR 19C ( EUDORA) INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT $0.5 $0.5 CR 19A SR 500 (US 441) CR 44C (EUDORA RD) CORRIDOR STUDY $9.3 $14.5 CR 561 COUNTRY CLUB CR 455 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT $12.2 $18.7 CR 561 SR 19 COUNTRY CLUB CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT $0.0 CR 44 SR 500 (US 441) SR 19 CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 CR 500A (OLD 441) BAY 5TH AVENUE CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 CR 500A (OLD 441) DISSTON BAY CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 CR 437 REALIGNMENT AT SR 46 REALIGNMENT $0.5 $0.5 CR 473 CR 44 FOUNTAIN LK BLVD CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 ROUND LAKE RD EXTENSION WOLF BRANCH RD SR 44 NEW 4 LANE RD $17.5 $28.4 ROLLING ACRES RD SR 25/500 (US 27/441) CR 466 WIDEN TO 4 LANES $9.7 $13.5 US 27 RELIEVER SR 25/500 (US 27/441) SR 44 NEW 4 LANE RD $65.4 $115.7 CR 48 SUMTER COUNTY CR 33 (OR CR 470?) WIDEN TO 4 LANES $46.1 $80.7 CR 561/561A REALIGN CR 455 SR 91 (FL TURNPIKE) NEW 4 LANE RD $55.2 $ % CITRUS GROVE ROAD US 27 N HANCOCK RD/FL TPK WIDEN TO 4 LANES $15.1 $ % HARTLE RD HARTWOOD MARSH LAKE~ORANGE PKWY NEW 4 LANE RD HARTLE RD SR 50 HARTWOOD MARSH RD WIDEN TO 4 LANES $19.4 $32.7 S HANCOCK RD HOOKS ST HARTWOOD MARSH RD CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 HARTWOOD MARSH RD HANCOCK RD HARTLE RD CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 HOOKS ST HANCOCK RD HARTLE RD CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $0.3 75% FOSGATE RD SR 25 (US 27) N HANCOCK RD CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 CR 50/US 27 INTERSECTION $0.5 $0.5 IMPROVEMENTS LAKE~ORANGE PKWY US 27 ORANGE COUNTY LINE NEW 4 LANE RD $55.2 $97.4 SAWGRASS BAY BLVD EASTERN TERMINUS ORANGE COUNTY LINE NEW 4 LANE RD $44.9 $79.4 CR 33 SR 50 SIMON BROWN CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 CR 478 SR 19 US 27 CORRIDOR STUDY $1.0 $1.0 TOTAL $446.4 $

35 Task Force created by Lake BCC Broad membership 12 Meetings Exhaustive review of details Maintenance vs. Capacity Expansion Needs Over-dependency on Impact Fees Recommendations December 2008 OPTION SOURCE PURPOSE REVENUE POTENTIAL LOCATION 1. Cost Cutting Current Roadway Maintenance and Capacity Enhanced Efficiency Low to Moderate Countywide 2. General Fund Ad Valorem Property Tax Maintenance Variable Countywide 3. Municipal Role Municipal Ad Valorem, Fuel Maintenance and Countywide and High Taxes, Sales Taxes Capacity Cities 4A. Ad Valorem Countywide Ad Valorem Tax Capacity 4B. Commercial ad Valorem Growth Countywide Ad Valorem Commercial Property Tax Capacity Moderate to High (Variable Based on Millage Rate) Moderate to High (Variable Based on Commercial Development) Countywide Countywide 5A. Countywide MSTU Ad Valorem Property Tax Capacity High Countywide and Cities 5B. Unincorporated MSTU Ad Valorem Property Tax Capacity High Unincorporated 6. Impact Fees New Construction Starts or Expansions Capacity Moderate to High Countywide 7. Fuel Taxes Gase and Diesel Fuel Sales Maintenance Moderate (2nd LOGT) Countywide 8. Public-Private privatge Funds or Part of Partnerships Development Projects Capacity Variable Countywide 9. Other Funding Sources privatge Funds or Part of Capacity and Development Projects Maintenance Variable Countywide 10. Sales Tax Sales receipts of Goods and Services Capacity High Countywide Not a revenue generator Savings vary greatly among projects making it difficult to estimate Cost estimating has become much more accurate within the last 5 years Most projects end up with a cost that is +/- 2% of the original cost estimate Assuming Cost Cutting saved 2% on every project in Cost Feasible Plan: 2010 Savings = $8.9 million 2035 Savings = $12.5 million 29

36 Assumptions A certain percentage of General Fund revenues will be dedicated to roadway maintenance 2% in Year 1 4% in Year 3 8% in Year 4 and remaining at 8% TIME PERIOD REVENUE GENERATED $13,717, $36,588, $40,397, $45,948, $53,266,962 Assumptions: Municipalities would participate with the County as funding partners for new projects Certain costs could be split County could consider imposing disincentives to municipalities that annex areas without assuming roadway maintenance responsibility Specific guidance on how the municipalities share of projects should be calculated, but the result was anticipated to be similar to Recommendations 4A and 4B Assumptions: County-wide Ad Valorem property tax dedicated to transportation Rate not specified, however 0.25 mill had previously been dedicated by the County in the mid 1980s and used in this calculation TIME PERIOD REVENUE GENERATED $4,286, $11,434, $12,624, $14,358, $16,645,926 30

37 Assumptions: Used new property taxes from commercial development for a period of five years Revenues are allocated to transportation beginning in year 2014 using existing millage rate of assumed to remain constant thru Time Period Taxable Value of New Commercial Construction Dedicated to Transportation Capacity $137,988,000 $961, $368,051,000 $7,316, $406,358,000 $9,087, $462,200,000 $10,177, $535,817,000 $11,756,000 Total $1,910,414,000 $39,297,000 Source: Lake County Property Appraiser for Historical New Commercial Annual Taxable Values. Assumptions : o Revenues generated from additional municipal services taxation units (MSTU) based on ¼, ½, ¾, and 1 additional mill Time Period 1/4 - mill 1/2 - mill 3/4 - mill 1 - mill $7,570,000 $17,270,000 $26,980,000 $36,680, $20,200,000 $46,070,000 $71,950,000 $97,830, $22,300,000 $50,870,000 $79,440,000 $108,010, $25,360,000 $57,860,000 $90,360,000 $122,850, $29,400,000 $67,070,000 $104,750,000 $142,420,000 Total $104,830,000 $239,140,000 $373,480,000 $507,790,000 Assumptions: oadopted impact fees remain in place through 2035 orevenues are based on population projections consistent t with BEBR medium Total Projected Impact Fees : o$432,030,000 31

38 This recommendation estimates the revenues to both Lake County BCC and municipalities in Lake County resulting from adoption of the 5 pennies of the second local option gas tax 8. Public Private Partnerships revenues varies from project to project 9. User fees, tolls, MSBUs and special districts revenues vary from project to project Task Force suggested further exploration of both recommendations Would require public referendum, municip alities and school district i t cooperation Tax committed through its sunset in 2017 TIME PERIOD REVENUE GENERATED $ $97,981, $177,003, $198,224, $227,513,891 32

39 Go back to utilizing General Fund dollars Fuel Taxes (Local Option sunsetting) Second Local Option Gas Tax referendum or supermajority? Development-based fees (impact fee or other?) Capital Sales Tax sunsets 2017 Other options PROMOTING REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIPS 1616 South 14th Street Leesburg, FL (352) LakeSumterMPO.com Mobility Fees Pasco County David Goldstein 33

40 Mobility Fee Highlights Replaces existing transportation impact fee Adopts MPO LRTP as Pasco s mobility plan Responds to changes in growth mgt. legislation Funds roads, transit and bicycle/pedestrian facilities Mobility Fee Highlights Uses variable levels of service, trip lengths and other revenue sources to create a tiered rate structure (favored uses and locations) Lower rates in Urban Market Area Lower rates for office, industrial, hotel, transit oriented, and traditional neighborhood development Greater reliance on alternative travel modes in Urban Market Area Allows municipalities to participate Mobility Fee Highlights Supports County s objectives job creation & smart growth Earmarks % of mobility fee for Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) Does not assess for regional transit BUT does allow fees to be used for such facilities Does not rely on any tax increase 34

41 Factors Motivating Pasco 48% of Pasco County workers employed outside of Pasco County boundaries Highest % of commuters in Region 12% Unemployment Highest % in Region Highest impact fees in Region Unsustainable Growth Patterns Tax Base dependent on residential development (79%) Mobility Fee Planning Foundation ULI Strategic Plan Business Plan Available at Mobility Planning History Comprehensive Plan Creation of Town Centers and Employment Centers Adoption of Town Center/Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance Creation of Rural Protection Areas 35

42 Mobility Planning History-2007/08 Adoption of Pasadena Hills TND Area Plan Creation of TBARTA by legislature Urban Land Institute (ULI) Report Market Area focus More Predictable/Less Time Consuming Transportation Mitigation System Focus on transit-oriented and traditional neighborhood development Mobility Planning History-2009-Current Focus on Transit Oriented Development and Traditional Neighborhood Development IBI Consultants on Greenfield Transit Oriented Development 36

43 Mobility Planning History-2009 SB 360 Dense Urban Land Area/Urban Service Area Exemptions Mobility Fees / Mobility Alternatives DCA/FDOT Joint Report Mobility Planning History-2009 BOCC Adopts Strategic Plan Concentrate Future Growth in Urban Service Area Mobility Fees in Place by 2012 Focus on new Transportation Funding Sources-Tax Increment Focus on Job Creation Innovation Encouraged Mobility Planning History-2009 TBARTA Adopts Transit Master Plan MPO Adopts 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan 37

44 Mobility Fee Stops Spreading Growth Like Peanut Butter ULI Market Area Analysis ULI Market Areas on Base Map 38

45 Current MPUD s & DRI s Market Area s on FLU Map Market Areas and Cities 39

46 USA with MPUD-DRIs DRIs Transit Oriented Development Mobility Planning History-2010 Market Areas and Market Area Strategies Adopted into Comprehensive Plan TOD Conceptual Locations and Standards Adopted into Comprehensive Plan Urban Service Area/TCEA Adopted First Mobility Fee Concepts Presented to MPO Stakeholders & Steering Committees Formed 40

