florida transportation mobility fee study...florida mobility fee study, phase 1 march 25, 2009 the...

FLORIDA MOBILITY FEE STUDY Phase 1 Report – Policy Analysis and Methodology

March 25, 2009

Presidential Professor and Director of Metropolitan Research University of Utah James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Law and Urban and Regional Planning University of Florida

Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICP University of South Florida Center for Urban Transportation Research Aldo Fabregas Pei‐Sung Lin, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE Kristine M. Williams, AICP Karen E. Seggerman, AICP

Prepared by Florida Department of Community Affairs

Prepared for

Florida Mobility Fee Study, Phase 1 March 25, 2009

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Department of Community Affairs

Thomas Pelham, Secretary

Charles Gauthier, AICP, Director, Division of Community Planning, Project Manager

Craig Diamond, Chief, State Planning

Technical Team

Elliot Auerhahn, Broward County

Tim Jackson, Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin

Onelia Lazzari, City of Gainesville

Bill Oliver, Tindale‐Oliver & Associates, Inc.

Jonathan Paul, Alachua County

Roger Neiswender, City of Orlando

Clif Tate, Kimley‐Horn and Associates, Inc.

John Taylor, Florida Department of Transportation

Funding for this study was provided by the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs.

2


3

Florida Mobility Fee Study Phase 1 Report – Policy Analysis and Methodology

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a policy analysis and discussion of practical implications of a mobility fee (MF). Three approaches covering a range of possibilities are introduced including a road user fee, a modified impact fee, and an adapted transportation utility fee. These approaches are followed by a working concept for application in Florida. Each approach is considered in terms of its effect on vehicle miles of travel (VMT), consistency with growth management objectives, equity, ease of implementation, and flexibility as a revenue source for the entire transportation system.

Road User Fee The first approach reviewed is a road user fee paid by all roadway users and applied on a statewide basis. The road user fee is charged based on the number of vehicle miles travelled by each individual in a given period. It is generally a replacement of the gas tax, although it may be considered an additional source of revenue. The approach illustrated in this report is based on Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program.1 A similar approach is being pilot‐tested in Iowa; North Carolina and Rhode Island are also discussing this option.

Road user fees, particularly when combined with congestion pricing, would influence driver behavior which in turn would affect VMT and reinforce growth management. People will likely increase demand for housing closer to employment and services in order to minimize daily VMT, thus encouraging more compact, mixed use development. Because this fee is charged equally to end users, it may be considered equitable. Revenue from this source may also be expended on all modes to provide system capacity.

The time it would take to study and fully implement such an approach is a clear disadvantage of the road user fee. Implementation would require legislative action and development of program specifics. More challenging, all vehicles and filling stations must be outfitted with appropriate equipment. While its complexities render it somewhat infeasible for fulfilling the desires of a mobility fee, the road user fee is worth mentioning as an increasingly popular stable revenue source.

Modified Impact Fee The second approach considers a modified impact fee for new development that is sensitive to VMT. This approach uses trip lengths or VMT reflective of the mobility needs of specific planning

1 Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program is a complex well‐documented approach under serious consideration in the state. The final report and additional information are available at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/


4

areas to create a more targeted fee. Mobility needs are determined based on an adopted transportation plan that may include trip reduction strategies in addition to multimodal capacity improvements.

Developing a modified impact fee that correlates with VMT may be accomplished by using travel demand modeling software. In Florida, this is the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS). Costs used to determine the fee per vehicle mile could either be based on average costs of improving a lane mile of roadway (demand driven) or be based on that portion of estimated project costs attributable to new development in an adopted mobility plan (plan based). These costs could be further broken down by location and area type (urban, suburban, and rural).

Modifying the standard impact fee equation with sensitivity to VMT will help foster compact, mixed use development through increased fee rates for developing outside of urban centers and other areas not yet planned for development. Revenue from the fee may be used for all transportation mobility improvements, including transit operating expenses.

Implementation will require standard set‐up including an impact fee study to establish the cost basis and fee schedule. After that, administration will be no different than that of current impact fees ‐ an advantage over other approaches that would be entirely new to Florida. In addition, all new development would be subject to impact fees resulting in equitable treatment among developers.

The modified impact fee does have certain drawbacks. It is not a stable or sufficient revenue source for ongoing transit operations, nor is it sufficient to fully fund capital improvement needs or long‐term system maintenance. Rather, it is a method of ensuring that new development pays its pro rata share of the transportation needs attributable to growth. Additional revenue sources will be needed in urban areas to maintain an efficient multimodal system.

Because fee calculations are based on vehicle trips, rational nexus concerns may also be raised regarding the expenditure of funds on alternative modes. Therefore, a clear method for establishing a rational nexus should be established building on the premise that provision of additional transportation modes increases overall system capacity to accommodate person trips.

In addition, impact fees charged only to new development cannot be used to fund existing backlogs.2 Therefore, a method of differentiating backlog from new capacity in a multimodal context will be needed. For example, new transit capacity might include route extensions and service enhancements to increase headways in an adopted transit development plan. Despite these drawbacks, it may be the best approach for a mobility fee.

2 A backlog is defined as an identified deficiency where existing traffic volume exceeds the adopted level of service standard for the facility.


5

Adapted Transportation Utility Fee The third approach is an adapted transportation utility fee aimed at all users within a specified district. This type of fee (sometimes known as a street maintenance fee or street utility fee) is similar to other types of utility fees and may be used for capital facilities, maintenance, operations, and administration. Like other utility fees, all property within an established district is assessed a fee in accordance with estimated use of the utility which, in this case is the transportation system. Fees are determined by land use and placed in an enterprise fund.

This fee could be adapted for application as a mobility fee through the use of service areas similar to impact fee districts. Fees would be developed using an adopted mobility plan for each service area. This fee also provides two ways to consider facility demand – VMT and functional population.3 The VMT‐based method would use property tax assessor records and land use codes to determine the appropriate fee for each property based on the VMT associated with that land use. The functional population method establishes a fee based on the estimated number of people occupying the service area within the course of a day and the plan for alternative modes.

The adapted transportation utility fee offers a new approach to funding transportation mobility by treating transportation as a utility and providing revenue to address maintenance and operation, as well as capital improvement needs. The result is a stable, ongoing revenue stream that may be used to fund all aspects of transportation mobility. Application through a rate scale tied to transportation facility use is equitable to all fee payers.

Implementation of the fee may be somewhat complex, particularly initial studies and system set‐up through the property tax assessor’s office. Administration beyond that point will be routine invoicing, collection, and distribution of revenue. This type of fee is expected to have some impact on reducing VMT and fostering compact, mixed use development by increasing modal alternatives within urban centers. The Florida Supreme Court opined that a transportation utility fee is a tax and therefore not authorized under Florida law. Enactment of such a fee would therefore require legislation defining transportation facilities as a utility or otherwise addressing this concern.

Working Concept Considering the attributes of the three approaches presented, a working concept for a mobility fee is the modified impact fee approach with an optional mechanism to fund localized mobility needs. The main features of the working concept include the potential institutional arrangements and planning considerations, cost basis, and methodology to be used in the implementation of such a fee. While the provision of alternative modes is key to the vitality and mobility of urban cores and activity centers, the working concept takes into account that automobile travel will remain the dominant form of travel in Florida.

3 Functional population is the effective population being served over the course of a day. For instance, if 100,000 people live and work in a community, and if another 60,000 commute into the community to work an 8‐hour (one‐third day), the functional population is 100,000 + (60,000 x 1/3) = 120,000.


The concept relies on effective transportation and land use planning by each local government and the adoption of a mobility plan within the transportation and land use elements of each local government’s comprehensive plan. Such plans designate areas where growth is desired or planned and areas not planned for urban development. For purposes of this working concept, the following scenario is proposed:

1. The plan defines planning areas such as urban centers, urban reserve, and rural areas, recognizing the dynamics of development and the different needs of each area.

2. Mobility improvement needs and a list of improvement priorities are identified within and across the various areas.

3. Mobility fees are determined based upon the improvement priorities and revenue expectations in the financially feasible long term capital improvement program.

4. Local governments are provided an option to enact a transportation utility fee in urban centers to address backlogs and ongoing system maintenance and operations needs.

The institutional structure for implementing the mobility fee may be existing local governments; however, a regional form of governance is ideal for implementing a mobility fee for a variety of reasons. These include reduced leapfrog development, a forum for addressing regional transportation issues, and a standardized tiered fee structure. Existing organizations for accomplishing a regional mobility fee include regional transportation authorities (i.e., TBARTA), planning collaboratives (i.e., myregion.org), and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). Local governments may also choose to work together through interlocal agreements.

The mobility fee would be administered locally, as is the case with current impact fee or concurrency mitigation systems. The local government responsible for issuing development permits would collect the fee and place it in a special account. The funds could be applied toward projects in a local mobility plan or, under a regional approach, transferred to the regional governing structure and allocated in accordance with interlocal agreements and the capital improvement program (CIP) for the adopted regional mobility plan.

Such plans and CIPs would be multimodal and tied to existing adopted local government comprehensive plans. Areas unable to support transit service would still have multimodal needs relative to bicycle and pedestrian systems and trip reduction strategies. Ideally, smaller communities would eventually be served by a regional transit system. Modal plans such as transit plans, transportation system management plans, congestion management plans, transportation demand management programs, bicycle and pedestrian plans, or trailways plans would provide multimodal guidance.

6


7

The cost basis for establishing a mobility fee would the local government’s mobility plan and corresponding CIP or a regional mobility plan and CIP developed and adopted by the participating region.

The mobility fee will be used to fund portions of the plan not addressed by committed revenue (e.g. motor fuels taxes or development agreements). The proportion of planned projects that will address existing backlogs should be treated separately to avoid expenditure of mobility fee revenue on such projects.

The general methodology for determining the mobility fee addresses location, distance, and density to achieve a fee structure that is sensitive to vehicle miles traveled characteristics of development. The fee structure would be designed to reinforce the planning areas or zones identified in the mobility plan as urban centers, urban reserve areas, and rural areas not planned for urban services. The mobility plan serves as the cost basis for the fee structure which should be revised each time the mobility plan is updated.

Travel demand modeling software would be used to estimate existing and future VMT based on the mobility plan as well as the estimated VMT for each proposed development. In Florida, travel demand modeling involves the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure/Cube Voyager (FSUTMS/Cube).4

The fee structure to achieve the target mobility fee funding level (TFL) derived from the mobility plan may be developed using one of two different methods. One method is to establish an average rate charged to all new developments regardless of location. The per‐mile trip fee would always be the same with VMT being the adjustment factor. The other method would establish a location‐based rate. This method would vary the per‐mile trip fee based on VMT and distance from planned urban activity centers. The location‐based fee places more emphasis on distance, causing a greater difference in fees between developments located closer to planned “centers” and those located farther away.

A variation of the working concept would combine the modified impact fee program, with an adapted transportation utility fee to fund ongoing system improvement, maintenance and operations needs within planned urban centers and other specific planning areas. This optional variation would provide a steady and stable revenue source for transit operations and localized mobility improvements.

Summary The three approaches described above constitute the possibilities for application as a mobility fee. The road user fee, while a stable revenue source, poses complex implementation challenges. The

4 This transportation modeling software is currently used by the Florida Department of Transportation, Florida’s metropolitan planning organizations, and the consultant community and accepted by most local governments for preparation of transportation impact analysis.


transportation utility fee is also stable revenue source, although new to Florida and one that may require further legal analysis. The modified impact fee approach provides revenue for capital improvements while discouraging sprawl. Applying it with a transportation utility fee “option” for urban centers that applies a functional population approach combines the positive attributes of the modified impact fee and the adapted transportation utility fee. Attributes of the working concept are compared with those of the three approaches in the table below.