47 Board Selects Prototype Mobility Fee Relies in part on Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Ordinances and Full Fee Schedules within 90 days Urban Service Area settlement agreement approved by DCA HB 7207 (Community Planning Act) Less Stringent Urban Service Area Definition Favorable Language for Mobility Fees Transportation Concurrency Optional Less State Oversight June/July Board Adopts a Multi-Modal Mobility Fee that Helps Implement 5 Years of Planning Concepts 41

48 July 12, 2011 One of the First Counties in Florida/United States to Adopt a Mobility Fee Innovative Promotes Smart Growth Promotes Economic Development Pilot project becomes model for other communities Ordinance - Overview Replaces transportation impact fee with a mobility fee Assesses Capital Costs for Roads Transit Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Overview - TCEA Creates and implements Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) for Urban Service Area based on Mobility Fee Subsequent Comp Plan and Code Amendments will replace Transportation Concurrency with Mobility Fee and Timing and Phasing system County-wide 42

49 Overview - LRTP Adopts MPO Long Range Transportation Plan as Mobility Plan Roadway Improvements 43

50 Transit Routes Multi-Use Trail Facilities Pedestrian Facilities 44

51 Bicycle Facilities Fee Structure Tiered Mobility Fee Rates Lower Fees in Urban Market Area Higher in Suburban & Rural Market Areas Longer Trip Lengths, higher LOS standard = higher fees Market Areas Combined into Mobility Assessment Districts 45

52 Preferred Rates Office Industrial Lodging (Hotel) Traditional Neighborhood Development/Town Centers (TND) Transit Oriented Development (TOD) January 13, 2012 Rate Buy-Down Other transportation revenues will subsidize/buy-down mobility fee for preferred uses and locations Gas Tax Penny for Pasco (Sales Tax) 33.33% Tax Increment Required buy-down calculated yearly based on actual permits and revenues 46

53 Example Tax Increment Calculation Base Year Tax Roll Date 01/01/11 01/01/14 Fiscal Year FY 2012 FY 2015 Gross Countywide Taxable Valuation $ 20,200,000,000 $ 21,695,405,000 Deduct Community Redevelopment Areas $ (828,200,000) $ (889,511,605) Net Countywide Taxable Valuation $ 19,371,800,000 $ 20,805,893,395 Current Year minus FY 2012 (Base Year) $ 1,434,093, Multiply by millage rate Divide by $1,000 (taxable value) $ 1,000 Multiply by percentage available for transportation 33.33% Multiply by percentage collected (3% discount for paying early) 97.00% Tax Increment $ 2,951,928 Example Mobility Fee Subsidy Calculation FY 15 Number SF Revenues Revenues Difference Resid Non-Res with without (Mobility Fee Mobility Fee Permits Permits buy-down buy-down Subsidy) Collection/Benefit District 1 - West (MFCBD1) Assessment District A ,847 $ 690,194 $ 1,886,163 $ (1,195,969) Assessment District B 87 0 $ 730,848 $ 809,343 $ (78,495) Assessment District C 104 2,884 $ 1,218,007 $ 1,406,064 $ (188,057) ,731 $ 2,639,049 $ 4,101,570 $ (1,462,521) Gas Tax Revenues spent in Collection/Benefit District 1 - West $ - Sales Tax Revenues spent in Collection/Benefit District 1 - West $ - Total Tax Revenues spent in Collection/Benefit District 1 - West $ - Total Tax Revenues spent in Collection/Benefit District 1 - West $ - Deduct Mobility Fee Subsidy Needed $ (1,462,521) Required Transfer Needed from the Multi-Modal Fund to the MFCBD1 Fund $ (1,462,521) Maintains Established Expenditure Zones Retains and uses existing impact fee zones for expenditures Renamed collection/benefit districts Recognizes predominate travel characteristics (predominantly north-south; easier to satisfy benefit prong of dual rational nexus test) Adds flexibility in project selection 47

54 Municipalities Municipalities can participate; not required to participate CRA s excluded from tax increment district If participate, mobility fees and tax increment revenues collected in cities i will be earmarked for improvements benefiting cities Cities benefit from TND/Town Center rates in fee schedule Overview SIS Facilities Portion of fee earmarked for improvements that benefit Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) in Pasco County US 19 I-75 Suncoast Parkway Portions of US 41 and SR 54 Requires consultation with FDOT prior to budgeting SIS portion Can be used for regional transit 48

55 Administration Fee Covers costs of administering and implementing the mobility fee program $396 for residential permits; $198 for non- residential permits $198 for residential additions; $99 for non-residential additions Reductions and Increases Reductions in fees retroactive to building permits applied for or issued on or after March 1, 2011 If fees increasing, or otherwise adversely affected by mobility fees, 3-year period to opt-out and remain subject to transportation impact fees Key Assumptions Growth Rate 1.5% growth rate in person-miles of travel Consistent with most recent BEBR population projections 49

56 Level of Service (LOS) Implications More tolerance for congestion in South and West Market Areas; increased reliance on transit Commitment to expand transit operations with tax increment revenue en e Less tolerance for congestion in Central, East and North Market Areas Measure LOS area-wide instead of road by road Funding Assumptions Penny for Pasco renewal by 2014 Same % allocated for transportation 2.5 cents of existing gas tax used for capital; other 7.5 cents used for operation and maintenance 3% average annual growth rate in property values for tax increment (1.2 % year 1) No decrease in property millage rate Cost Assumptions Includes Interstate/SIS travel costs(20% of the fee) Transit capital cost (0.25% of the fee) Bicycle/pedestrian facilities (4% of the fee) Excludes Carrying costs Costs of regional transit facilities (i.e. Light Rail) 50

57 Updates to Ordinance At least every 3 years Re-examination of all assumptions Growth Rates Construction Costs Availability of Buy-down Revenue Sources Changes to LRTP Include Regional Transit? Mobility Fee (Acceptability) Only charged to new development; not a fee paid by existing residents Does not require any tax increase or assessment Fee buy-down uses earmarked existing revenue sources (gas tax, Penny for Pasco, and 33.33% ad valorem tax increment) HB 7207 Reinforcement Local governments encouraged to develop tools and techniques to complement the application of transportation concurrency Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired d development Urban areas, redevelopment, job creation, and mixed use Multi-modal solutions * See Section (5)(f), Florida Statutes 51

58 FEE COMPARISON TABLE (Non-residential fees are per 1,000 sf) Existing TIF Mobility Fee Urban (West/South) Mobility Fee Suburban (Central/East) Mobility Fee Rural (North) Single-Family ( s.f.) $10,302 $5,835 $8,570 $9,800 Apartments $7,564 $3,971 $5,845 $6,694 Light Industrial $3,151 $0 $1,000 $2,000 Office (50, ,000) $3,703 $0 $1,000 $2,000 Retail (50, ,000) $8,877 $5,641 $7,051 $8,813 Hotel $3,147 $0 $597 $1,192 Town Center/ TND Single-Family ( s.f.) FEE COMPARISON TABLE TND and TOD (Non-residential fees are per 1,000 sf) Existing TIF Mobility Fee Urban (West/South) Mobility Fee Mobility Fee Suburban Rural (North) (Central/East) $10,302 $1,459 $2,143 $2,450 Town Center/ $7,564 $993 $1,463 $1,970 TND Apartments Town Center/ TND Light Industrial $3,151 $0 $250 $500 Town Center/ $3,703 $0 $250 $500 TND Office(50, ,000) Town Center/ TND Retail(50, ,000) $8,877 $1,410 $1,763 $2,203 Town Center/ $3,147 $0 $149 $298 TND Hotel TOD All Uses N/A $0 N/A N/A Rural Area Fees Town Center Comparison Rural Movie Theater $21,454 per screen 168% of existing transportation impact fee Movie Theater in Town Center (Dade City, Pasadena Hills) $4,318 per screen 34% of existing transportation impact fee 52

59 Rural Area Fees Town Center Comparison Rural Supermarket $13,082 per 1,000 s.f. 160% of existing transportation impact fee Supermarket in Town Center (Dade City, Pasadena Hills) $2,611 per 1,000 s.f. 32% of existing transportation impact fee Where do you want to live? New Pasco County Menu Rural Suburban Town Center Urban/TOD 53

60 Thank You! For Further Information Visit: County Attorney - Proposed Ordinances and Adopted Resolutions Ordinances Fee Schedules Tindale-Oliver Technical Report Funding Presentations B R E A K 10 Minutes 54

61 Agenda 8:15 8:35 Sign In 8:35 8:40 Introduction & Welcome 8:40 8:55 Workshop 1 Highlights/Survey Results 8:55 9:25 Presentations on Concurrency Choice 9:25 9:55 Presentations on Proportionate Share 9:55 10:05 Q & A for Concurrency & Prop Share Presentations 10:05 10: Break 10:15 11:15 Presentations on Funding 11:15 11:40 Q & A for Funding Presentations 11:40 11:50 Break 11:50 12:0512:05 Rules of Engagement/Materials for Activity 12:05 1:501:50 Group Activity & Working Lunch 1:50 2:00 Break 2:00 2:40 Discussion of Group Results 2:40 2:45 Wrap Up / Final Q & A Rules of Engagement/Etiquette Discussion of the Toolkits in the Tool Box Elect a Note taker taker Elect a Time keeper Elect a Group Leader to provide Group Presentation Rules of Engagement/Etiquette Allow each participant to express an opinion without interruption Limit i the amount of time each participant ii has to express an opinion, if necessary Identify and agree on elements and concepts that are not in dispute. If a consensus can not be reached, try to compromise or take a vote 55

62 Explanation of Group Exercises 1. Group Activities Exercise 1: Proportionate Share Questions/Discussions Exercise 2: The $100M Allocation Challenge Exercise 3a: Funding Preference Capital Costs Exercise 3b:FundingPreference Operating & Maintenance Costs 2. Provide Group Responses for each exercise on the large sheets in the middle of your tables (Please make sure to indicate your table color on these large sheets) Exercise 1: Proportionate Share Handouts: Summary of Proportionate Share Calculation Report Questions to review, discuss, and answer Spend about 40 minutes reviewing the questions, jotting down individual responses Provide a group response on Exercise 1 Sheet (11x17) Exercise 2: Transportation by Design The $100M Challenge (30 minutes) Develop a hypothetical transportation improvements scenario (urban, sub urban, rural, and other) (describe assumptions, if any) Allocate the desired funds for each mode to support the scenario (Can t combine scenarios and dollars) Allocations must add to 100% 56