FINANCING FEATURE

WORKING CONCEPT APPROACH 1 ROAD USER

FEE

APPROACH 2 MODIFIED IMPACT FEE

APPROACH 3 ADAPTED

TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE IMPACT UTILITY

FOSTERS COMPACT, MIXED‐USE DEVELOPMENT Yes Yes Yes Yes No

ASSESSMENT BASE New

development All

properties All road users

New development All properties

MULTIMODAL REVENUE Moderate High High Moderate High CAPITAL REVENUE High High High High High

OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE REVENUE Low High Low Low High

REVENUE PREDICTABILITY Cyclical Stable Recurring / Stable

One‐time payment / Cyclical

Recurring / Stable

BACKLOG FINANCING No Yes Yes No Yes ASSESSMENT VARIES BY

LOCATION Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION Moderate Difficult Difficult Moderate Difficult

8


TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. 9

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 10

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 10

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 11

Key Considerations ......................................................................................................................... 14

Overview of Mobility Fee Approaches ............................................................................................ 15

Approach 1 – Road User Fee........................................................................................................ 16

Approach 2 – Modified Impact Fee .............................................................................................. 17

Approach 3 – Adapted Transportation Utility Fee ....................................................................... 22

Summary of Approaches ............................................................................................................. 25

Working Concept for Consideration ................................................................................................ 26

Institutional Structure ................................................................................................................. 27

Cost Basis – The Mobility Plan..................................................................................................... 29

Methodology .............................................................................................................................. 30

Optional Funding Mechanism ..................................................................................................... 36

Comparison of Attributes ............................................................................................................ 37

Mobility Fee Considerations ........................................................................................................ 37

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................... 39

Appendix A: An Application of the Utility Enterprise Fund Concept to Finance Transportation Systems in Florida ...................................................................................................... 41

Appendix B: Aventura Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee ......................................................... 55

Appendix C: Charlotte County Road Impact Fee Calculations ......................................................... 61

Appendix D: Mobility Fee Working Concept Methodology ............................................................. 78

9


LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Mobility Fee Approach Attributes ................................................................................ 25

Table 2: Comparison of Example Mobility Fee Using Different Methods .................................. 36

Table 3. Mobility Fee Working Concept Attributes Comparison ................................................ 37

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Planning areas and estimation of VMT ....................................................................... 31

Figure 2: Example of the proposed approaches for the implementation of the mobility fee ..... 34

Figure 3: Vehicle miles traveled by planning area for example 2 ............................................... 35

10


Florida Mobility Fee Study Phase 1 Report – Policy Analysis and Methodology

INTRODUCTION During Florida’s 2008 legislative session, considerable interest was expressed in establishing a mobility fee. The concept of a statewide “flat” fee was proposed for this purpose. However, concerns were raised as to the accuracy and basis of a single flat fee in light of the variation in transportation system needs and costs across the state. In addition, it became clear that the nature and composition of such a fee is subject to a variety of interpretations.

Many have envisioned the mobility fee as a per trip fee on new development. Some also view it as a possible alternative to transportation concurrency. These views reflect widespread dissatisfaction with existing transportation concurrency and the inequity of a system that requires payment only where level of service standards have been exceeded. By rewarding development in outlying areas where capacity tends to be available, concurrency has also been inconsistent with growth management objectives aimed at discouraging urban sprawl.

An alternative to concurrency has long been desired that is more equitable and internally consistent with growth management objectives. The goal is a system that would avoid “free riders” by addressing consumption of system capacity, rather than level of service deficiencies. It should also foster compact urban growth and promote modal alternatives in urban areas. As such, it should “let cities be cities” by accommodating reasonable levels of congestion and providing a funding mechanism for a broader range of mobility needs. These needs include transit, bikeways, sidewalks, transportation demand management, and system connectivity, in addition to roadway capacity.

The legislature has already provided several concurrency alternatives to better accommodate growth in urban areas where capacity is more constrained. Most recently, a proportionate fair share mechanism was added to Florida’s concurrency process designed to enable development to “pay and go.” However, the high cost of improving transportation facilities and the inherent inequities of the concurrency system continue to make concurrency an unpopular method for addressing transportation impacts.

Another consideration relative to the mobility fee is HB 697, enacted in the 2008 legislative session. This legislation contains new local and regional planning requirements for energy efficient land use patterns and transportation strategies that reduce greenhouse gases. HB 697 raises another concept that may be furthered by a mobility fee - a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). VMT is a measure of demand placed on the transportation system and reflects the total number of miles driven by all vehicles within a given time period and geographic area.

11


A mobility fee that correlates with VMT would result in a lower charge to development generating lower VMT, thereby establishing a financial incentive for efficient land use. Such a fee would be based on consumption of the transportation system and could apply to either the developer or the user. It would also be consistent with statewide growth management objectives by reinforcing the decision to develop in or near urban centers and providing a flexible revenue source for transportation improvements.

Transportation Funding Context The desire for a mobility fee and the form it might take are best understood in the context of Florida’s transportation funding environment. Florida continues to experience significant shortfalls relative to transportation funding. Motor fuel taxes are not indexed to inflation and fail to keep pace with system costs and demands. Motor fuel tax receipts have been flat or even declining as higher fuel prices reduce travel and more fuel efficient cars lessen the revenue yield per unit of travel.

In addition, Florida has placed a high priority on funding the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) to ensure adequate statewide mobility. Seventy‐five percent of Florida’s Transportation Trust Fund (TTF), which is replenished in part by motor fuel tax receipts, is focused on the SIS. The State and local governments rely heavily on the TTF to fund major transportation improvements on the SIS as well as other state roads.

Historically, funding improvements not directly made to the State Highway System (SHS), including facilities for alternative modes has been the most challenging. State funding sources occasionally used for funding such improvements include the County Incentive Grant Program, which receives sporadic funding in the FDOT work program. Another source is the Economic Development Transportation Fund, which provides funding for transportation‐related projects such as access roads.

Ad valorem revenue has traditionally been a reliable source for local governments to expend on transportation, but recent constitutional amendments have reduced this revenue. Other local transportation funding sources include the Local Option Gas Tax, the Local Government Infrastructure Surtax, and the Ninth Cent Gas Tax. However, most jurisdictions with significant transportation backlogs have exhausted these options. Special assessment districts, such as municipal service benefit districts (MSBU) or community development districts (CDD) also have been used to address transportation infrastructure costs within specific geographic areas.

Finally, local governments have begun to rely on developer contributions such as transportation impact fees, proportionate fair share mitigation, or development of regional impact proportionate share mitigation. One‐time assessments such as impact fees levied at the time of development may provide funding for new capacity attributable to new development. Yet local transportation impact fees are often heavily discounted with no effort to make up the needed revenue from other sources. State law also prohibits assessing new development for the cost of existing backlogs,

12


13

although once collected, these payments may be applied to deficient facilities impacted by the development.

Declining revenues, “pay later” growth planning, a historic reluctance to charge real cost impact fees, and resistance to taxation in the face of rapid growth, have culminated in significant transportation system backlogs in Florida. The Florida Legislature’s effort to address backlogs in 2005 through additional funding allocations has been offset by increases in transportation facility construction costs. Local governments are shifting more revenues toward road and bridge maintenance, leaving little for new system capacity. With metropolitan planning organizations in Florida facing an estimated $62.5 billion transportation funding shortfall over a twenty‐year planning horizon, the prospects for addressing Florida’s transportation backlogs remain daunting.5

Mobility Fee Focus Florida’s transportation financing needs include three components, which apply to roads, transit, and other modes: 1) funding capacity to accommodate new development; 2) funding backlogs; and 3) funding system maintenance and operation. A mobility fee is unlikely to address all of these needs. Establishing general principles as to whose responsibility it might be to construct, operate, and maintain various aspects of the transportation system may be useful in identifying a mobility fee focus.

Requiring new development to cover the cost of the travel demand that it creates works for roadways, where capacity needs can be readily identified and addressed. However, transit systems are minimal or non‐existent in many jurisdictions, and establishing or substantially improving a transit system is more difficult and costly to accomplish. In addition, no funding mechanisms have proven a stable source of operating funds, which is the greatest need for transit systems.

Maintenance, operating, and administrative needs for transportation, regardless of mode, require continuing or recurring sources of revenue. Therefore, these costs should be borne by all those benefiting. A mobility fee charged only to new development generally addresses only the new roadway capacity required by the development. However, limited funding for transit capital, as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities, may be available through this fee as well. Yet, the additional operating, maintenance, and administrative costs of these systems and other congestion‐management strategies will likely remain underfunded.

In sum, any discussion of a mobility fee raises numerous questions as to the role of the fee and how it might be structured and administered. Should it be applied only to new development, users of the system, property owners, or some combination of these groups? In addition, what is the cost basis for such a fee? If it were too low in urban areas, the result would be even greater congestion as infrastructure investment continues to lag behind. If it were too high, it might discourage growth in urban or urbanized areas, while continuing to fuel fringe or leapfrog development. If it is based on

5 Center for Urban Transportation Research, The 2008 Review of Florida’s MPO Long Range Transportation Plans, October 2008.


VMT, then how might it be administered -particularly in smaller or rural communities that lack modeling expertise or resources? And how might the fee affect other fees and planning or growth management processes in Florida, which have been the subject of significant state, regional or local investment.

These are but a few of the many policy, institutional, and methodological questions that have a bearing on the development and implementation of a mobility fee in Florida. To explore these questions, and possible alternative concepts for the fee, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) contracted with the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), University of South Florida and national experts, Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICP, Presidential Professor and Director of Metropolitan Research University of Utah and James C. Nicholas, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Law and Urban and Regional Planning University of Florida.

This report presents initial findings of the policy and alternatives analysis of the mobility fee concept. It explores three basic approaches for such a fee and identifies a working concept that best accomplishes a range of desired objectives. It also discusses practical implications of implementing the mobility fee working concept.

KEY CONSIDERATIONS A mobility fee may take on a variety of forms. A first step, therefore, is to define the key considerations or underlying goals relative to such a fee. For this discussion, three different approaches are explored covering a range of possibilities. They are considered in terms of their effect on vehicle miles of travel, consistency with growth management objectives, equity, ease of administration, and flexibility as a revenue source for the entire transportation system.

Equity The current tendency toward urban sprawl development is heightened by a lack of equity in charging for capacity. New development freely consumes available road capacity and pays for impacts only when road capacity is exceeded. This encourages development in outlying areas where capacity is available. It also places a disproportionate financial responsibility on developers seeking concurrency approval after available capacity has been consumed, resulting in market inequities. A mobility fee charged to all new development for the capacity it will consume ensures that each new development contributes its fair share.

VMT and Growth Management An underlying goal of any contemporary transportation initiative is to address the social, economic, and environmental costs of continued growth in vehicle miles travelled (VMT). A related goal is to discourage urban sprawl, which has contributed to rising VMT and reduced the viability of alternative transportation modes. More densely settled areas generally exhibit fewer vehicle trips and the trips that are made tend to be shorter, resulting in lower overall VMT.

14


15

Addressing these issues will help curb the dramatic growth in costs of providing an efficient transportation system. Transportation is but one infrastructure cost that has been shown to vary based on the density and pattern of urban development. While studying the cost of alternative development patterns in Florida for DCA, Duncan and Associates found that public facility costs for compact urban development were about half of the costs for scattered development.6 That study confirmed for Florida what others have found for the rest of the nation.

A mobility fee that correlates with vehicle miles traveled would reflect this cost differential. However, to do so, the fee structure would require attention to location, distance, and density of development. Location, in this context, refers to the fact that because of terrain or other features, it is simply more expensive to provide and maintain capital facilities in some areas than others. Distance means that a greater number of lengthy trips are needed to access work and other destinations in some areas than in others. Density refers to the concentration of people, goods, and services within an area, resulting in fewer daily vehicle trips in a densely settled area.

A mobility fee designed to consider location, distance, and density of development would reward developers that minimize transportation system impacts. This would reinforce compact, mixed use development in areas with urban services and discourage development of exurban areas. It would also more accurately reflect the actual social, economic and environmental implications of sprawl development. Reducing VMT will, however, require effective local and regional mobility planning and the political will to enforce those requirements.

Ease of Implementation An issue of paramount concern to local governments is the relative ease of implementing a mobility fee. Initial system set‐up, such as studies establishing the cost basis, implementing ordinances, equipment purchases, and staff education should not be overly complex. In addition, daily administration of the fee should be relatively straightforward.

Revenue Flexibility Many transportation system funding sources are limited to roadway capacity. However, infrastructure investment and operating funds for all modes are essential to providing travel alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle. A mobility fee must provide a flexible revenue source for the entire transportation system and ideally would also fund trip reduction strategies and programs.

OVERVIEW OF MOBILITY FEE APPROACHES Building on the considerations noted above, this study has identified three general approaches that offer potential for a mobility fee. The first approach is a road user fee aimed at users on a statewide 6 James Duncan and Associates, Inc., et al. The Search for Efficient Urban Growth Patterns: A Study of the Fiscal Impacts of

Development in Florida, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1989.


16

basis. This fee differs considerably from the other approaches, because current applications intend it as a replacement to the motor fuels tax. While its complexities render it infeasible for fulfilling the desires of a mobility fee, it is worth mentioning as an increasingly popular stable revenue source. The second approach considers an impact fee for new development modified to increase sensitivity to VMT and based on multimodal capacity needs. The third approach is a transportation utility fee aimed at all users within a specified area.

Approach 1 – Road User Fee The road user fee is generally proposed as a replacement of the gas tax and is charged based on the number of vehicle miles travelled in a given period. The approach described here is based on Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program.7 A similar approach is being pilot‐tested in Iowa, and North Carolina and Rhode Island are also discussing this option. The Oregon Mileage Fee Concept is designed to replace gas tax revenues in light of more fuel efficient vehicles and decreased driving when gas prices rise.

As implemented through Oregon’s pilot program, the fee features easy administration, payment, and collection. Information was gathered through in‐vehicle equipment and conveyed to a central database during the fueling process while maintaining the user’s privacy. The amount of the fee has been calculated based on a 20‐mile per gallon average. “In order to provide revenues that are equivalent, on a per‐mile basis, to those deriving from the current 24‐cent‐per gallon gas tax, ODOT found a flat (or average) mileage fee rate would be approximately 1.2 cents per mile.”8 Implementation would occur over a 30‐year period with completion by 2040.

Additional testing performed during Oregon’s pilot program revealed behavioral changes relevant to correlating a mobility fee to VMT. The program tested two types of mileage fees, 1) a replacement for the gas tax (1.2 cents per mile), and 2) application of congestion pricing in addition to the mileage fee. Additional fees were charged for travel within a congestion zone during rush hour, a practice commonly known as congestion pricing. Basic changes in driver behavior included a 12 percent reduction in daily VMT. In addition, drivers subject to congestion pricing reduced both daily VMT and rush hour VMT.

Gas tax revenue has not kept pace with transportation system needs and reliance on impact fees has not filled the ever‐widening gap. Driver habits changed dramatically with higher fuel prices causing a decline in motor fuels tax revenue. In addition, more fuel efficient vehicles demanded by consumers today also result in lower gas tax revenue yield. Applying the road user fee approach to a mobility fee may provide a continuing revenue source that is not limited to new development.

7 Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program is a complex well‐documented approach under serious consideration in the state. The final report and additional information are available at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/ 8 Oregon’s Mileage Fee Concept and Road User Fee Pilot Program, Final Report, op cit.


17

Applicability to Mobility Fee: The road user fee could be applied in addition to or as a replacement for the current motor fuels tax; however, if proposed as an addition to motor fuels taxes, additional legal questions should be explored. Road user fees, particularly when combined with congestion pricing, were shown in the Oregon Pilot Program to influence driver behavior and reduce VMT. Over time, this effect on VMT may influence market demand and development location. Greater per mile cost of driving is likely to increase demand for housing closer to employment and services thus encouraging more compact, mixed use development. Such behavior was recently reflected through driver behavior in response to higher gas prices.

Because the user fee is charged to end users, the fee may be considered equitable to all new development. Revenue from this source may be expended on all modes to provide system capacity. The time it would take to study and fully implement such an approach is a clear disadvantage of the road user fee. Implementation would require legislative action and development of program specifics. In addition, all vehicles and filling stations must be outfitted with appropriate equipment. While the road user fee is clearly a viable option as a statewide revenue source, extensive implementation requirements prohibit its application in the near term.

Approach 2 – Modified Impact Fee The second approach is essentially an impact fee modified to increase sensitivity to vehicle miles traveled by trips from new development. Impact fees may be defined as “A monetary charge imposed by local government on new development to recoup or offset a proportionate share of public capital costs required to accommodate such development with necessary public facilities.”9 They are a method of ensuring that new development pays its pro rata share of infrastructure costs needed to serve new growth.

Impact fee programs may be either demand driven (most prevalent), plan based (less prevalent), or a combination of the two (least prevalent).10 Demand‐driven approaches translate new auto trips into a cost per trip based on the cost to improve a mile of roadway. Plan‐based approaches arrive at the fee by determining each development’s fair share of the road improvement budget in the capital improvements program.

Transportation impact fees are commonly used throughout Florida and are predominantly demand driven, using average assumptions regarding trip length and the location of development. They have historically focused on local roadway improvement needs. However, local governments are increasingly interested in addressing state facility needs as deficiencies on state roads have become a hindrance to growth. Transit is largely ignored by most impact fee programs; impact fee laws

9 Nicholas, James C. and Arthur Nelson. Determining the Appropriate Development Impact Fee Using the Rational Nexus

Test. Journal of the American Planning Association. Chicago: Winter 1988, Vol. 54, Iss. 1, pp. 56‐67.

10 Cooper, Connie B. Transportation Impact Fees and Excise Taxes: A Survey of 16 Jurisdictions. PAS Report No. 493, American Planning Association, July 2000.


18

limit the use of fees to capital improvements but remain silent on operating costs, which are essential to transit. More local governments would likely consider funding transit if provided legislative authorization to incorporate transit capital and operating costs into transportation (road) impact fee programs.

Most transportation impact fees were developed using the number of trips generated multiplied by the average trip length (or vehicle miles traveled) as a basic component. The number of trips generated by a land use is multiplied by the average length of those trips and by the percentage of “new” trips. New trips are those that introduce additional travel into the transportation network and are not “captured” from existing pass‐by traffic. A factor of two in the denominator reflects the

a rip between the trip origin and the trisharing of responsibility for t p destination.

%

Where Attributable New Travel: measured inVehicle Trip Ends: measured per day

vehicle miles per day

This equation produces only a generalized measure of additional vehicle miles of travel. The average trip length is determined by land use and averaged over a large area, such as a county, rather than according to area types such as urban, urban reserve, or rural. In addition, the cost basis for transportation impact fees is often the average cost of constructing a lane mile of road. For these reasons, the resulting fee does not account for the increased cost of improving roads to serve outlying areas. While the cost to construct roads in outlying areas may be lower per lane mile, disparate development patterns necessitate the construction of more lane miles , most not found in existing long‐range transportation plans. In most cases, the cost of providing transit service is not included in impact fee calculations.

An impact fee formula can use trip lengths or VMT that accurately reflect area type to create a more targeted fee. The fee per vehicle mile could either be based on an average cost of a lane mile of roadway11 (demand driven) or the estimated costs of transportation improvements in an adopted mobility plan (plan based). These costs could be further broken down by location and area type (urban, suburban, rural). For a demand‐driven approach, it may also be possible to incorporate average measure of transit cost, building on the concept of functional population described later in this report.

Applying a VMT emphasis to impact fees would better reflect actual system consumption. Development in the urban core where transportation infrastructure has long been established, density and land use mix is higher, and VMT is generally lower, would be subject to the lowest 11 Because the system is based on vehicle miles of travel, roadway improvement costs would provide a logical cost basis. Fees could be expended on transit and other modal improvements, provided a nexus is established between new development and improvements to be funded.


mobility fee rate. Development in less urbanized areas would be subject to the highest rates, because density and land use mix are minimal, VMT is generally much higher, and a higher percentage of the costs of providing new transportation infrastructure and services to these areas could be attributed to new development.

Fee structures could also incorporate a surcharge for development in areas of a jurisdiction or region (where regional agreements are established) that are not planned for development in the planning horizon. This would include any area outside of established urban service boundaries. This may foster a reduction in VMT and advance other planning objectives, such as curbing urban sprawl and promoting compact, walkable urban environments. The modified impact fee employs this concept.

Fee Systems that Address VMT A number of local governments have or are considering impact fees with a specific focus on vehicle miles traveled. Charlotte County, Florida is considering a VMT‐based impact fee developed using the functional population concept described in Approach 3 (see also Appendix C). While the Charlotte County example is limited to roads, a similar approach may be considered for application to transportation improvements for all modes.

The Charlotte County approach involves establishing three zones: urban, urban reserve, and rural. Total transportation improvement costs for each zone are calculated based on the long range transportation plan. Committed funding is subtracted. Daily VMT is established based on land use and by zone. Net transportation system capacity costs are then calculated for each zone using: a) the capacity of a new facility or expansion of an existing facility, b) the improvement cost by type of improvement and zone, and c) the net transportation improvement cost by zone. The result is that fees would increase outside of the urban zone by roughly 100% ‐200% in the urban reserve zone, and in the rural zone, fees increase roughly 150% – 230% in the rural zone. Both zones have outliers that are significantly lower.

The City of Woodinville, Washington (pop 9,900) north of Seattle has a transportation impact fee ordinance that includes a fee schedule reflecting varying VMT characteristics by region of the City. The City combined its traffic analysis zones (TAZs) into four separate districts and used its transportation demand model to forecast the VMT created by each development that applied for a permit. The impact fee varies by district based on the average VMT impact in that district. A similar approach is used in Greeley, Colorado.

Expenditure on Alternative Modes and Trip Reduction In addition to implementing VMT‐focused impact fees, some local governments spend impact fee revenues on alternative modes and trip reduction strategies. A study of traffic impact fees in the mid‐90s by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) found that more than 10% of SBCAG municipalities allocate a portion of transportation impact fee revenues for

19


20

alternative transportation mode improvement.12 Examples of alternative transportation modes funded by impact fee revenues include “new or upgrades of existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, signage programs, transit capital improvements (new buses, shelters, terminals), bus pull‐outs, rideshare/carpool and parking management programs, park and ride lots and light rail station improvements.”13

The use of impact fees for alternative modes is clearly allowed by California statutes and case law. The study identified four basic approaches used by these jurisdictions to establish a nexus between new development and the improvements to be funded using impact fee revenue:

1. Demonstration of a direct relationship. The existing alternative mode will be impacted by the development, and improvements are needed to handle the increase in mode use.

2. An indirect method which equates a mode shift. This involves relating the alternative mode improvements to be funded by the impact fee to an increase in street capacity, and thus, a reduction in traffic impact.

3. Project or location specific. This approach involves negotiation with the development to provide funds for a specific improvement that will directly serve the development, such as a bus stop, bike path, or transit shuttle.

4. Policy‐based. A capital improvement program with traditional street and road projects and alternative mode projects is adopted as part of the ordinance establishing the fee.

The Palo Alto (CA) Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and Expenditure Plan is an example of how a local government might invest impact fee revenues in accomplishing both multimodal improvements and advancing regional trip reduction targets. The impact fee program advances a policy in the City’s comprehensive plan to provide effective alternatives to automobile travel and reduce vehicle trips by 10% Citywide by the year 2010, in accordance with California law.