63 Exercise 3a: Funding Preference ~Capital Cost~ Exercise 3b: Funding Preference ~Operating & Maintenance~ Spend about 15 minutes on each part (3a & 3b) (total 30 min.) Discuss the funding options (refer to the Funding Sources Toolkit in Tool Box tab of folder) Each person provides individual preferences in their folders On large sheet, record votes for funding preferences and tally up group total points (votes) by funding source On large sheet, rank preferred funding sources from highest to lowest (be prepared to indicate top 3 preferences) Agenda 8:15 8:35 Sign In 8:35 8:40 Introduction & Welcome 8:40 8:45 Survey Results 8:45 9:05 Concurrency Choice 9:05 9:30 Proportionate Share 9:30 10:30 Funding 10:30 10:45 Q & A for Presentations 10:45 10:55 Break 10:55 11:10 Rules of Engagement/Materials for Activity 11:10 1:001:00 Group Activity & Working Lunch 1:00 1:05 Break 1:05 1:45 Discussion of Group Results 1:45 2:00 Wrap Up / Final Q & A Exercise 1: Prop Share Questions & Discussions Shouldbe done by: 57

64 Exercise 2: The $100M Challenge Should be done by: Exercises 3a and 3b: Funding Preferences (Capital and O&M) Shouldbe done by: B R E A K 10 minutes. {Please take opportunity to complete Feedback Surveys} 58

65 Agenda 8:15 8:35 Sign In 8:35 8:40 Introduction & Welcome 8:40 8:55 Workshop 1 Highlights/Survey Results 8:55 9:25 Presentations on Concurrency Choice 9:25 9:55 Presentations on Proportionate Share 9:55 10:05 Q & A for Concurrency & Prop Share Presentations 10:05 10:15 Break 10:15 11:15 Presentations on Funding 11:15 11:40 Q & A for Funding Presentations 11:40 11:50 Break 11:50 12:05 Rules of Engagement/Materials for Activity 12:05 1:50 Group Activity & Working Lunch 1:50 2:00 Break 2:00 2:402:40 Discussion of Group Results 2:40 2:45 Wrap Up / Final Q & A Discussion of Group Results Format for Group Presentations: Each presentation should be about 5 minutes Discuss key points and highlights New recommendations Please leave your group summaries/results at your tables for pick up Wrap Up/Final Q&A If you haven t already, please complete the Feedback and Tool Box Surveys 59

66 Thank you for coming We hope you found this workshop helpful and enjoyable. {Workshop results/summaries will be provided on the CFGIS website when they become available} 60

67 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series A Tool Box of Toolkits 1: Concurrency Toolkit 2: Community Planning Strategies Sample Process Toolkit 3: Public Involvement Toolkit 4: Economic Development Toolkit 5: Funding Sources Toolkit

68 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series: Concurrency Choice Toolkit Opt IN for local concurrency 1. Requirement to achieve and maintain adopted level of service standards 2. Consult with the Department of Transporta on when proposed plan amendments affect Strategic Intermodal System facili- es 3. Comp Plan needs to be amended to adopt principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies to guide its applica on 4.a. Methodology needs to be in place to allow the use of propor- onate share in applica ons for development orders, rezonings, and other permits (e.g. can not deny applica on because of deficient roadway capacity) 4.b. Must use the new propor onate share formula which does not count deficient roadways and transit facili es 5. No immediate ac on (amendments to Comp Plan or Land Development Code) needed un l the me of the next Evalua on and Appraisal Process (EAP) Opt OUT of local concurrency 1. Develop and adopt a Vision Plan: greater community buy-in when it comes me to make tough decisions (e.g. approval/denial of development that is inconsistent with Vision Plan, etc.) Iden fica on of desired land uses, targeted growth areas, and protec on/preserva on areas Iden fica on of mul -use corridors Development of comprehensive funding strategy for both capital and opera onal costs Infrastructure improvements are comprehensive, with increased opportuni es for greater mode choice/use Growth is community driven Greater economic development and increased jobs to housing ra o 2. Develop and adopt a Master Plan that addresses, among other things, the desired mul modal transporta on system, a comprehensive funding strategy, and a priori za on strategy for achieving the Master Plan 3. Develop and adopt an Implementa on Campaign that guides the needed changes to the Comp Plan, Land Development Regula ons, Codes/Ordinances, and Funding mechanism Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 6

69 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series: Sample Process Toolkit PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III Plan Development Vision Plan Master Plan Adop on & Implementa on INPUT COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT OWNERSHIP Public Involvement Process Form Technical Commi ee & Steering Commi ee Stakeholder interviews Establish goal of each commi ee Gather community input/ideas Neighborhood Outreach Mee ngs Open Houses Geographic workshops Charre es Consensus Building Workshops Virtual Townhalls Surveys Other techniques Build consensus: Geographic workshops Charre es Consensus Building Workshops Branding Other techniques Further refinement of: Vision Objec ves Alterna ves for achieving objec ves Revenue resources Build consensus: Consensus Building Workshops Transporta on Summit Retreat Other techniques Benefits: Quality Par cipa on Community Buy In The Public s Plan Poli cal Acceptability Outcomes and Answers to Ques ons How and where do we want growth to occur? How do we integrate land use, mul modal transporta on, and goods movement to op mize economic benefit and opportunity? How do we want our main streets and corridors to look, func on and connect? How do we mi gate for or reduce poten al hazards and green house gas emissions? Does our vision contribute towards a seamless regional transporta on system? What types of alterna ve modes will our mul modal transporta on system have? How much will our mul modal transporta on system cost? Are our land use plan and mul modal transporta on system suppor ve/ complementary of each other? What is our funding strategy to fund the plan? What are the priority improvements by mode of travel? What land use and growth management policies are needed to implement the plan? What regula ons do we need to implement the plan? What fiscal strategies must be adopted to successfully implement the plan? What agencies are responsible for these ac ons? What is the follow-up process and schedule to ensure ac ons are achieved? Ac on/decision Approve Community Vision Plan Steering Commi ee Review and Approval Technical Commi ee Review and Approval Elected Officials Review and/or Approval Approve Master Plan Steering Commi ee Review and Approval Technical Commi ee Review and Approval Elected Officials Review and/or Approval 1. Adopt Master Plan & Implementa- on Schedule 2. Ini ate Campaign to Implement Master Plan Steering Commi ee Approval Technical Commi ee Approval Elected Officials Approval Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 7

70 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series: Public Involvement Toolkit ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION & VARIATIONS DESCRIPTION OF WORK PROs and CONs Discussion Groups Stakeholder Interviews Presenta ons Surveys Workshops Open Houses Charre es Telephone Mee ngs Social Networking Sites Contests Virtual Townhalls Discussion groups involve facilitated discussion with selected individuals. Individuals are typically invited as representa ves of certain groups such as the transporta on disadvantaged, the elderly, large employers, social service providers, etc. Stakeholder interviews involve scripted interviews with select individuals. Select interviewees. Presenta ons are o en made to subcommi ees of the MPO or other boards. Survey types can include drop-off surveys, in-person surveys, electronic surveys, and telephone surveys, etc. Workshops are conducted by facilitators who lead a endees through ac vi es to gather input. The event can be by invita- on only or open to the general public. Open houses provide the opportunity for the general public to learn about a topic at their convenience. Boards and displays are generally used to convey informa on. Charre es are intensive work sessions focused on a specific issue or goal, designed to receive in-depth feedback from a endees. Par cipants primarily listen during telephone presenta ons. Social networking sites provide an electronic venue for public involvement. Sites include Facebook, MySpace, and Twi er. Develop a contest to elicit par cipa on from target popula on. Contests can include producing poetry, essays, videos, commercials, etc. Virtual townhall mee ngs are similar to a Live Radio Show are informal, interac ve forums to engage a large, diverse audience and provide opportuni es for listeners to share feedback. Send invita ons via or regular mail. Track RSVPs. Develop materials such as map boards and displays necessary to facilitate discussion. Iden fy loca on for groups to meet. Develop a script and conduct the interviews via telephone or in person. Provide a wri en summary of each interviewees interview. Develop a presenta on. Presenta on should provide an overview of the process, iden fied goals, objec ves, tasks, projects, and financial plan. Prepare the survey instrument, train surveyor staff appropriate to the par cular type of survey, record the data collected, and analyze the data. Adver se the workshop and obtain facilitators. Develop the program and all material necessary for the workshop. Materials can include display boards, handouts, and survey results. Adver se the event and provide staff to provide informa on and answer ques ons. In concert with the client, TOA will develop all materials necessary for the event. Adver se the event and obtain facilitators. Develop the program and all material necessary for the event. Materials can include display boards, handouts, and surveys. Adver se, setup, and conduct the event. Develop content based on community goals, vision, objec ve, task or project. Setup a social networking site. Adver se and manage the contest. Determine the type of contest, establish rules, and obtain prizes. Adver se the event; invite guest speakers and moderator and screeners; develop discussion ques ons/topics; develop polling ques ons. One posi ve aspect => Guaranteed feedback. However, discussion groups are generally not open to the public and involve an intensive invita on process. Discussion groups should be limited to 6 to 12 par cipants in order to really achieve effec ve input from the group. One posi ve aspect => Guaranteed feedback. However, stakeholder interviews are not open to the general public and are o en me consuming to conduct. Presenta ons provide opportuni es for public input from interested and involved ci zens. Surveys are beneficial because they provide quan fiable feedback. The variety of surveying types provides flexibility depending on the type of informa on desired. However, surveys can require large me commitments from respondents and intensive preparatory work before administering. Also, mul -lingual surveys may be needed depending upon the demographics of the target group. Posi ve aspects of workshops include the fact that a endees know what to expect, and they gather in-depth feedback. However, workshops require intensive preparatory work and an appropriate loca on. Benefits of open houses include a low level of required prepara on, flexible scheduling for a endees, and an array of possible loca ons. However, a endees o en expect a presenta on at the open house, and documen ng public input is usually difficult. Though charre es provide a large amount of in-depth feedback, they also require large me commitments from a endees and intensive preparatory work. Telephone interviews are beneficial because they take the mee ng to the people and elicit a high par cipa on rate. However, technical issues can o en be a problem, and the format is designed to be informa ve rather than to gather informa on. Poten al disadvantage is that it does reach a representa ve group because not all ci zens have phones. Social networking sites allow for great flexibility and taking informa on and the discussion to the people. However, some a endees may not be familiar with social networking mechanisms. Poten al disadvantage - some of popula on may not have internet access. Contests can be a way to excite the general public. Disadvantage is there is a low par cipa on rate. Virtual townhalls are affordable in terms of cost per person reached ( greatest bang for the buck ). Provide opportuni es for personal interac on and immediate results/ feedback with large, diverse popula on; and easy to use but requires the audience to have a phone and internet access. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 8