The City charges new development for 7.6% of the cost of the transportation expenditure plan. This represents the proportion of 2025 vehicle trips that are expected to be generated by new development. All trips that originate or terminate at a new development are counted excluding pass‐by trips. Proceeds from the impact fee contribute toward expanding the person trip (as opposed to vehicle trip) capacity of the City’s multimodal transportation system. The impact fee revenue expenditure plan includes citywide transportation demand management, expanded shuttle service, bicycle facilities, and computerized traffic management.

12 Ann Lawler and Michael Powers. Traffic Impact Fees–Survey Results. American Planning Association, California Chapter, undated (circa mid to late 90’s); Ann Lawler. Traffic Impact Fees Survey. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, May 1997. 13 Lawler and Powers, op cit.


21

Land Use and Transportation Planning A modified impact fee for mobility must be accompanied by an effective mobility plan. Such a plan should address not only modal improvements, but land use considerations relative to density, design, and mix. Land use plans should address the location, type, and magnitude of development that is planned within the jurisdiction. A goal is to focus growth into urban core areas, suburban activity centers, and regional transit centers. These areas should be walkable, mixed‐use environments with relatively high densities and connected by transit.

As development is driven into urban areas, careful integration of that development into the urban context is essential. One way to foster growth that is sensitive to context is through the use of form‐based codes that address the size and scale of buildings in relation to the public realm and each other. In addition, local government comprehensive plans and land development regulations can support local and regional mobility by requiring basic features of multimodal facilities, such as high levels of network connectivity, sidewalks, transit stops, bicycle racks, sidewalks, and shade trees as part of site development.

Applicability to Mobility Fee: Modifying the standard impact fee equation with sensitivity to VMT combined with effective planning should foster compact, mixed use development through increased costs of developing outside of urban centers and other areas not yet planned for development. Revenue from a modified impact fee approach may be used for all transportation system improvements.

Unfortunately, the modified impact fee is not a stable or sufficient revenue source for ongoing transit operations; nor is it sufficient to fully fund capital improvement needs or long‐term system maintenance. Additional revenue sources will still be needed in urban areas to maintain an efficient multimodal system.

Implementation will require standard set‐up, including an impact fee study to establish the cost basis and fee schedule. After that, administration will be no different than that of current impact fee programs. Because fee calculations are based on vehicle trips, rational nexus concerns may be raised regarding the expenditure of funds on alternative modes. Therefore, a clear method for establishing a rational nexus should be established, building on the premise that provision of additional transportation modes increases overall system capacity to accommodate person trips.

All new development is required to pay impact fees resulting in equitable treatment among developers; however, fees charged only to new development cannot be used to fund existing backlogs.14 Therefore, a method of differentiating backlog from new capacity in a multimodal context will be needed. For example, new transit capacity might include route extensions and service enhancements to increase headways in an adopted transit development plan. Despite these

14 A backlog is defined as an identified deficiency where existing traffic volume exceeds the adopted level of service standard for the facility.


22

drawbacks, the modified impact fee may be the best approach for a mobility fee and forms the basis of the working concept detailed later in this paper.

Approach 3 – Adapted Transportation Utility Fee The third approach is adapted from the transportation utility fee (TUF). This type of fee (sometimes known as a street maintenance fee, road user fee, or street utility fee) is similar to other utility fees and may be used for capital facilities, maintenance, operations, and administration. Like other utility fees, all property within an established district is assessed a fee in accordance with the estimated use of the utility. In this case the utility is the transportation network. Fees are determined by land use and placed in an enterprise fund.

The transportation utility fee is not currently used in Florida although Orlando considered the approach a number of years ago and Port Orange, Florida adopted one in the early 1990’s which was later struck down by the Florida Supreme Court. The Court found the fee to be a tax not authorized by general law.15 The opinion states, “The circuit court cites to storm‐water utility fees as being analogous to the transportation utility fee. However, storm‐water utility fees are expressly authorized by section 403.031, Florida Statutes (1993). Similarly, various municipal public works and charges for their use are authorized by chapter 180, Florida Statutes (1993).” Addressing transportation facilities and services in the definition of public utilities in Section 180.07 is one way to resolve this concern.

Transportation utility fees are in use in several states. Approximately nineteen local governments in Oregon currently charge a transportation utility fee to finance road maintenance. It is a monthly fee based on use of the transportation system that is collected from residences and businesses within the city limits. The fee is based on the number of trips a particular land use generates and is collected through a city's regular utility bill. Revenue is used for maintenance costs on public roadways. The State of Texas has road utility districts where local governments are the decision making body, but the district is a separate legal entity and funds are separate from the general fund.16

Transportation utility fees may become increasingly popular as transportation system operating and maintenance revenues, primarily motor fuels taxes, decline. The methods for determining the fees are simple and reminiscent of the early days of impact fees. Early TUF approaches and those used today throughout Oregon have notable limitations. First, they apply only to operations and maintenance of roads, and not all elements of the mobility system. Second, they usually rely on impact fees to finance the expansion of road capacity. Third, with few exceptions, the “denominator” is trips and not trip length which means they are average cost mechanisms that apply to all development regardless of location, density, and especially distance. As a result, areas of a jurisdiction that yield lower facility costs essentially subsidize those that yield higher costs. 15 State of Florida, v. The City of Port Orange, Florida, 650 So.2d 1, 19 FLW S563, 1994 Fla. SCt 8286 16 http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/chapter441.html

http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportation/chapter441.html


23

Adapting the Transportation Utility Fee Using the transportation utility fee as a starting point, the research team17 developed an alternative concept for the mobility fee. This approach combines the basic elements of transportation utility fees, but adapts them using the well‐developed methods for calculating road impact fees (see Appendix A).

Unlike TUF programs, but like road impact fee programs, the adapted TUF approach considers variations in costs of all transportation components considering location, distance, and density. The service area concept used in road impact fee programs is also applied to introduce locational considerations to fee determinations – something not previously done for TUF programs. In addition, it addresses variation in demand on transportation systems, based on a more refined assessment of different land uses than traditional TUF programs.

The adapted TUF program would have two principal elements: capital and operations (including maintenance and administration). Because the nature of demand for transportation facilities varies by facility, facility demand would be calculated in different ways. Two methods were considered: vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and functional population. These are described below.

Facility demand measured in VMT. VMT calculations are commonly used to apportion road capital costs among different land uses. The adapted TUF could be calculated through the planning horizon by dividing the projected capital and operating cost budget by the VMT generated by existing land uses:

Generally, calculating VMT‐based fees would apply standard impact fee methodologies already used throughout Florida with one important adjustment: the adapted TUF would need to be aligned with local property tax assessor records to capture every property within the prescribed fee boundary, rather than Institute of Transportation Engineers’ land use codes, as is customary with impact fee schedules. A related adjustment is calculating the VMT for each assessor record. Because assessor records include the size of structures, VMT for each assessor code can be estimated on a per square‐foot basis. When multiplied by the size of the structure, this would provide a proportionate‐share relationship between the land use, VMT production, and demand on road facilities. The number of bedrooms is an alternative method for estimating VMT for each assessor code.

17 National experts and co‐authors of this report, Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICP, Presidential Professor and Director of Metropolitan Research University of Utah and James C. Nicholas, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Law and Urban and Regional Planning University of Florida developed this approach as detailed in Appendix A: “An Application of the Utility Enterprise Fund Concept to Finance Transportation Systems in Florida.”


Facility demand measured in functional population. Another approach for measuring transportation demand is the concept of functional population, pioneered by James Nicholas. Functional population is the effective population being served over the course of a day. For example, if 100,000 people live and work in a community, and if another 60,000 commute into the community to work an 8‐hour (one‐third day), the functional population is 100,000 + (60,000 x 1/3) = 120,000. The functional population concept has been applied in the Aventura, Florida draft transportation mitigation impact fee and in the Charlotte County, Florida proposed impact fee ordinance.

Aventura, Florida is considering a transportation mitigation impact fee charged to all new development located within the city’s transportation concurrency exception area (TCEA). Revenue is used to fund the expansion, operation, and maintenance of the City’s circulator system within the TCEA. In this case, the functional population concept was applied to calculate a one‐time transportation mitigation impact fee on all new developments. The functional population is a combination of permanent residents, seasonal residents, and visitors that use public services. Fees are charged per dwelling unit (approximately $800 per unit) or per square foot for non‐residential development (ranging from $1,200 to $2,500 per square foot). The draft Aventura ordinance adopting this system is included as Appendix B: Aventura Ordinance. The City has delayed adoption of this ordinance due to current economic conditions.

In Charlotte County, Florida, the functional population concept was used to calculate VMT‐based impact fees (see Appendix C). Data regarding dwelling unit size and occupancy within the county were analyzed to show proportionality between dwelling unit size and number of occupants as well to determine the size of the average dwelling unit. To establish the impact fee per square foot, the impact fee for the average dwelling unit is determined and then divided by average size of dwelling units to get the fee per square foot of living area. Other aspects of the ordinance, which are more pertinent to the modified impact fee, are described under Approach 2.

Legislative Authorization The adapted transportation utility approach is a user fee. Its use maybe acceptable if provided as a local option to augment existing funding methods. One implementation mechanism may be within the transportation concurrency backlog authority concept already available in Florida statutes. The purpose of the authority is to plan and finance improvements to one or more transportation facilities with an identified concurrency backlog. One method authorized to fund the plan’s implementation is a local concurrency backlog trust fund based on tax increment financing. This legislation could be modified to include an adapted transportation utility fee as an additional funding mechanism. Because recent property tax changes and economic conditions have crippled tax increment financing revenue, the adapted transportation utility fee may prove to be a viable alternative funding source.

24


Another consideration is that the adapted TUF could be authorized for local use similar to a special assessment district. This would require a referendum and could be based on other stated conditions, such as existing urban areas with significant transportation backlogs.

Applicability to Mobility Fee: The adapted transportation utility fee offers a new approach to funding transportation mobility in Florida by treating transportation facilities, as well as maintenance and operation as a utility. The resulting revenue may be used to fund all aspects of transportation mobility. Application through a rate scale tied to transportation facility use is equitable to all fee payers.

Implementation of the fee will be somewhat complex, particularly initial studies and system set‐up through the property tax assessor’s office. Administration beyond that point will be routine invoicing, collection, and distribution of revenue. This type of fee is expected to have some impact on reducing VMT and fostering compact, mixed use development by increasing modal alternatives within urban centers.

Summary of Approaches In summary, the three approaches described above constitute the possibilities for application as a mobility fee. Table 1 compares the attributes of these approaches described in this section.

Table 1. Mobility Fee Approach Attributes

FINANCING FEATURE APPROACH 1

ROAD USER FEE


APPROACH 3 ADAPTED TRANSPORTATION

UTILITY FEE FOSTERS COMPACT, MIXED‐

USE DEVELOPMENT Yes Yes No

ASSESSMENT BASE All road users New development All properties MULTIMODAL REVENUE High Moderate High

OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE REVENUE High Low High

REVENUE PREDICTABILITY Recurring/ Stable One‐time payment/

Cyclical Recurring/Stable

BACKLOG FINANCING Yes No Yes ASSESSMENT VARIES BY

LOCATION Yes Yes Yes

EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION Difficult Moderate Difficult

25


WORKING CONCEPT FOR CONSIDERATION Considering the attributes of the three approaches presented, a working concept for a mobility fee was developed. It combines the modified impact fee approach to address capacity required by new development, with an optional mechanism, such as the transportation utility fee, to fund localized mobility needs, including backlogs and operations and maintenance.

This section outlines the main features of the working concept including planning considerations, potential institutional arrangements, cost basis, and methodology to be used in the implementation of such a fee. The concept takes into account that while automobile travel will remain the dominant form of travel in Florida, the provision of alternative modes is key to the vitality and mobility within urban cores and activity centers.

The concept begins with adopted local government mobility plans. The mobility plan would be reflected in the transportation, capital improvements, and future land use elements of the comprehensive plan. The transportation element would include trip reduction strategies, transit service enhancements, and a prioritized list of capital improvements. These would be reflected in a financially feasible long term capital improvement element and program.

The future land use element would designate areas where growth is desired or planned and areas not planned for urban development as the premise for establishing the mobility fee. For purposes of this working concept the following scenario is proposed: The plan designates planning areas or zones, such as urban centers, urban reserve, and rural areas, recognizing the dynamics of development and the different needs of each area.

• Urban centers are defined as the area within the urban service boundary that is primarily developed and includes downtown urban cores, regional activity centers, traditional towns or villages, and identified activity centers along transit corridors;

• Urban reserve is the remaining area within the urban service boundary that will be developed in the planning horizon; and

• Rural is the area outside of the urban service boundary and conservation areas where little development is planned.

Development in the urban reserve and rural areas may place a greater burden on the transportation system. While the actual trip generation of rural homes may be less than those in suburban areas, trip length is greater as residents in outlying areas seek access to local and regional activity centers. New transportation system capacity to address these needs can be funded in part through the mobility fee charged to new development.

The mobility fee concept, like impact fees, relies on new growth to generate revenue. Given that VMT is lower in urban centers, a VMT‐based fee assessed only on new development would

26


27

generate little revenue for alternative modes and network needs within centers. Also, the current market downturn will reduce the amount of revenue generated by the fee.

In addition, within urban centers, mobility must be multimodal. Secondary priority should be placed on vehicle mobility and primary priority placed on providing a safe, comfortable, and attractive environment for pedestrians and bicyclists with convenient access to transit. Providing multiple modes of transportation leads to a reduction in automobile use and vehicle miles traveled in these areas. A stable revenue source is sorely needed to maintain or enhance alternatives modes in these areas and help address ongoing transit operating costs. An optional funding mechanism for urban centers designated in the comprehensive plan would help fund these localized mobility needs.

Authorization would facilitate optional funding mechanisms. Such mechanisms could include transportation utility fees, similar to that discussed in Approach 3. In addition, this mechanism may be appropriate for funding backlogs. Rather than charging only new development, this fee would be charged to all property owners within the designated area, all of whom benefit from local mobility improvements.

Below is an overview of the details of the approach. It includes a review of the institutional structure, cost basis, and conceptual methodology for the mobility fee concept.

Institutional Structure The institutional structure for implementing the mobility fee may be existing local governments; however, a regional form of governance is ideal for implementing a mobility fee for a number of reasons. Vehicle miles traveled, congestion, and the related growth of greenhouse gas emissions are regional issues that require regional solutions. Such solutions cannot be accomplished without intergovernmental cooperation across a common economic region.

In addition, transportation system users are unconcerned with jurisdictional boundaries. The user’s main concern is accessibility to destinations, mainly in terms of cost (including time). Peak hour commuting places the greatest demand on the system. Because most commuter travel occurs on a regional basis, the logical governance structure is regional.

A regional approach offers a variety of land use benefits, as well. A regional mobility fee may:

• Reduce leapfrog development associated with sprawl by reducing the cost benefit of building further out;18

• Establish a forum for local governments to cooperatively plan and fund regional mobility improvements, which are key to economic growth;

• Standardize fees across local governments within a common economic region, thereby eliminating the fee as a basis for tax base competition; and

18 Leapfrog development is development that bypasses existing vacant land within urban service area boundaries in favor of property further out that may cost less and be subject to fewer restrictions.


• Lend itself to implementing a regional development plan and tiered fee structures with progressively higher fees for development farther away from urban centers and fee reductions for planning strategies known to reduce VMT.

Florida has great experience in dealing with water on a regional basis. Water management districts were created along water basins and sheds giving the district a geographic scope to view water issues in their entirety. The same approach will be needed for transportation. Transportation or commuter “sheds” could establish the geographic basis for addressing mobility issues.

Regional structures could be relatively small, such as those involving a county and its municipalities, or represent multi‐county regions. Existing organizational structures that may be considered for accomplishing a regional mobility plan and mobility fee include the following:

1. A regional authority, such as the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority (TBARTA), could enact and administer a mobility plan and fee. Recognizing the regional nature of transportation systems, the Florida legislature has established regional transportation authorities in some large urban areas of the state. These authorities have already begun to develop multimodal regional transportation plans and priorities. TBARTA was created by state legislation and given full authority to plan, develop, finance, implement, and manage regional multimodal transportation systems. The authority’s purpose is to improve mobility and expand multimodal transportation options for passengers and freight in the seven‐county Tampa Bay region. It includes a 16 member board, with 15 voting members (7 County Commission appointees, 4 gubernatorial appointees, large city appointees, 1 West Central Florida MPO Coordinating Committee appointee, and one non‐voting member ‐ the Florida Department of Transportation).

2. A large planning collaborative could be a basis for achieving regional agreement on a common mobility fee plan and schedule. An example of such a collaborative is the Central Florida initiative myregion.org that encompasses Brevard, Lake, Orange, Osceola, Polk, Seminole, and Volusia Counties. The SR 7 Collaborative in Broward County involving 14 jurisdictions is another example focused on the redevelopment needs of a particular urban corridor.

3. Metropolitan planning organizations or MPO collaborations could establish a regional mobility plan and fee schedule and implementing ordinance for use by all member jurisdictions. The MPO process includes a well‐established long‐range transportation planning process in collaboration with member local governments. MPO collaboratives are made up of several MPOs working together such as the Central Florida MPO Alliance which is comprised of 6 MPOs in the region. The mobility plan could be based on regional multimodal priorities in the MPO long range transportation plan. For example, the Pinellas

28


County MPO develops a countywide impact fee ordinance and fee schedule for use by local governments in the county. Each local government administers the fee.

4. Intergovernmental agreements among two or more local governments within a region

could be entered to implement a common regional mobility plan and fee. For example, three Nevada jurisdictions ‐ Washoe County, the City of Sparks, and the City of Reno ‐ entered into an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement to establish and collect transportation impact fees. These fees are based largely on vehicle miles traveled, with a lower cost factor applied in areas served by transit.

Regional structures may be accomplished through intergovernmental agreements and arrangements currently available under Florida statute. This would require collaboration of two or more local governments, and may include the Florida Department of Transportation, and other key providers such as the transit agency (if other than the local government). Numerous regional structures already exist, as exemplified by TBARTA, myregion.org, and the Central Florida MPO Alliance.

The mobility fee would still be administered locally, as is the case with current impact fee or concurrency mitigation systems. The local government responsible for issuing development permits would collect the fee and place it in a special account. If a regional structure is established, revenue in this account would be transferred to the regional governing structure and allocated in accordance with interlocal agreements and the capital improvement program for the adopted regional mobility plan.

Cost Basis – The Mobility Plan The cost basis for establishing a mobility fee would be the local government’s mobility plan and corresponding capital improvement program (CIP) or a regional mobility plan and CIP developed and adopted by a participating region. Such plans and CIPs should be multimodal and tied to existing adopted local government comprehensive plans. Modal plans such as transit plans, transportation system management plans, congestion management plans, transportation demand management programs, bicycle and pedestrian plans, or trailways plans would provide multimodal guidance.

Additional planning to address multimodal network continuity within and across jurisdictions could be addressed through a regional structure. This exercise would identify gaps in connectivity and provide further direction for mobility plans.

Historically, many long‐range transportation plans have primarily focused on roadway capacity improvements. A multimodal plan would also address transit, trailways, intermodal connections, and network connectivity. Transportation systems management and transportation demand management would also be addressed.

29


30

The mobility plan should clearly define land use areas, including urban centers, urban reserve, and rural areas. It will also be important to establish and adhere to an urban service area boundary in accordance with Florida statues and codes. The land use areas or zones will establish the location, distance, and density factors used to calculate VMT. The plan must be structured carefully to demonstrate how the land use and multimodal transportation plan work together to accomplish desired mobility and growth management objectives.

Amendments to the future land use map of the local government comprehensive plan typically involve an increase in the density or intensity of use. Therefore, it will be important to gauge the impacts of those proposed land use changes on the planned transportation system on a cumulative basis. Failure to analyze cumulative impacts can result in inadequate planning for future transportation system needs and improvements.

When a local or regional mobility plan has been established, individual projects needed to implement the plan must be itemized and cost estimates developed. The mobility fee will be used to fund portions of the plan not addressed by committed revenue such as motor fuels taxes or development agreements. The proportion of planned projects that will address existing backlogs, rather than provide new capacity, should be treated separately to avoid including such projects in the target funding level.

Where Committed revenue = gas tax revenue, revenue from pre‐existing development agreements, etc.

Methodology The general methodology for determining the mobility fee addresses location, distance, and density to achieve a fee structure that is sensitive to vehicle miles traveled characteristics of development. The fee structure would be designed to reinforce the planning areas (illustrated in Figure 1a) identified in the mobility plan as urban centers, urban reserve areas, and rural areas not planned for urban services. The mobility plan serves as the cost basis for the fee structure, which should be revised each time the mobility plan is updated.

Travel demand modeling software is an option that may be used to estimate the difference between existing and future VMT based on the mobility plan, as well as the estimated VMT for each proposed development. In Florida, travel demand modeling involves the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure/Cube Voyager (FSUTMS/Cube).19 The methodology addressed briefly in this section is discussed in greater detail in Appendix D.

19 This transportation modeling software is currently used by the Florida Department of Transportation, Florida’s metropolitan planning organizations, and the consultant community and accepted by most local governments for preparation of transportation impact analysis.


The total increased VMT for a region is estimated using existing and future land uses. Figure 1a shows the different planning areas including the urban center. Figure 1b illustrates the trip distribution among the planning areas (Total VMT) as a measure of the impact of proposed developments. Figure 1c depicts how the total VMT can be aggregated by planning area. This can be accomplished by adding up trips on each link passing through the planning area of interest.

Urban Center

Urban Reserve

Rural Reserve

a. Planning areas

b. Total VMT c. VMT in urban center

Figure 1: Planning areas and estimation of VMT

Methods to establish fee rate The fee structure to achieve the target mobility fee funding level (TFL) derived from the mobility plan may be developed using one of two different methods. One method is to establish an average rate that would be charged to all new developments regardless of their location. In other words, the rate per trip would always be the same with VMT being the adjustment factor. The other method would establish a location‐based rate in accordance with the established planning areas and the distance to the urban center. Here, the rate per trip would vary by planning area.

The first step is to establish a scenario of future land uses to be developed within the planning horizon in accordance with the mobility plan. Travel demand model runs using ITE trip generation estimates will be performed to estimate existing and new vehicle miles traveled in the planning

31


horizon. Subtracting the projected future VMT from the existing VMT establishes the anticipated increase in VMT.

(a) Average rate A mobility fee average rate for the jurisdiction or the region can be determined by dividing the target funding level (TFL) by total increased VMT within the planning horizon as follows:

Where, l VMT for all the areas in a jurisdiction or a region as evelopments).

VMT Total = Summation of the individuaillustrated in 1b (new VMT due to new dTFL = Target mobility fee funding level

If the average rate is used, assuming there are n planning areas in a jurisdiction or a region, the ta asrget funding level can be expressed follows:

This method charges the same fee for each vehicle mile traveled. The farther development is located from an urban center, the greater the number of vehicle miles traveled and, therefore, the higher the mobility fee.