71 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series: Economic Development Incen ves Toolkit Objec ves Concepts and Strategies Comments Flexibility Mul modal Crea ng flexibility within the Comp Plan, Land Development Regula ons, and budge ng process to allow the spending of mobility fees across all travel modes based on Community vision Objec ves Concepts and Strategies Comments Use Pay and Go Develop Comp Plan policies/criteria that clearly establish the type of land uses that would be allowed to pay-and-go (including design, loca on, scale, appearance, ming, and character of the development). Allow pay-and-go as a ming and loca on incen ve in targeted mobility areas, ac vity centers, and mixed use/transit corridors Incen ves to Encourage Desired Growth By Areas: Redevelopment Infill Development Special Districts (e.g. Enterprise Zones, TODs, TNDs, etc.) Centers/Subareas Corridors Rate of growth The rate of growth impacts the ability of exis ng revenues to absorb impacts created by new development. In mes of high growth rates, revenues from exis ng development are not able to keep pace with the demands of new development and addi onal revenues are necessary. In mes of lower growth rates, service standards can be maintained through exis ng revenues without fully implemen ng fees or raising taxes on exis ng development. Targe ng mobility fee buy-down/discount by geographic area (e.g. a ered buy-down/discoun ng systems/ approach) Traffic Impact Analysis/Development Review Linking Funding to Improvements Develop Comp Plan policies that clearly define or designate those land uses (including form, type and loca on of development) that would be required to undergo a rigorous transporta on concurrency traffic impact study in order to obtain development approval in geographic areas that have been designated as neighborhood or other protec on areas. Establish Plan policies which provide assurance that the Community s funding goals are based upon and consistent and predictable revenue resources to fund both capital projects and opera ng costs for the mul modal transporta- on system. Requiring specific jobs to housing ra os in targeted areas as a requirement to get full mobility buy-down/ discount. Must be accompanied by enabling Comp Plan policies that ensure the balanced development of compa ble and complementary residen al and non-residen al land uses consistent with the concept benefits in the next column. Targe ng mobility fee buy-down/discount along mul modal corridors Incen ves By Types of Land Use Transit-Oriented Development Tradi onal Neighborhood Development Mixed Use Districts Complementary Individual Uses Targe ng mobility fee buy-down/discount by most favored or targeted land uses Establishing vehicle miles of travel demand reduc on factors for transitoriented developments and mixed use development land uses Establishing vehicle miles of travel (VMT) demand reduc- on factors for transit oriented developments and mixed use developments located around transit sta on loca- ons or other targeted geographic areas and ac vity centers Requiring enhanced transit service and pedestrian/ bicyclist access to transit routes and services in targeted geographic areas and corridors as a requirement to get full mobility fee buy down/discount NOTES: This toolkit contains some sample strategies that have been developed. Each community should determine which, if any, of the strategies contained herein could apply to their community. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 9

72 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series: Funding Sources Toolkit LOCALLY AVAILABLE REVENUE SOURCES FROM TAXES # 1 Tax Source Coverage/Use Area Descrip on and Varia ons Legisla on Needed to Enact Source Mode Type Alloca on Type Comments 1st Local Op on Fuel Tax (s (1) (a), FS) X X Project Road Transit Bike County governments are authorized to levy a tax of 1 to 6 cents upon every net gallon of motor fuel (including diesel) sold within the county. County and municipal governments may use the tax proceeds for transporta on expenditures including capital, opera ons, and maintenance of public transporta on and roadways. All coun es are authorized to levy this tax. It may be authorized by an ordinance adopted by a majority vote of the governing body or voter approval in a countywide referendum. Countywide Subarea Sidewalk Capital Opera ng X X X X X This revenue source is very common and widely accepted throughout Florida. All coun es collect the 1st LOFT at some level. There is great flexibility in the ways that proceeds can be spent, though they must be transporta on related. As fuel sales decrease due to price increases, revenue levels from the 1st LOFT decrease. 2 2nd Local Op on Fuel Tax (s (1) (b), FS) X X County governments are authorized to levy a tax of 1 to 5 cents upon every net gallon of motor fuel (non diesel) sold within the county. May be used for transporta on expenditures needed to meet requirements of Capital Improvements Element, expenditures needed to meet immediate local transporta on problems, and other transporta on related cri cal for building a comprehensive roadway network. All coun es are authorized to levy this tax. It shall be levied by an ordinance adopted by a majority plus one vote of the membership of the governing body or voter approval in a countywide referendum X X X X X The 2nd LOFT has stricter expenditure guidelines than the 1st LOFT. New road construc on, reconstruc on or resurfacing of exis ng paved roads, and the paving of exis ng graded roads are eligible improvements, but rou ne maintenance expenditures are not eligible. This revenue source is fairly common and has been adopted by more than 1/3 of the coun es in Florida. 3 Ninth Cent Fuel Tax (s , FS) X X Any county in the state may levy a tax of 1 cent on every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county for transporta on expenditures as defined in s (7), FS. May be used in unincorporated and incorporated areas subject to joint agreement with municipali es. All coun es are authorized to levy this tax by ordinance adopted by extraordinary vote of the membership of its governing body or voter approval in a countywide referendum. X X X X X For this tax and the 1 st and 2 nd LOFT, revenues may also be used for construc on/reconstruc on of roads and sidewalks. Local governments with a popula on of less than 50,000 may also use this tax to fund capital infrastructure projects which are consistent with the local comprehensive plan. 4 Charter County and Regional Transporta on System Surtax (s (1), FS) X Eligible governments: County that has adopted a charter, County that is consolidated with that of one or more municipali es, and County that is within or under an interlocal agreement with a regional transporta on or transit authority. Tax must be collected when the transac on occurs in, or delivery is into, a county that imposes the surtax. County may levy a tax rate at up to 1%. The levy is subject to approval by a majority vote of the county's electorate or by a charter amendment approved by a majority vote of the county's electorate. X X (25%) (75%) X X Proceeds are generally for the development, construc on, opera on, and maintenance of fixedguideway rapid transit systems, bus systems, ondemand transporta on services, and roads and bridges. This tax is not subject to the combined tax cap rates of certain other local discre onary sales surtaxes. 5 Infrastructure Sales Tax (s (2), FS) X X Tax may be levied at a rate of 0.5 to 1.0 percent. Proceeds may be expended to finance, plan and construct infrastructure (including any fixed capital expenditure with a lifeexpectancy of at least 5 years. Local governments can levy this tax by ordinance enacted by a majority vote of the governing body and approved by voters in a countywide referendum. X X X X X Proceeds may be used to offset infrastructure costs so that more general revenue can be allocated to transporta on needs. 6 Ad Valorem Tax (Florida Cons tu on) X X Ad valorem tax is based on property value at the locally established millage rate per $1000 of taxable value (cannot exceed cap established by law). This tax generally does not have any restric ons on funding mobility improvements and can be used for both opera ng and capital expenses. Local government has authority to dedicate a por on of the general fund taxes to be set aside for mobility improvements. Florida s Cons tu on authorizes coun es, municipali es, and school districts to levy ad valorem taxes. At its discre on, the Legislature may authorize special districts to levy ad valorem taxes. Millage rates are fixed only by ordinance or resolu on of the taxing authority s governing body in the manner specifically provided by general law or special law. Millage rates vary among local governments subject to cons tu onal and poli cal limita ons X X X X X X This revenue source is very common and widely accepted throughout Florida. Addi onally, there is great flexibility in the ways that proceeds can be spent. However, revenues fluctuate as property values increase or decrease, which can make projec ng poten al revenue levels difficult. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 10 1