(b) Location‐based rate To promote compact, mixed‐use, sustainable development with a net reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the mobility fee rate may be adjusted for distance. The resulting rate will be lower for a planning area that allows higher density with compact, mixed‐use developments, while the rates for zones farther from urban centers will be increasingly higher. The highest rate will be established for the planning area outside of the urban service area boundary. The target mobility fee funding level previously established can be express hed using progressive rates for eac zone as follows:

The location‐based rate uses the ratio of the average distance from each planning area to the midpoint of urban center of a region or a jurisdiction. Planning areas with greater average distance to urban centers will have a higher mobility fee rate.

Procedure to evaluate mobility fee for a new development The VMT‐based mobility fee for an individual development would be determined using the following process:

32


• Reflect the proposed new development in the appropriate FSUTMS regional model;

• Use FSUTMS/Cube‐Voyager to estimate trip distribution on the roadway network;

• Use ITE Trip Generation, latest edition and the estimated trip distribution from FSUTMS/Cube‐Voyager to assign trips on the roadway network;

• Run an application developed in accordance with the working concept in this Mobility Fee Study to aggregate network paths and calculate the development’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in each planning area (specific application to be designed on a later stage in the project);

• Determine the mobility fee for the new development, which is the summation of the individual computed mobility fee in each planning area (Area1, Area2…Area n). The individual computed mobility fee is equal to the computed VMT of the development in the plan area multiplied by its associated mobility fee rate or average rate.

Mobility fee rate examples Two hypothetical examples are used to illustrate the methodology. Example 1 illustrates an average rate compared to a location‐based rate. Example 2 determines the VMT of two proposed developments and applies the different fee rates.

Example 1: Computation of mobility fee rates

A jurisdiction has urban center, urban reserve, and rural areas. The target mobility fee funding level is $50 M within the planning horizon. The total increased VMT during the period is 100,000 vehicles miles (20,000 in urban center, 50,000 in urban reserve, and 30,000 in rural). The average distances from the urban center, urban reserve, and rural areas to the midpoint of the urban center is 3 miles, 6 miles and 9 miles respectively.

(a) Calculate the mobility fee average rate

Average rate = $50M / 100,000 vehicle‐miles = $500 per vehicle‐mile

(b) Calculate the location‐based rate for each area

Assume the mobility fee rates for the urban center, urban reserve, and rural areas are Rate1, Rate2 and Rate3, respectively.

Based on the formula: TFL = (VMT1 x Rate1 + VMT2 x Rate2 + … + VMTn x Raten)

$50M = 20,000 x Rate1 + 50,000 x Rate2 + 30,000 x Rate3

Based on the average distance from each planning area to the midpoint of the urban center, the relationship of the rates among three areas can be determined as follows:

D1 = 3 miles, D2= 6 miles, and D3 = 9 miles

33


Since D2 is two times D1, then (Rate2 = 2 x Rate1); similarly, D3 is three times D1

(Rate3 = 3 x Rate1)

Therefore,

$50 M = 20,000 x Rate1 + 50,000 x (2 x Rate1) + 30,000 x (3 x Rate1)

$50M = 210,000 Rate1 Rate1 = $238 per vehicle‐mile

Rate2 = 2*Rate1 = $476 per vehicle‐mile

Rate3 = 3 *Rate1 = $714 per vehicle‐mile

The average rate and the location‐based rates are illustrated in Figure 2.

Average rate=$500/ vehicle‐mile

Urban Center=$238/vehicle‐mile

Rural Reserve=$714/vehicle‐mile

Urban Reserve= $476/vehicle‐mile

b. Location‐based rate a. Average rate

Figure 2: Example of the proposed approaches for the implementation of the mobility fee

Example 2 applies the average rate mobility fee and the location‐based mobility fee and then illustrates a comparison of the resulting fees.

Example 2: Mobility Fee Determination for individual developments

This example evaluates two developments located within the same jurisdiction but in different zones. Each development will generate 100 PM peak hour trips. Development 1, located in the urban center, will produce 80 VMT in the urban center, 100 VMT in the urban reserve, and 20 VMT in the rural area. Development 2, located in the rural area, will produce 150 VMT in the urban center, 250 VMT in the urban reserve, and 300 VMT in the rural area. The mobility fee rates developed in Example 1 will be used to compute the mobility fee for these two developments.

34


35

Figure 3: Vehicle miles traveled by planning area for example 2

(a) Using the base mobility fee rate

Average rate = $500 per vehicle‐mile

The mobility fee for Development 1:

Mobility fee = 80 x 500 + 100 x 500 + 20 x 500 = $100,000


Mobility fee = 150 x 500 + 250 x 500 + 300 x 500 = $290,000

(b) Using location‐based mobility fee rate for each area

Mobility fee = VMT1 x Rate1 +VMT2 x Rate2 + VMT3 x Rate3

M1 = $238 per vehicle‐mile, M2 = $476 per vehicle‐mile, M3 = $714 per vehicle‐mile


Mobility fee = 80 x 238 + 100 x 476 + 20 x 714 = 80,920


Mobility fee = 150 x 238 + 250 x 476 + 300 x 714 = $368,900

Table 2 presents a comparison of the two methods for calculating the mobility fee. As the examples illustrate, both fees produce a lower fee for development within the urban center and a greater fee for development within the rural area. The location‐based mobility fee produces a greater difference.

Urban Center: 150 vehicle‐miles

Rural Reserve: 300 vehicle‐miles

Urban Reserve: 250 vehicle‐miles

a. Development 1 b. Development 2

Urban Center: 80 vehicle‐miles

Rural Reserve: 20 vehicle‐miles

Urban Reserve: 100 vehicle‐miles


36

2: Comparison of Example Mobility Fee Using Different Methods Table

DEVELOPMENT LOCATION AVERAGE RATE MOBILITY FEE

LOCATION‐BASED MOBILITY FEE

DEVELOPMENT 1 U rban Center $100,000 $80,920

DEVELOPMENT 2 Rural Area $290,000 $368,900

sing travel demand modeling to determine the VMT may be unwieldy for applicants of small developments. A general table of the mobility fee could be developed using the location‐based fee

well

, as well as for each development, is recommended due to its acceptance for travel demand modeling in traffic impact assessment and

tablish

n (FDOT) has contracted with the University of Florida (UF) to explore VMT according to specific land uses. According to the

effort d

onal Funding Mechanism at is demanded by new development. Compact, mixed use es to the single‐occupancy vehicle such as various types of

wn urban cores, regional activity centers, traditional towns or villages, and identified activity centers along transit corridors will be necessary

U

method of averaging trip length by zone. This table would be useful for small developments as as local governments with limited technical expertise.

The use of FSUTMS to establish VMT for planning areas

long range planning throughout the state. A drawback of using this model is that it cannot esa VMT for many land uses, such as those associated with the ITE Trip Generation. The model relies on less than ten categories to describe dozens of general land uses.

Recognizing this drawback, the Florida Department of Transportatio

scope of services, the “research will develop generalized methodologies for measuring transportation impact using vehicle miles of travel and travel time. The vehicle miles of travel methodology would more closely reflect the impacts of specific types of land uses and theirlocation within the region and proximity to complementary ‘indicator’ land uses, such as majoremployers, grocery stores, home improvement stores, and schools.” The FDOT/UF research complements this policy‐focused project, by providing much needed refinements to VMT by lanuse.

OptiMobility needs in Florida go beyond whdevelopment is dependent on alternativtransit and transportation demand management strategies in addition to bicycling and walking. Capital facilities as well as long term operating costs for these alternative modes cannot be funded through a mobility fee dependent on new development. Therefore, local governments must havean optional mechanism for funding these mobility needs.

Localized mobility plans for urban centers such as downto

to facility mobility within and between these centers. In these areas, secondary priority should be placed on vehicle mobility and primary priority placed on providing a safe, comfortable, and attractive environment for pedestrians and bicyclists with convenient access to transit. Providing


37

multiple modes of transportation leads to a reduction in automobile use and vehicle miles train these areas. An adapted transportation utility fee would provide a stable revenue source for funding localized mobility.

Comparison of Attribu

veled

tes Table 3 compares the attributes of the working concept with those of the three basic approaches

fee, the modified impact fee, and the adapted transportation

fee

3. Mobility Fee Working Concept Attributes Comparison

FINANCING FEATURE

WORKING CONCEPT

discussed in this report, the road userutility fee. The road user fee, while a stable revenue source, poses complex implementation challenges. The transportation utility fee is also a stable revenue source, although new to Florida and one that requires further legal analysis and legislative authorization. The modified impactapproach provides revenue for capital improvements while discouraging sprawl. Applying it with atransportation utility fee “option” for urban centers that applies a functional population approach combines the positive attributes of the modified impact fee and the adapted transportation utility fee.

Table

APPROACH 1 ROAD USER

FEE


APPROACH 3 ADAPTED

TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE IMPACT UTILITY

FOSTERS COMPACT, MIXED‐USE DEVELOPMENT Yes Yes Yes Yes No

ASSESSMENT BASE New

development All

properties A

New All ll roadusers

development properties

MULTIMODAL REVENUE Moderate High High Moderate High CAPITAL REVENUE High High High High High

OPERATIONS/MAINTENANCE REVENUE Low High Low Low High

REVENUE PREDICTABILITY Cyclical Recurring / S

One‐ti ent / Cyclical

Recur table Stable table

me paymring / S

BACK CING LOG FINAN No Yes Yes No Yes ASSESSMENT VARIES BY

LOCATION Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

EA N Moderate D lt D t Moderate D t SE OF IMPLEMENTATIO ifficu ifficul ifficul

Mobility Fee Considerations A mobility fee in Florida should be clearly authorized by statute. The statute should identify under

plemented, including planning considerations and

fund, tax

what circumstances the fee may be iminstitutional arrangements. Mobility fee reductions or waivers can adversely impact transportationrevenues and increase funding shortfalls and, therefore, should be limited to maximize implementation of the regional mobility plan. The amount of any mobility fee reduction should be offset by clear benefits to the mobility plan. An alternative funding source (i.e., general increment financing, or transportation utility fee) should be established to make up revenue lost bygranting impact fee reductions or waivers.


38

A number of existing systems and fees may be affected by implementation of the mobility fee. Further development of a mobility fee concept might address the relationship of the mobility fee to transportation concurrency management systems, local government impact fees, DRI

ty fee is an riven method of determining the

fee. One is whether it may be construed that new development will be paying for backlogs, which is

be

rights program may be needed to redirect development to more appropriate locations. Collier County is

re .

development codes and standards, and lengthy development approval processes all increase the e infill

proportionate fair share and proportionate fair share mitigation.

Consideration must be given to legal limitations of the mobility fee. Because the mobiliimpact fee, several concerns arise in applying an improvements‐d

expressly prohibited by statute. As proposed, the working concept requires the proportion of planned projects that will address an existing backlog to be separated from the target mobility fee funding level. Another concern is the nexus required between the impact fee and multimodal improvements established by the mobility plan. A method to address this concern will need to clearly defined as part of the mobility fee program, as discussed earlier in this report.

Many local governments have already allocated development rights across a broad area, sometimes outside of planned growth areas. In such cases, a transfer of development

one example of an area attempting to accomplish such a program. This would result in mocompact development, reduced vehicle miles of travel, and lower capital and operating costs

Transportation concurrency management is not the only barrier to urban infill development. Difficulty in amassing property, complex development requirements, contemporary land

cost of infill development. Local governments should create additional incentives to encouragdevelopment by addressing these other barriers.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aventura Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee. City of Aventura, Florida Code of Ordinances Article IV: Finance, Division 2: Fees and Charges. Sec. 2‐302. Transportation mitigation impact fee. (Ord. No. 2008‐08, § 2, 4‐8‐08) Secs. 2‐303‐‐2‐310. Reserved.

Cooper, Connie B. Transportation Impact Fees and Excise Taxes: A Survey of 16 Jurisdictions. PAS Report No. 493, American Planning Association, July 2000.

Duncan and Associates, Inc., et al. The Search for Efficient Urban Growth Patterns: A Study of the Fiscal Impacts of Development in Florida, Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1989.

Johnson, Jaye Pershing. Uses of Fees or Alternatives to Fund Transit. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Federal Transit Administration, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, December 2008.

Lawler, Ann. Traffic Impact Fee Survey. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, May 1997.

Lawler, Ann and Michael Powers. “Traffic Impact Fees‐Survey Results.” American Planning Association, California Chapter, undated (completed in mid‐to‐late 90s per Michael Powers). Available online: http://www.calapa.org/

Nicholas, James C. and Arthur Nelson. “Determining the Appropriate Development Impact Fee Using the Rational Nexus Test,” Journal of the American Planning Association. Chicago: Winter 1988, Vol. 54, Iss. 1, pp. 56‐67.

Nicholas, James C. Technical Memorandum on the Methods of Updating Charlotte County Impact Fees. Board of County Commissioners of Charlotte County, November 2008.

Oregon Road User Fee Pilot Program. Available online: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/

Seggerman, Karen and Kristine Williams. Impact Fee Credits for Livable Communities Improvements, Technical Memorandum #1 Literature Review and Alternative Approaches. Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, January 2005.

Texas Transportation Code ‐ Chapter 441 Road Utility Districts. Available online: http://law.onecle.com/texas/trasnportation/chapter441.html

Williams, Kristine M. and Karen E. Seggerman. Model Regulations and Plan Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts. National Center for Transit Research. Florida Department of Transportation Contract Number BC‐137‐47. April 2004.

Williams, Kristine, M., Edward A. Mierzejewski, Karen E. Seggerman, Larry Hagen, Pei‐Sung Lin, and Spencer Fleury. Technical Memorandum 1: Current Practices and Regulatory Concepts, Model Fair Share Ordinance for Transportation Concurrency. Florida Department of Transportation, September 2005.

39

http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/RUFPP/

http://law.onecle.com/texas/trasnportation/chapter441.html


40


APPENDIX A: AN APPLICATION OF THE UTILITY ENTERPRISE FUND CONCEPT TO FINANCE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS IN FLORIDA

Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., FAICP Presidential Professor and Director of Metropolitan Research University of Utah James C. Nicholas, Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Law and Urban and Regional Planning University of Florida

DRAFT OF November 15, 2008

41


INTRODUCTION

This report presents a new approach to financing transportation facilities through a “transportation utility fee”. The idea of TUFs is not new but until now their design and application has been limited in categories of expenses to be covered, geographic scope, and comprehensiveness of assessment. This report reviews the concept of utility fees generally, summarizes the early history of TUF‐like approaches in Florida and more recently in Oregon, identifies shortcomings, and presents a general model for Transportation Mobility Fees (TMF) to be considered for Florida.

Utility Financing Several kinds of publicly‐provided utilities are financed through “enterprise funds.” Generally, all utility costs are covered through user fees rather than taxes. The user fees themselves are based generally on amount of use. Enterprise fund are self‐sufficient and managed separately from other general operating budgets of local governments. They are a “closed system” in that system costs and revenues are accounted for wholly within the enterprise itself. Utility fees are composed generally of three parts: Capital facilities, maintenance, and administration.

Capital facilities include central and distribution networks. Examples of central facilities include wastewater treatment plants and water processing systems including intake, storage, and treatment. Generally, central facilities serve all users proportionately; the cost per gallon of treatment is usually the same among different categories of development. For a given treatment capacity, costs are fixed per unit of treatment. Distribution networks include the lines, pumps, and other facilities that connect central treatment to users. Per unit costs of distributing facilities can vary by localized installation costs (rocky slopes compared to well‐drained flat ground, for instance), distance needed to connect users to central facilities, and density of users. Capital facility expansion and rehabilitation are also included in this category of cost.

Maintenance includes minor repairs of all capital facilities. While the cost of maintaining and repairing central systems can be assigned to all users proportionate to their use, distribution network costs can vary by location, distance and density as noted above.

Administrative costs are usually considered system‐wide financing obligations.

Often, all or part of the central capital facility costs are recovered through connection, tap‐on, system development charge, or impact fees. Occasionally part of the distribution network capital costs are recovered similarly. Usually, utility rates are set to recover unrecovered capital costs and costs related to maintenance and administration proportionate to all uses of the utility regardless of differences in cost burdens based on location, distance, or density.

42


Transportation Utility Fees The utility enterprise funding model is gradually being applied to finance transportation systems. Two Florida examples are instructive: Orlando and Port Orange. As Ewing (1994) observes:

Use of a TUF to fund road maintenance has one compelling advantage over the common alternative of reliance on property tax receipts from the general fund. With a property tax, a significant percentage of traffic generators pay nothing due to their tax‐exempt status. In contrast, with a TUF, every local traffic generator pays to support the local road system. Some inequity creeps into a transportation utility fee schedule because road use usually is estimated rather than measured and because estimates are based on averages for entire classes of property. Still, this shortcoming may be less problematic than the exemption of entire classes of developed property from any financial contribution to road maintenance.

In the early 1990s, Orlando, Florida, considered shifting its method of financing transportation from a general fund approach to an enterprise fund approach. A key feature would be all transportation costs and revenues would be placed into an enterprise account separate from the general fund. A transportation utility fee would be assessed across all property in the city based on proportionate‐share principles. The analytic framework is posed below with examples that follow. The Orlando TUF would have been based on the following formula:

Where Unit Demand = number of dwelling units, square feet, or hotel rooms Trip Generation Factor = Total Average Daily Trips Per Unit Base Rate = Average Yearly Costs based on Total Average Daily Trips

on a particular parcel

For example, in the 1990s, the Orlando TUF would have resulted in the following annual fees by land use:

@ $6,465,000 @ 2,108,443

$3.07⁄

The property tax bill for every property would include the TUF based on the following schedule:

Table 1. Orlando Transportation Utility Fee Proposal

Cost @ $3.07/Trip Land Use Daily Trips

Single family 10.44 $32.06

Multi‐ family 6.33 $19.44

43


Hotel room 9.03 $27.72

1000 SF office 12.87 $39.52

1000 SF commercial 69.15 $212.30

1000 SF industrial 5.62 $17.24

Source: Marie York, Center for Urban and Environmental Problems, Florida Atlantic University.

The Orlando TUF was not adopted but shortly after the Orlando study the City of Port Orange adopted a similar program. Ewing (1994) notes that in June 1992, Port Orange, Florida, became the tenth U.S. city (and the first east of the Mississippi River) to adopt a TUF. TUF funds replaced a 0.287‐mill subsidy from the city's general fund and eliminated the city's road maintenance shortfall. Over time, funds were expected to be used to pave dirt roads, build bike paths, and widen selected streets. However, the Orlando TUF was never adopted because internal legal opinions indicated it may be viewed by the courts as an unauthorized tax. Port Orange came to the same conclusion and essentially never implemented its TUF program.

The transportation utility fee concept has been slow to catch on nationally. Oregon is the nation’s leader in using it. In Oregon, a transportation utility fee, like a water or wastewater, is a monthly fee collected on development based on its estimated use of the transportation system. Table 2 reviews TUFs in Oregon communities (effective 2003).

Table 2. Transportation Utility Fees in Oregon Communities, 2003

City Population

Gross Annual Revenue

Monthly Fee for Detached Residence

Annual Revenue Per Road Mile

Annual Revenue Per Capita

Ashland 19,490 $734,000 $5.12 $3,966 $26.55

Eagle Point 4,665 $80,000 $3.00 $1,958 $58.31

Eugene 140,000 $5,700,000 $2.90 $10,000 $24.56

La Grande 12,885 $200,000 $4.00 $2,326 $64.43

Medford 59,990 $2,900,000 $4.64 $9,767 $20.69

Phoenix 3,970 $60,000 $1.55 $3,294 $66.17

Springfield 52,000 $1,000,000 $1.75 na $52.00

Talent 5,065 $62,400 $1.96 $3,120 $81.17

Tualatin 21,235 $620,000 $2.92 $10,532 $34.25

Wilsonville 12,985 $482,713 $4.48 $9,851 $26.90

Source: Adapted from Springer and Ghilarducci (2004).

44


The basic formula used in these communities is:

⁄

In all cases, TUF revenue is used for road maintenance and operations, thereby freeing up state gasoline tax revenue for capital expansion. (Many jurisdictions also supplement capital expansion revenue with “system development charges” which are akin to impact fees.)

A recent variation on Oregon’s TUF experience is that of the Lake Oswego “Street Maintenance Fee” (SMF). The fee is a monthly assessment on property owners based on use of the transportation system that is collected from residences and businesses within the City. It is based on the number of trips a particular land use generates and is collected through the City's regular water, wastewater and drainage utility bill. The fee is dedicated to the maintenance and repair of the City's transportation system.

Unlike other TUFs, Lake Oswego’s SMF uses trips and trip lengths for non‐residential land uses. Before the fee was implemented an inventory of the existing uses parcels of all parcels in the City was conducted. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were used to determine trip generation values for each use. Residential and non‐residential groups were established to help generate a maintenance fee rate to be applied to each group. Adjustments were made to the trip generation rates to account for pass‐by trips. The groupings take into account the net trip generation rates after factoring in pass‐by trip information. In addition, nonresidential groups included basic trip length considerations:

• Single Family (Detached)

• Multi‐family

• Group 1 ‐ Land uses with less than 29 vehicle‐trip‐miles per day per 1,000 sf. of building space

• Group 2 ‐ Land uses with more than 29, but less than 90, vehicle‐trip‐miles per day per 1,000 sf. of building space

• Group 3 ‐ Land uses with more than 90 vehicle‐trip‐miles per day per 1,000 sf of building space

The fee itself is based on the following formula:

⁄

Where

45


Street Maintenance Costs is the budget for maintaining streets but not capital expansion (that is paid in part through a road “system development charge” which is a road impact fee). The cost is calculated as the full cost necessary to maintain the street system properly and avoid deferred maintenance for lack of funds.

Revenues are projected revenues from state, regional, and local sources.

Estimated Trips are for year of analysis using the City’s inventory of land uses multiplied by ITE’s trip generation rates applicable to each group.

ITE Daily Trips/Group is the number of trips for each unit of land use (one dwelling for residential and 1,000 square feet for nonresidential).

Lake Oswego’s fee for each land‐use group was thus:

Single‐family detached residential (per unit) $3.75/month/unit

Multi‐family residential (per unit) $2.68/month/unit

Non‐Residential Group 1 $2.30/month/1,000 square feet



Transportation utility fees may become increasingly popular as transportation system operating and maintenance revenues become more stressed. The methods used for them, however, are very simple and reminiscent of the early days of impact fees. The early TUF approaches and those used today throughout Oregon have important limitations. First, they apply only to operations and maintenance of roads, and not all elements of the mobility system. Second, they usually rely on impact fees to expand the capacity of roads. Third, with few exceptions, the “denominator” is trips and not trip length which means they are average cost mechanisms that apply to all development regardless of location, density, and especially distance – thus, lower cost areas of a jurisdiction are essentially subsidizing higher costs areas. Nonetheless, every new financing approach usually starts with basic elements that once understood can be refined for the “next generation.” Oregon, which probably leads the nation with TUF experience, appears to be moving to a “next” generation approach. A leading example is considered next.

Next Generation Transportation Utility Fees Springer and Ghilarducci (2004) present a comprehensive approach to calculating TUFs for one of Oregon’s largest counties. Clackamas County is approaching 400,000 residents and its land area is comparable to Delaware. Together with five cities in the county, the TUF is intended to provide for the maintenance and operation of such facilities or activities as:

• Bridge maintenance.