73 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series: Funding Sources Toolkit # 7 Tax Source Coverage/Use Area Descrip on and Varia ons Legisla on Needed to Enact Source Mode Type Alloca on Type Comments Municipal Services Taxing Unit (s (1) (q), FS) Countywide Subarea X X Project Road Transit Bike Sidewalk Capital Opera ng Coun es providing municipal services may create MSTUs to levy ad valorem taxes to fund certain municipal services within a defined geographical area. If ad valorem taxes are levied to provide these municipal services, Coun es are authorized to levy up to ten mills. General law implements the cons tu onal provision authorizing a county furnishing municipal services to levy addi onal taxes within the limits for municipal purposes via the establishment of municipal taxing or benefit units. MSTUs allow County to levy ad valorem taxes within geographical area in order to fund par cular municipaltype services. X X X X X X Revenues generated within the MSTU must be spent within the MSTU and cannot be transferred or spent in other areas outside of the MSTU. 8 Public Service Tax X X In order to generate general revenue, municipali es and charter coun es are authorized to levy a public service tax on the purchase of electricity, metered natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, manufactured gas, and water service. Municipali es and charter coun es are authorized to levy this public service tax by ordinance. X X X X X X Numerous rulings in case law allow a Charter County to levy the tax in unincorporated areas. Tax proceeds can be considered general revenue for the Charter County. Only municipali es and charter coun es can levy a public service tax. Charter coun es are authorized to levy the tax within the unincorporated area. 9 CRA Tax Increment Financing (TIF) X X TIF is a tool authorized by the Community Redevelopment Act to finance redevelopment ac vi es within a targeted area. Base property value is determined as of a fixed date and will con nue to remain available for general government purposes. The TIF revenue is the ad valorem revenues generated by the property above the base property value (the increment) due to increases in property values resul ng from improvements within the defined target area. TIF revenues can be used immediately, saved for a par cular project, or bonded, but must be used for specific redevelopment purposes within the CRA (not for general government purposes). In most cases, the authority to use TIF is delegated to municipal governments by state enabling legisla on. Usually, real estate taxes are the sole source of TIF revenues; however, the State of Florida exempts the taxes that would go to school districts. In Florida, the approval of a TIF does not require any form of public vote. X X X X X X TIF funds may be expended in the redevelopment area on mul ple items, including administra ve and overhead expenses necessary or incidental to the implementa on of a community redevelopment plan adopted by the agency, expenses of redevelopment planning, surveys, and financial analysis, the acquisi on of real property in the redevelopment area, the development of affordable housing within the area, and the development of community policing innova ons. 10 Transporta on Development Authority X X The TDA must develop, adopt, and implement a plan to eliminate all deficiencies within its jurisdic on using funds from the local transporta on trust fund created by the Authority. The local trust fund shall be funded by proceeds from an ad valorem tax increment collected within the deficient area annually. Sec on , FS, authorizes Coun es and Ci es to create a Transporta on Development Authority if they have iden fied transporta on deficiencies. X X Upon comple on of all transporta on projects iden fied in the plan and repayment or defeasance of all debt issued to finance or refinance such projects, the TDA shall be dissolved and its assets and liabili es transferred to the County/Municipality within which it is located. Any remaining assets must be used for implementa on of transporta on 11 County-wide TIF (Florida Cons tu on and s , X X Communi es may accept a self imposed tax increment on a county wide basis or sub area basis to fund the capital and opera ng needs of the mul modal transporta on system. The authority for the tax increment financing comes from the Florida Cons tu on and local government home rule power. See Example of Pasco County TIF Ordinance X X X X X X This funding source can be used as an economic development incen ve tool to buy down and pay for impact fees, mobility fees, and other land development costs. Funding source may also be bonded. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 10 2

74 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series: Funding Sources Toolkit OTHER REVENUE RESOURCES # Other Sources Coverage/Use Area Descrip on and Varia ons Legisla on Needed to Enact Source Mode Type Alloca on Type Comments 12 Special Districts X Project Road Transit Bike Special districts provide specialized governmental services and have very specific, limited powers. They can generate revenues through ad valorem and non-ad valorem assessments as well as user fees, tax increment financing, federal government, grants, municipali es and coun es, and tolls. Special district means a local unit of special purpose, as opposed to general purpose, government within a limited boundary, created by general law, special act, local ordinance, or by rule of the Governor and Cabinet. Countywide Subarea Sidewalk Capital Opera ng X X X X X X Special District s provide highly specialized governmental services, o en in response to ci zen demand, that a municipality or county is unable or unwilling to provide. They protect property values by assuring property owners that their roads, water and sewer lines, and other essen al facili es and services will con nue to be maintained. 13 Community Development District X X CDDs are independent special purpose units of government established to finance basic services within a development, including infrastructure construc on, services, and maintenance. Landowners pay a non ad valorem special assessment for the cost, opera on, and maintenance of facili es within the CDD, and the special assessment appears on the landowner s annual tax bill. Establishment of a CDD requires wri en consent of 100 percent of landowners. CDDs are typically formed early in the development process or as part of a development agreement for large planned communi es as a means of establishing long term financing of infrastructure provided by the developer. X X X X X X A CDD provides landowners with consistently high levels of public facili es and services managed and financed through self imposed fees and assessments. The district will own, operate, and maintain the Community Club. CDDs also have the power to collect fees, levy lienable assessments or ad valorem taxes against proper es within the project for repayment. 14 Proprietary Fees X X Proprietary fees are home rule revenue sources based on the asser on that local governments have the exclusive legal right to impose such fees (e.g. admission fees, franchise fees, user fees, and u lity fees). Fees imposed must be reasonable in rela on to the government provided privilege or service of the fee payer. Each proprietary fee imposed under a local government s home rule powers should be considered in context with rules applicable to its validity that are set forth in case law. Local governments may exercise their home rule authority to impose a franchise fee upon a u lity for the grant of a franchise and the privilege of using local government s right of way to conduct the u lity business. X X X X X X Franchise fees have been li gated against in certain Florida communi es, while others (including Hillsborough County) successfully levy franchise fees. 15 Mobility Fee X X X A mobility fee is based on the concept that new development should be assessed a one me fee propor onate to their consump on of the mul modal transporta on system and allows the expenditure of revenues on transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facili es. As a type of regulatory fee, mobility fees are charges imposed by local governments against new development for capital facili es costs made necessary by popula on growth. A mobility fee imposed by a local government must meet the dual ra onal nexus test in order to withstand legal challenge. X X X X X Similar to impact fees, but with more flexibility in spending (all travel modes, as opposed to just roads). This is a rela vely new concept with several different available methods for fee calcula on. However, mobility fee revenues can only be used to fund capital expansion projects, not opera ng costs. 16 Road Impact Fee (Fiscal Impact Fee Act) X X X Similar to mobility fee, the road impact fee is a one me charge to the new development based on its impact on the roadway capacity. Road impact fee revenues can be used for roadway capacity expansion projects. An impact fee must meet the dual ra onal nexus test. Sec on of Florida Statutes addresses the legal requirements to implement an impact fee, which involve the use of local data, limi ng administra ve expenses to actual costs, and placing the burden of proof to local governments. X X X X Impact fees have been used as one of the funding tools since the 1980s. They are responsive to growth levels in that revenues are available when there is growth, and an associated need for addi onal infrastructure. Similarly, when the growth rate is slow, there is not as much need for addi onal infrastructure and the impact fee revenues are more limited. Bike lanes, sidewalks, etc., can be built as part of the new roadway construc on only. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 10 3

75 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series: Funding Sources Toolkit # Other Sources Coverage/Use Area Descrip on and Varia ons Legisla on Needed to Enact Source Mode Type Alloca on Type Comments Project Road Transit Bike Countywide Subarea Sidewalk Capital Opera ng 17 Special Assessment District (s (1)(r), FS) X X This is a type of dependent special district authorized to levy non ad valorem assessments on proper es within a specific SAD area (cannot be spent outside of the SAD). It must include both incorporated and unincorporated land. Special assessment district funds are typically generated by non ad valorem taxes; however, they may impose ad valorem taxes. If so, the taxes must be approved by voter approval. Same as Special District X X X X X S (1), FS, authorizes local governments to levy special assessments to provide for the maintenance and opera on of streets and sidewalks, among other public facili es. As established by Florida case law, two requirements exist for the imposi on of a valid special assessment: 1) Assessed property must derive a special benefit from the improvement, and 2) Assessment must be fairly and reasonably appor oned among the proper es that receive the benefit. 18 Municipal Services Benefit Unit (s (1)(q), FS) X X MSBUs may be created by County ordinance to raise revenues that would provide specific services through non ad valorem assessments (MSBUs) for a defined geographical area. MSBUs must provide special benefit to the assessed property and the method for appor oning the assessed costs must be reasonable and reflec ve of demand by and benefit to the property. The dis nc on between an MSTU vs. an MSBU is the mechanism used to generate revenue. MSTU uses taxes; MSBU uses service charges or special assessments. General law implements the cons tu onal provision authorizing a county furnishing municipal services to levy addi onal taxes within the limits for municipal purposes via the establishment of municipal benefit units. X X X X X X Revenues generated within the MSBU must be spent within the MSBU and cannot be transferred or spent in other areas outside of the MSBU. MSBU funds are generated by non ad valorem assessments and must prove special benefit of the service for which they are being charged. 19 Public Private Partnership (PPP) X X Government services or private business venture which is funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies. PPP involves a contract between one or more public sector en es and at least one private party, in which the private party provides a public service or public project and assumes substan al financial, technical and opera onal risk in consul ng and/ or opera ons of the project. Generally, this method is enacted through locally approved agreements, unless there is federal and state funding involved. X X X X X X In some types of PPP, the cost of using the service is borne exclusively by the users of the service and not by the taxpayer. In other types (notably the private finance ini a ve), capital investment is made by the private sector on the strength of a contract with government to provide agreed services and the cost of providing the service is borne wholly or in part by the public agency or agencies. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 10 4

76 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2 (For use with Exercise 1) Florida Department of Transporta on Propor onate Share Calcula on Report December 15, 2011 Summary of Findings Finding # 1: Changes made to the calcula on of propor onate share may con nue to create inequi es and increase conges on on roadways. Two issues: Propor onate share only needs to be sufficient to accomplish one or more mobility improvements benefi ng a regionally significant transporta on facility. Concern is that even if improvements will be made to the deficient roadway or facility, the contribu on or construc on is not required to be sufficient to ensure adopted LOS is achieved and maintained. The costs of correc ng exis ng deficiencies are removed from the calcula on. This creates the issue of only the first development having to make a propor onate share contribu on. Finding # 2: Some revisions to the state law may be warranted to address technical issues associated with implemen ng the changes to the calcula on of propor onate share contribu ons. Technical issues are rela ve to: applica on of the propor onate share calcula ons to non-dri developments, ming of needed improvements, and calcula on of impact fee credits. Finding # 3: Statutory guidance for use of mobility fees as an alterna ve to transporta on concurrency may be needed. Though many communi es have opted for this mobility fee alterna ve, many expressed concerns that mobility fees are complex and require me and resources to design, plan, and implement. As more local governments adopt mobility fees, there is some concern that this may create uncertainty and unpredictability for the development community if widely varying approaches are implemented. Summary of Recommenda ons Overall, the recommenda on is that the Legislature should defer making substan ve changes to the Act un l developers and local governments have had more me to operate under the revised statutory provisions. The Report provides several op ons to address the findings as well as their advantages and disadvantages of implementa on. To very generally summarize: Recommenda ons for Finding # 1 include iden fying propor onate share as one available op on, clarifying that the prop share contribu on can support one or more improvements, and revising the calcula on to reflect the trips from the development under review. Recommenda ons for Finding # 2 include defining significantly impacted into law or allowing it to be locally defined and revising the law to add impacted or planned local or regionally significant facility. Op ons for the technical issues include allowing prop share to be a credit against impact fees or allow paid or payable in the future impact fees as a credit against DRI exac- ons. Amend law to specify that credit will be provided when the impact fee is use or delete language condi oning the credit to contribu ons mee ng the same need. No recommenda on was provided for Finding # 3 except that if the Legislature opts to create a statutory framework for mobility fees, the 2009 Joint Report on the Mobility Fee Methodology Study can be used as guidance. NOTE: The Propor onate Share Calcula on Report can be accessed at this link: h p:// Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 11

77 Workshop # 2 Exercise 1: Propor onate Share Ques ons and Discussions Purpose: To get a be er understanding of the desires and concerns of District Five s local governments rela ve to the new propor onate share requirements. Instruc ons: Spend about 30 minutes reviewing and discussing the ques ons, wri ng individual responses in your folders, and then spend the last 10 minutes providing a group response on the 11x17 sheet provided. Discussion Ques ons: FDOT D5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 1. Under the current legisla on, local governments cannot charge propor onate share for deficient roadways. Please describe your ideas of how deficiencies could be addressed and funded through the local government. Comprehensive Plan: Land Development Regula ons: Funding Strategies: Other Comments: 2. Florida Statutes indicate that the propor onate share formula shall be applied to only those facili es that are determined to be significantly impacted by the project traffic under review (s (5)(h)3.c(II)B., FS). A) How can the District be er coordinate with the county and local governments in the county to define significant impact for non DRI developments? B) Should the defini on of significant impact for non DRI developments be uniform throughout the County or State? C) What funding role can the District provide in addressing deficiencies on state facili es? Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 12 1

78 Workshop # 2 3. Should the use of propor onate share be eliminated or modified? Eliminated (go to Ques on 4) Modified (skip to Ques on 5) 4. If propor onate share is eliminated, what process or methodology, if any, should take its place and how should funding of deficient roadways be addressed? 5. If propor onate share is modified, A) What modifica ons should be made to the methodology, formula and funding of deficient roadways? B) Should local governments be able to deny or delay development if it creates a new roadway capacity deficiency? Yes No C) Should local governments be able to deny or delay development if it impacts an exis ng deficient roadway? Yes No Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 12 2

79 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2 Exercise 2: $100M Challenge Instruc ons 1. Develop a hypothe cal transporta on improvements scenario represen ng an Urban, Suburban, Rural or Other community se ng. Examples of Other scenario could be: ITS/ATMS (Intelligent Transporta on System/Advanced Traffic Management System) Intersec on Improvements Safety Enhanced transit service 2. Allocate the desired funds for each transporta on mode needed to support your scenario. 3. Alloca ons for each scenario must total 100% (same as total dollars per scenario must add up to $100M). Scenarios and their dollar alloca ons can not be combined. 4. Do this for each scenario that your group develops. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 13

80 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Exercise 2: Transporta on by Design The $100M Alloca on Challenge Table Tradi onal Road Capacity Projects Tradi onal Truck Projects (Road Capacity for Goods and Services) Mul modal Corridor Projects (Complete Streets, Context Sensi ve Solu ons/designs, etc.) Standalone Enhanced/Premium Transit Projects Standalone Sidewalk/Bike Projects Transit Mall Bike Auto Transit Pedestrian Park N Ride Facility Circle one scenario: Urban Suburban Rural Other Assump ons: Circle one scenario: Urban Suburban Rural Other Assump ons: Circle one scenario: Urban Suburban Rural Other Assump ons: Circle one scenario: Urban Suburban Rural Other Assump ons: Please list any other comments or assump ons as necessary: Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 14

81 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2 Exercise 3a and 3b: Funding Preferences Instruc ons 1. Each person at the table should indicate their own preferences on the form provided in the Workshop Folder. 2. Not all funding sources needs to be used or selected. 3. Record the individual votes for each selected funding source in order to determine the number of votes by preference mul plier. 4. To calculate Group Total, mul ply the number of votes for each revenue source by the preference mul plier and sum the total votes for each row. 4. To get Group Rank, rate the funding sources by most preferred to least preferred. 5. Confirm that your group agrees with the results of the Group Rankings. Report the top three preferred funding sources during the Group Discussion. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 15

82 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2 Exercise # 3a: Funds for Capital Improvements (Please refer to the Instruc ons, Example, and Funding Sources Toolkit) Table Sources from Least Preferred (Preference Multiplier from 0 to 3) Most Preferred Group Total Group Rank Taxes st Local Op on Fuel Tax {1} nd Local Op on Fuel Tax {2} 9th Cent Fuel Tax {3} Charter County & Regional Transporta on System Surtax {4} Infrastructure Sales Tax {5} Ad Valorem {6} Municipal Services Taxing Unit {7} Public Service Tax {8} Community Redevelopment Tax Increment (TIF) {9} County wide TIF {11} Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Other Sources Special Districts {12} Mobility Fees {15} Road Impact Fees {16} Municipal Services Benefit Unit {17} Public/Private Partnership {18} Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 16

83 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2 Exercise # 3a: Funds for Capital Improvements (Please refer to the Instruc ons, Example, and Funding Sources Toolkit) Table Sources from Least Preferred (Preference Multiplier from 0 to 3) Most Preferred Group Total Group Rank Taxes st Local Op on Fuel Tax {1} 2nd Local Op on Fuel Tax {2} 9th Cent Fuel Tax {3} Charter County & Regional Transporta on System Surtax {4} Infrastructure Sales Tax {5} Ad Valorem {6} Municipal Services Taxing Unit {7} Public Service Tax {8} Community Redevelopment Tax Increment (TIF) {9} County wide TIF {11} Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Other Sources Special Districts {12} Mobility Fees {15} Road Impact Fees {16} Municipal Services Benefit Unit {17} Public/Private Partnership {18} Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 17 1

84 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2 Exercise # 3b: Funds for Opera on & Maintenance (Please refer to the Instruc ons, Example, and Funding Sources Toolkit) Table Least Preferred (Preference Multiplier from 0 to 3) Most Preferred Sources from Taxes Group Total Group Rank 1st Local Op on Fuel Tax {1} 2nd Local Op on Fuel Tax {2} 9th Cent Fuel Tax {3} Ad Valorem {6} Municipal Services Taxing Unit {7} Public Service Tax {8} Community Redevelopment Tax Increment (TIF) {9} County wide TIF {11} Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Other Sources Special Districts {12} Municipal Services Benefit Unit {17} Public/Private Partnership {18} Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Other (Please specify) Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 17 2

85 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Glossary of Acronyms ATMS: Advanced Traffic Management System CCRTSS: Charter County and Regional Transporta on System Surtax CDD: Community Development District CRA: Community Redevelopment Area DRI: Development of Regional Impact Q/LOS: Quality Level of Service RSAC: Revenue Study Advisory Commi ee TIF: Tax Increment Financing TOD: Transit Oriented Development TPO: Transporta on Planning Organiza on TND: Tradi onal Neighborhood Design VMT: Vehicles Mile Traveled EAP: Evalua on and Appraisal Process ERU: Equivalent Residen al Unit FS: Florida Statutes HB: House Bill ITS: Intelligent Transporta on Systen LDR: Land Development Regula ons LOFT: Local Op on Fuel Tax LOGT: Local Op on Gas Tax LOS: Level of service LOSS: Level of service standard MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organiza on MPOAC: Metropolitan Planning Organiza on Advisory Council Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 18

86 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2: Ocala Marion TPO & Lake Sumter MPO Presenter Biographies Harold W. Barley, Execu ve Director MetroPlan Orlando Harold ( Harry ) Barley is the Execu ve Director of MetroPlan Orlando. This organiza on is responsible under federal and state laws for transporta on planning in Orange, Seminole and Osceola Coun es. Harry s worked in the transporta on industry for 35 years. Most of his experience was earned with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority building the Metro system in the Washington, D.C. area. He s also worked on regional transporta on projects in the Republic of China and Athens, Greece. He earned his Bachelor s degree from the State University of New York and did his graduate work in City and Regional Planning at the Catholic University of America. He also is a graduate of the Management Program at the Crummer Graduate School of Business at Rollins College. Harry belongs to a number of professional organiza ons and is ac ve with a variety of civic groups. He currently serves as a Governor s appointee on the Wekiva River Basin Commission. This Commission is charged with comple ng the beltway around the Orlando metropolitan area while protec ng sensi ve environmental assets and implemen ng progressive growth management prac ces. Harry and his wife Leslie have two children. Sue Farnsworth, Planner Sumter County Planning and Development Department Sue Farnsworth is the Planner for Sumter County, Florida. Ms. Farnsworth is responsible for implemen ng comprehensive and community planning ini a ves for Sumter County and the ci es of Webster and Center Hill. Sumter County has adopted an innova ve and highly coordinated planning paradigm that implements a unified community vision and an efficient planning process that serves mul ple local governments. Prior to joining Sumter County, she was the Environmental Planner for Citrus County, where she was responsible for developing and implemen ng environmental planning policies. T.J. Fish, Execu ve Director Lake Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organiza on The first execu ve director of the Lake~Sumter Metropolitan Planning Organiza on (MPO), T.J. heads a federallyfunded regional transporta on planning agency covering all public modes of moving people and goods. An urban Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 19 1

87 Workshop # 2 Presenter Biographies and regional planner cer fied by the American Ins tute of Cer fied Planners (AICP), his current du es include the coordina on of regional transporta on planning for two coun es and 19 municipali es in the Lake Sumter region. Prior to the MPO, he provided planning services to five Lake County municipali es as a consultant and as staff. Born in Johnson City, TN, he completed undergraduate and graduate work at East Tennessee State University, where he earned a Master of Public Management degree as well as a Bachelor of Science degree in Mass Communica ons. He gained governmental experience in roles including previous MPO work for two Tennessee coun es, planning for eight small and mid sized ci es in both eastern and western Tennessee and as economic development director for Mar n, TN. Previous economic development experience also includes serving as staff and as a board member to mul ple chambers of commerce. Heather Garcia, Public Involvement Manager Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Heather Garcia graduated from Florida Southern College in Lakeland with a bachelor s degree in Communica ons. In 1990, she began her career with FDOT, working in Right of Way as an Acquisi on/reloca on Agent, Acquisi on/ Property Management Administrator, and Deputy Right of Way Manager. In 2007, Heather was appointed to the posi on of the Public Involvement Manager for District 5. Her office is responsible for promo ng District 5 s public involvement policy of fully informing and involving stakeholders in the development of transporta on projects from concept to concrete. David Goldstein, Chief Assistant County A orney Pasco County A orney s Office David Goldstein is the Chief Assistant County A orney for Pasco County. He is a graduate of Cornell Law School and has been prac cing law for 17 years. He is Florida Bar Board Cer fied in City, County, and Local Government Law. His primary areas of exper se include concurrency, impact fees, Developments of Regional Impact, capital facili es planning and financing, and land use/zoning law. He is also the primary dra er of Pasco County s Mobility Fee Ordinance and Mul Modal Tax Increment Ordinance. Jimmy Massey, Growth Management Director Marion County Growth Management Department Jimmy Massey came to the Marion County Planning Department in 1997, with a Bachelors Degree from the University of Florida in Journalism and Public Rela ons. He had worked with the Florida Department of Transporta on prior to being hired with Marion County as a Transporta on Planner. In 1998 he was promoted to Principal Planner, and in 2005 promoted to Assistant Planning Director. A er the re rement of the then current Planning Director, and the combina on of the Zoning, Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Departments into the Growth Management Department, he was named Ac ng Growth Management Director. In December of 2009, he became Growth Management Director. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 19 2

88 Workshop # 2 Presenter Biographies Kathleen Neill, Director Office of Policy Planning Florida Department of Transporta on Kathy Neill has worked with the Florida Department of Transporta on (FDOT) since She currently serves as FDOT s Director of the Office of Policy Planning. This Office is responsible for developing the Florida Transporta on Plan and for implemen ng the statewide, regional and metropolitan transporta on planning requirements assigned the Department. The Office also serves as the liaison on transporta on policy issues with federal agencies, the Governor's Office, other state agencies, local and regional government agencies, and the Florida Transporta on Commission. Prior to coming to FDOT, Ms. Neill supervised the general government sec on in Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) and was the Inspector General for the Florida Department of Business Regula on. Ms. Neill has a BA from the University of Maryland (economics) and Masters in Public Administra on from Florida State University. Judith C. Pizzo, GISP, System Planner Florida Department of Transporta on, District 5 Judy Pizzo has a bachelor's degree in Liberal Studies with emphasis on Computer Science, Engineering, and Business and a Cer ficate in Planning from the University of Central Florida. She has been a GISP since She currently provides technical support to FDOT s Growth Management Unit, which includes review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and DRIs. She provides technical review of site impact studies of DRIs, traffic impact studies, and comprehensive plan amendments, including review of technical processes in conformance of the Department s procedures and policies. She manages various District wide planning contracts that provide support to the Department in the review of consultant prepared traffic reports and studies, databases, Geographic Informa on System efforts, and web page crea on. She has been ac ve in GIS since 1986, providing GIS support to an environmental consul ng firm and working with various civil, structural and land planning firms. Stephen L. Reich, Interim Director Center for Urban Transporta on Research at the University of South Florida Stephen Reich has nearly thirty years of na onal and interna onal execu ve management experience in both the public and private sectors. Since 2000, he has been with the University of South Florida s, Center for Urban Transporta on Research (CUTR) managing a program area in a university transporta on center focusing on providing technical assistance and research to public transporta on agencies. Prior to joining CUTR he was the Senior Vice President for Administra on at Breed Technologies, Inc., a $1.5 billion global automo ve safety supplier. There Mr. Reich facilitated the crea on of a Joint Venture Company, headquartered in Germany for the development and marke ng of advanced vehicle safety systems. From 1993 to 1997 he served as the Execu ve Secretary of the Maryland Transporta on Authority, where he directed overall opera on, maintenance, and development of Maryland s seven toll facili es with annual gross revenue of $160 million and 1,300 employees. During his tenure he provided innova ve financing opportuni es for Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 19 3

89 Workshop # 2 Presenter Biographies the state of Maryland including a $162 million bond financing for BWI airport, one of Governing Magazine's Top Ten Municipal Deals At the authority he was elected to the Interna onal Bridge Tunnel and Turnpike Associa on s board of directors, served as the vice chairman if the I 95 Corridor Coali on and was Maryland s first signatory to the E Z Pass Inter Agency Group. Before being appointed to the top toll posi on by Governor William Donald Schafer, Mr. Reich had a 14 year career with the Maryland Department of Transporta on serving in a variety of posi ons including Assistant Deputy Secretary and Deputy Director, Office of Transporta on Planning where he managed the DOT six year mul modal Capital Program. One of his most recent assignments at CUTR was to lead the Tampa Hillsborough County Expressway Authority as its Interim Execu ve Director helping to turn the troubled agency around, stabilize its bond ra ng and assis ng its Board in establishing a new management team. Other projects at Center have included assis ng the largest transit agency in the state with revisions of their bus and rail fleet management procedures, staffed a legisla vely created board charged with making policy recommenda ons on cleaner transporta on fuels, and crea on of life cycle cost model to evaluate alterna vely fuel transit buses. He is a regular panelist in the Tampa media market and has appeared on CNN and The News Hour with Jim Lehrer discussing transporta on and energy issues. He is currently serving as CUTR s Interim Director. In December 2010 he was named interim director of the University of South Florida s Center for Urban Transporta on Research. Nick Uhren, P.E. Palm Beach County Nick Uhren administers the countywide growth management and traffic standards for Palm Beach County. To facilitate this role, Mr. Uhren oversaw the development of and now maintains a countywide GIS database of ac ve land development projects and their traffic impacts. Mr. Uhren also determines what road improvements must be constructed by developers, evaluates access loca ons for new development, and conducts site reviews for residen al and commercial projects. Bob Wallace, P.E., AICP, Vice President Tindale Oliver & Associates, Inc. Bob has 34 years of professional experience that spans both public and private sector posi ons. He spent the first 14 years of his career working for the City of Tampa in posi ons of increasing responsibility, including the last 4 years as Director of Public Works. His areas of exper se include public finance, growth management, long range transporta on and comprehensive planning and public par cipa on. He is recognized as an expert witness in the areas of impact fees, concurrency, comprehensive planning, transporta on planning and parking. The blending of public sector and consultant experience has enabled him to build consensus and achieve community buy in on a wide variety of projects over the years. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 19 4

90 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series S 2: B H W Workshop # 2 was a ended by 11 local governments from Lake, Marion, and Sumter Coun es as well as representa ves from SunTran, the Lake-Sumter MPO, and the Ocala- Marion TPO. The workshop was well received by the par cipants. As expressed in the feedback surveys (on a scale of 1 worst to 5 best), approximately 92.9% of the par cipants rated it as either good (4 ra ng) or excellent (5 ra ng). The majority of the group thought the presenta ons were great, par cularly David Goldstein on the Pasco County Mul modal Transporta on Funding Strategy, Harry Barley on the Transporta on Task Force Update, and Nick Uhren on the Palm Beach County Transporta on Concurrency choice. In terms of what could have been improved, the overall comment (approximately 83%) was on the presenta ons; however, the comments were rela ve to the technical difficul es at the beginning of the workshop due to fluctua ons in internet access in the building. Overall, the par cipants liked the presenta ons and felt that they were informa ve and helpful. As with Workshop 1, some felt that the group exercise dura on was too long, others too short. In terms of what was most helpful, the highest vote went to examples from other communi es, followed by the materials in the Tool Box and iden fica on of alterna ve funding sources. Since the original surveys that were used to develop the workshop scope indicated that folks in these three coun es wanted to learn more on funding, this feedback tells us that we achieved our goal. The toolkits were also extremely well received by this group, with comments like Awesome, Love it, very informa ve, Thought provoking, and This is a great reference!. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2

91 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series S 3: R F T B S Fourteen (14) feedback surveys were submi ed. The workshop ra ngs and comments are reflected in the tables that follow. Note that some surveys contained skipped ques ons, thus, the results are based on the answered ques ons. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2

92 Workshop # 2: Summary of Feedback and Tool Box Surveys Feedback Surveys received: 14 Question1: How would you rate today s workshop on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 is the worst and 5 is the best)? Total average score => 4.3 Additional Written Comments Provided by Participant for this Question: None Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. FDOT D5 Community Planning Strategies Workshops Workshop #1 Summary of Feedback Surveys Page 1

93 Question 2: What was done well today? (Check all that apply) Additional Written Comments Provided In Rated Surveys: Speaker system bad Presentations done well today aside from technical difficulties Additional Written Comments Provided in Un-rated Surveys: None Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. FDOT D5 Community Planning Strategies Workshops Workshop #1 Summary of Feedback Surveys Page 2

94 Question 3: What could have been improved today? (Check all that apply) Additional Written Comments Provided In Rated Surveys: Perfect Audio but still good improvisation Group exercise duration a little long Technical difficulties with GoTo caused confusion and rapid speakers Technical difficulties Additional Written Comments Provided in Un-rated Surveys: Technical problems distracted Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. FDOT D5 Community Planning Strategies Workshops Workshop #1 Summary of Feedback Surveys Page 3

95 Question 4: What did you find most helpful to your in efforts to develop your Community Planning Strategies? (Check all that apply) Additional Written Comments Provided In Rated Surveys: Great learning experience for me (This person checked all options) One person checked all options but rated Examples from other communities as #1 and Materials in Tool Box as #2. Additional Written Comments Provided in Un-rated Surveys: None Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. FDOT D5 Community Planning Strategies Workshops Workshop #1 Summary of Feedback Surveys Page 4

96 Question 6: What comments/actions did you gain from this workshop? (Check all that apply) Additional Written Comments Provided In Rated Surveys: None Additional Written Comments Provided in Un-rated Surveys: None Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. FDOT D5 Community Planning Strategies Workshops Workshop #1 Summary of Feedback Surveys Page 5

97 Question 5: What improvements or topic expansions can you suggest that would be helpful for a future workshop? Additional Written Comments Provided In Rated Surveys: Exercise could be a little more focused on a single topic. Bit too broad for limited time. I think the workshop was very informative, lots of information and very useful. Discuss with more detail regarding the Charter County & Regional Transportation System Surtax. How it works, procedures to implement, and examples from areas that use it. A little more time for group exercises Expand more on funding Additional Written Comments Provided in Un-rated Surveys: Political Buy-In ; how to influence elected officials toward good policy. Question 7: Any additional comments or suggestions? Additional Written Comments Provided In Rated Surveys: 2nd workshop for me both very educational and beneficial Great workshop Enjoyed most the example from Pasco County Could be expanded. I liked the 15 minute limit on presentations as well as the different points of view (Opt In or Opt Out) Informative I commend the team effort and how you handled the tech issues with the sound. Great Job!! Additional Written Comments Provided in Un-rated Surveys: None Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. FDOT D5 Community Planning Strategies Workshops Workshop #1 Summary of Feedback Surveys Page 6

98 Tool Box of Toolkits Survey Comments: Q.1: Thoughts on Toolkits? Q.2: Which particularly helpful? Q.3: Improvements? Awesome Very helpful to understand whole scheme Thought provoking Good to have Love it; Very informative Tool Box looks helpful I ll have to study it more at my office Very informative, just didn t have enough time to absorb the info Seemed well thought out Will be useful I really like the simplicity of the tables. This will be a great reference! Very helpful. Will use as a resource. Exercises 3a and 3b Funding options Funding sources All Prop share/funding Concurrency toolkit All seemed equally helpful Compact collection of info Economic Development and Funding sources Funding sources Nothing at this point Simplicity Give more notice during the beginning so you have time to review Make them available to all Create models web interactive so we can create hypotheticals for our communities Tindale-Oliver & Associates, Inc. FDOT D5 Community Planning Strategies Workshops Workshop #1 Summary of Feedback Surveys Page 7

99 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series S 4: H E # 1 P S Q D The par cipants in Workshop 2 were divided into three (3) working groups, with each group having 5 6 par cipants. They were asked to consider and develop a group opinion on five (5) ques ons. Generally, there were mixed ideas and comments on all of the ques ons. The responses from the three groups were combined, and below is a brief summary. In terms of how roadway deficiencies could be addressed, some suggested relaxing the level of service (LOS) requirements in the urban core and incen vizing more intense/dense growth in targeted areas. Others suggested adop ng a mobility plan and implemen ng regula ons in the Land Development Regula ons. Opinions on whether there should be a uniform defini on of significantly impacted also varied between the groups: city-wide, county-wide, and gradient scale. On funding strategies and the funding role of FDOT District 5, again comments varied, but generally, some felt that FDOT could give local governments more money, provide more technical assistance, and develop an area-wide strategic plan to deal with deficiencies. Some suggested the need to opt out of concurrency and do things the way it was done before House Bill Two out of 3 groups felt that propor onate share should be modified and that local governments should be allowed to deny or delay developments when they are crea ng new roadway capacity deficiencies and/or impac ng exis ng deficiencies. The group that chose to eliminate propor onate share felt that mobility fees should take its place. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2

100 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2 Exercise 1: Propor onate Share Ques ons & Discussions Workshop 2 Summary of Responses Purpose: To get a be er understanding of the desires and concerns of District Five s local governments rela ve to the new propor onate share requirements. Instruc ons: Spend about 30 minutes reviewing and discussing the ques ons, wri ng individual responses in your folders, and then spend the last 10 minutes providing a group response on this sheet. Discussion Ques ons w/ Responses (blue italics): 1. Under the current legisla on, local governments cannot charge propor onate share for deficient roadways. Please describe your ideas of how road deficiencies could be addressed and funded through the local government. A) Comprehensive Plan: Ocala implement their vision into the comprehensive plan. Focus on opera onal issues, not so much capital issues. Relax level of service (LOS) requirements in urban core. Choosing to opt in consistent with current regula ons. Op ng out perspec ve Ocala, Wildwood. Establish incen ves for areas of intense/dense growth. Capital Improvements Plan dispropor onately related in these areas. Develop and adopt level of service standards into the comprehensive plan. B) Land Development Regula ons: Those op ng out will update the LDRs to implement vision and will require exac on/mi ga on approach for funding deficiencies. Develop and adopt implemen ng regula ons into the code to implement the LOS standards. C) Funding Strategies: Develop new Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs) - either opt in or out. If opt out, do exac ons/mi ga on fair share approach concept prior to House Bill Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAs) and Transporta on Improvements Plans (TIPs) - comprehensive area-wide mobility fee for en re county incen vize with lower costs in areas of desired development and redevelopment, and economic development. D) Other Comments: If opt out, develop strategic plan and vary/redirect development review process. If opt in propor onate share can be challenging. Capital Improvements Element (CIE) should be targe ng the core area/incen ve areas/developing issues. Prove cost feasibility for CIEs. 2. Florida Statutes indicate that the propor onate share formula shall be applied to only those facili es that are determined to be significantly impacted by the project traffic under review (s (5)(h)3.c(II)B., FS). A) How can the District be er coordinate with the county and local governments in the county to define significant impact for non-dri developments? District needs to take stronger stance on reviews and provide comments and direc on to local governments. Look at regional facili es on a county-wide basis. Development thresholds: county-wide. TPO uses 3% threshold. Look at it regionally countywide vision. Have an FDOT staff person a end and par cipate in the local government commi ee mee ngs. B) Should the defini on of significant impact for non-dri developments be uniform throughout the County or State? Three different comments were provided: Should be county-wide, not statewide. No should have a gradient schedule (for meaning, see Ques on 5A) Not at the state or county level rather by local governments because each local government is different. FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop 2

101 Workshop 2 Summary of Propor onate Share Responses C) What funding role can the District provide in addressing deficiencies on state facili es? More money. Develop area-wide strategic plan to deal with deficiencies and develop mobility fees. FDOT could provide technical assistance to local governments. 3. Should the use of propor onate share be eliminated or modified? One table chose Eliminated (go to Ques on 4) 1 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series 2 Two tables chose Modified (skip to Ques on 5) 4. If propor onate share is eliminated, what process or methodology, if any, should take its place and how should funding of deficient roadways be addressed? The table that chose to eliminate propor onate share answered that mobility fee should take its place to address funding of deficient roadways. This is further clarified that this would occur through the use of nonmobility fee revenues. 5. If propor onate share is modified, A) What modifica ons should be made to the methodology, formula and funding of deficient roadways? Everyone pays their fair share, like it used to be. There should be weighted scale for applying and paying for propor onate share. For example, if a roadway is already at 30% over capacity of the adopted level of service (LOS) standard, then the development coming in would have to calculate and pay for its propor onal impact in excess of the 30% over the adopted LOS standard. B) Should local governments be able to deny or delay development if it creates a new roadway capacity deficiency? X Yes Both tables that chose to modify propor onate share answered Yes to this follow up ques on. One also said that it depends on loca on and condi ons the situa on. C) Should local governments be able to deny or delay development if it impacts an exis ng deficient roadway? X Yes Both tables that chose to modify propor onate share answered Yes to this follow up ques on as well. FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop 2

102 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series S 5: H E # 2 T $100M A C The par cipants were asked to develop transporta on scenarios and allocate $100M in funding as they felt appropriate for the desired transporta on improvements in each scenario. To summarize, no group chose to do a rural scenario. For the urban scenario, each group focused its funding resources on mul modal corridors and tradi onal truck capacity projects. One group developed a suburban scenario and allocated $90M towards mul modal corridors and complete streets, with the remaining $10M in standalone bike/pedestrian projects. In the one Other Scenario, the group allocated its funding resources based on the short-term and long-term planning horizons essen ally, in the short-term, focus on tradi- onal road capacity and in the long-term, on enhanced premium transit and standalone bike/ pedestrian projects. Florida Department of Transporta on District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop # 2

103 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Exercise 2: Transporta on by Design The $100M Alloca on Challenge Tradi onal Road Capacity Projects Tradi onal Truck Projects (Road Capacity for Goods and Services) Mul modal Corridor Projects (Complete Streets, Context Sensi ve Solu ons/designs, etc.) Standalone Enhanced/Premium Transit Projects Standalone Sidewalk/Bike Projects Workshop #2 Transit Mall Bike Auto Summary Transit Pedestrian Park N Ride Facility Pink Table (Trucks in downtown and Downtown needs to be more pedestrian friendly) $60M Truck By pass (10 miles) $40M Urban Scenario (Each Group) Green Table (Urban place with suburban development pa erns near core. Comp Plan directs growth to core. Comp Plan promotes mul modal transp. facili es. Exis ng transit system.) $75M (ITS/Intersec on improvements/complete Streets) $20M (Enhance transit system) $5M Sub urban Scenario (One Group) Blue Table Pink Table (No interconnec vity) $15M (ITS Intersec on improvements & Safety) Short term $40M (Enhance access for movement of goods to and from employment sectors) $35M (Carry out vision for complete streets) $90M (En re new road network which supports/provide for interconnec vity) $10M (Enhance transit connec vity) $10M (Help solve infrastructure problems w/ standalone bike/ped paths, incld. ROW takings) Green Table n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Blue Table n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Please list any other comments or assump ons as necessary: FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop 2

104 FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Exercise 2: Transporta on by Design The $100M Alloca on Challenge Tradi onal Road Capacity Projects Tradi onal Truck Projects (Road Capacity for Goods and Services) Mul modal Corridor Projects (Complete Streets, Context Sensi ve Solu ons/designs, etc.) Standalone Enhanced/Premium Transit Projects Standalone Sidewalk/Bike Projects Workshop #2 Transit Mall Bike Auto Summary Transit Pedestrian Park N Ride Facility n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Pink Table Other Scenario (One Group) Green Table Blue Table (Transit facility) n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $55M (ITS Intersec on improvements & Safety) (Short term) $35M (Express Route & Connec vity to transit hub) (Long Term) $10M (Enhance transit connec vity) Please list any other comments or assump ons as necessary: FDOT District 5 Community Planning Strategies Workshop Series Workshop 2