• Guardrails.

46


• Road shouldering.

• Road treatment.

• Street lighting.

• Traffic operations (operating and maintaining traffic signals, signs, and striping)

• Utility billing.

• Vegetation control.

The total annual budget for these activities was estimated at $20 million, which was the numerator. The denominator to be used by the County was based on equivalent residential units, defined as the average vehicles miles traveled (VMT) per single family detached unit. Nonresidential land uses were divided into 10 groups based on multiples of equivalent residential units. The basic analytic framework is illustrated in Figure 1. The sample monthly fee for selected land uses was:

Sample Land Use Type Monthly Fee ($)

Single family detached dwelling unit 15

Neighborhood shopping center (50,000 ft2 lease area) 3,000

Apartment complex (200 units) 1,800

Elementary school (500 students) 550

47


FIGURE 1: Parcel‐level trip generation process (TMUF ‐ Transportation Maintenance Utility Fee). (Springer and Ghilarducci, 2004.)

Unlike gas tax increases which require voter approval, TUF programs in Oregon can be adopted administratively. But they are subject to local referendum if the governing body chooses that route. The Clackamas County Board of Commissioners referred the TUF program to the voters and on November 5, 2004 it was defeated by a margin of two to one. On the other hand, the TUF lost by a smaller margin than a previous gas tax increase vote, which failed five to one.

Conceptual Transportation Mobility Fee for Florida What is proposed here conceptually is a “Transportation Mobility Fee” (TMF) for Florida jurisdictions perhaps extended to the state as well. The TMF would combine basic elements of TUF approaches but adapt them based on the well‐developed methods for calculating road impact fees. Florida is a national leader in designing road impact fees with many of its innovations being adopted across the nation. The conceptual model would need to be adapted to local circumstances. Various administrative issues would need to be considered as well, many of which are presented at the end.

Conceptually, the TMF could replace all local‐source transportation‐related revenues such as local option gas taxes and impact fees. As a practical matter, however, TMF revenues would likely be

48


considered supplemental to such existing revenue sources to assure use of the broadest range of revenues possible. One reason is that more rather than fewer revenues sources hedge against economic cycles that could alter revenue streams from any given source. Conceptually, the TMF could apply to all transportation‐related activities including but not limited to such broad categories as:

Roads and bridges

Transportation‐related drainage

Sidewalks and bikeways/pedways

Public transit

TMF revenue could be used to fund capital, operations and maintenance, and administrative costs. Unlike TUF programs in Florida and elsewhere, but like road impact fee programs, the program could consider variations in costs of all transportation components considering:

• Location

• Distance

• Density

Location refers to the fact that because of terrain or other features, some areas are simply more expensive to provide and maintain capital facilities than others. Distance means that in some areas of a jurisdiction more and longer trips are needed to access work and other destinations than others. Density is important because, generally, the more densely settled an area the fewer vehicle trips that are needed and those that are made may be shorter.

Ideally, a TMF would be designed to consider all these factors spatially; that is, lower cost areas would pay lower TMFs than higher cost ones. Fortunately, the service area concept used to design road impact fee programs can be applied to TMF design – something that has not been done for TUF programs anywhere. In addition, TMF design can include variation in demand on transportation systems based on more refined assessment of different land uses than traditional TUF programs.

The TMF program itself could have two principal elements: capital and operations (including maintenance and administration). Because the nature of demand for transportation facilities varies by facility, facility demand would be calculated in different ways. Two approaches may be recommended: VMT and functional population.

VMT calculations are commonly used to apportion road capital costs among different land uses. Florida is a national leader in developing and applying these kinds of methodologies. A very generalized approach using this method is shown in Table 3. Here, the costs are apportioned to a service area which may for TMF purposes be called an assessment district. Nonetheless, where

49


impact fees are used to generate revenue for transportation it may be advisable to use those service area boundaries.

Table 3.

VMT‐Based TMF

Expenditure Amount

Capital Costs (net of nonlocal, impact fee, and other dedicated revenue) $1,000,000

Operating Costs (net of nonlocal and other dedicated revenue) $2,000,000

Total Expenditure $3,000,000

Land‐Use Apportionment

Residential Impact Units VMT/Unit

Total VMTa

VMT Shareb

Land Use Financial Sharec

Annual TMF Per Impact Unitd

Single Family (dwellings) 10,000 50 500,000 74.07% $2,222,222 $222.22

Apartments (dwellings) 5,000 30 150,000 22.22% $666,667 $133.33

Nonresidential

Office (1k sq. ft.) 500 10 5,000 0.74% $22,222 $44.44

Warehouse (1k sq. ft.) 200 5 1,000 0.15% $4,444 $22.22

Retail (1k sq.ft.) 500 30 15,000 2.22% $66,667 $133.33

Institutional (1k sq.ft.) 400 10 4,000 0.59% $17,778 $44.44

Total 61,600 675,000 100.00% $3,000,000 $180.72e

Notes: a. Impact units times VMT/Unit b. Total VMT for a given land use divided by total VMT for all uses summed c. VMT Share times Total Expenditure d. Land Use Financial Share divided by Impact Units e. Average annual TMF per impact unit.

The TMF would calculated similarly to the property tax in that the projected budget would be the numerator and current land use impacts would be the denominator:

50


$3,000,0002,024,000

$1.48

Capital costs would include routine repairs and rehabilitation, debt service (bond) payments, and expenses associated with future capital investment such as right‐of‐way acquisition, engineering, legal, planning and so forth. Capital costs would be net of nonlocal revenues (such as from the state or federal agencies), impact fees assessed on new development to be used for the same facilities included in the TMF calculation, and other dedicated revenue (such as may be pledged from community improvement districts, special assessments, and the like).

Operating costs include routine operations and maintenance apportioned to the service area, as well as the proportionate share of administrative and other overhead costs. These costs would be net of nonlocal and other revenue for this purpose (such as special assessments).

Generally, calculating VMT‐based TMF’s would be based on standard impact fee methodologies already used throughout Florida. Local governments would be free to apply any number of such methodologies to their situation. There would be one important adjustment. The VMT‐based TMF would need to be adapted to the assessor records. Doing so may require aligning road impact fee schedules that are customarily based on Institute of Transportation Engineers’ land use codes to assessor codes. A related adjustment is calculating the VMT for each assessor record. While tedious initially, automation should not make the process time‐consuming and once done need only be updated annually. Furthermore, because assessor records include the size of structures VMT for each assessor code can be estimated on a per square‐foot basis which when multiplied by the size of structure provides a proportionate‐share relationship between the land use, VMT production, and demand on road facilities.

The VMT‐based TMF may not be appropriate for other transportation functions such as sidewalks, bicycle pathways, transit, and so forth. The question would be whether there is an alternative approach. Fortunately, there is, based on work pioneered by Dr. James C. Nicholas for Aventura, Florida. In this case, Dr. Nicholas applied the “functional population” concept to calculate a one‐time mitigation fee on all new development that would be used to help fund the operations and maintenance of the city’s transit system. (Functional population is the effective population being served over the course of a day. For example, if 100,000 people live and work in a community, and if another 60,000 commute into the community to work an 8‐hour (one‐third day), the functional population is 100,000 + (60,000 x 1/3) = 120,000.) Florida may lead the nation in the use of functional population to calculate impact fees. Its application to non‐VMT facilities is an easy extension as used in Aventura and provided in the example of Table 4.

51


Table 4.

Functional Population‐Based TMF

Expenditure

Capital Costs (net of nonlocal, impact fee, and other dedicated revenue)

Amount

$250,000

O&M Costs (net of nonlocal and other dedicated revenue) $500,000

Total Expenditure $750,000


Residential Impact Units FP/Unita Total FP

VMT Share

Land Use Financial Share

Annual TMF Per Impact Unit

Single Family 10,000 1.50 15,000 60.24% $451,807 $45.18

Apartments 5,000 1.00 5,000 20.08% $150,602 $30.12

Nonresidential

Office 500 2.00 1,000 4.02% $30,120 $60.24

Warehouse 200 0.50 100 0.40% $3,012 $15.06

Retail 500 6.00 3,000 12.05% $90,361 $180.72

Institutional 400 2.00 800 3.21% $24,096 $60.24

Total 16,600 24,900 100.00% $750,000 $45.18b

Note:

a. Illustrative functional population (FP) per unit. For residential, this would assume that a person effectively occupies their home 60% of a typical day: for an average household of 2.5 persons, the functional population for the average unit is 0.60 x 2.5 = 1.50.

b. Represents an average annual TMF per impact unit (not a total).

Using assessor records for functional population‐based TMFs can be accomplished using the same approach described above for the VMT‐based TMF. Because they relate demand based on common units of impact across all land uses, the two approaches may be combined into a master TMF assessment, as shown in Table 5.

52


Table 5.

Total TMF Assessment

Expenditure Amount

Annualized Capital Costs $1,250,000

Annual O&M Costs $2,500,000

Total Expenditure $3,750,000


Residential Impact Units

Annual TMF Per Impact Unit Monthly

Single Family 10,000 $267.40 $22.28

Apartments 5,000 $163.45 $13.62

Nonresidential

Office 500 $104.69 $8.72

Warehouse 200 $37.28 $3.11

Retail 500 $314.06 $26.17

Institutional 400 $104.69 $8.72

Total 16,600 $225.90a $18.83a

a. Average cost.

Summary The fiscal challenges of the past generation have stimulated innovation. For one thing, the public (taxpayers) seems increasingly reluctant to support general taxation to pay for services. There is a growing mood to apportion government charges based on the benefits received. Impact fees help satisfy this objective for capital expansion as do utility rates for water and wastewater facilities based on consumption. The challenge is to meld both approaches into a new method to pay for transportation services. The “transportation mobility fee” concept pioneered by Florida may do so. This report has outlined, generally, how it may be done.

53


54


APPENDIX B: AVENTURA TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION IMPACT FEE City of Aventura, Florida Code of Ordinances Article IV: Finance, Division 2: Fees and Charges

Sec. 2‐302. Transportation mitigation impact fee.

(a) Impact fee; in general.

(1) This section is intended to support and fund mobility within the City's Transportation Concurrency Exception Area by collecting a transportation mitigation impact fee (the "Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee") to allow the expansion, operation and maintenance of the City's Circulator System, also known as the Aventura Express, or as it may be renamed in the future or any similar future transit system (the "Circulator System").

(2) In construing the provisions of this section, the pertinent definitions contained in subsection 2‐301(b) shall apply unless otherwise provided.

(3) Any application for a building permit for development activity as defined in subsection 2‐301(b), within the corporate limits of the City shall be subject to the assessment of a Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee in the manner and amount set forth in this section. No building permit shall be issued by the City until the applicant has paid the assessed Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee as calculated pursuant to this section.

(4) Notwithstanding payment of the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fees pursuant to this section, other State and local regulations may limit the issuance of a building permit.

(5) In the event Transportation Mitigation Impact Fees are paid prior to or concurrent with the issuance of a building permit and subsequently, the building permit is amended, the applicant shall pay the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee in effect at the time the amended building permit is issued with credit being given for the previous fee paid.

(6) In the case of development activity involving a change of use, redevelopment or expansion or modification of an existing use on site which requires issuance of a building permit, the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee shall be based on the net increase in the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee for the new use as compared with the use in effect on the effective date of this section.

(7) If a building permit is cancelled without development commencing, then the applicant who paid the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee shall be entitled to a refund, without interest, of the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee paid except that the City shall retain three percent of the fee to offset a portion of the costs of collection and refund. The applicant who paid the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee shall submit an application for such a refund to the City Manager or his designee within 30 days of the expiration of the order or permit, or thereafter be deemed to waive any right to a refund.

55


(8) In the event the circulator system is discontinued by action of the City Commission, or if the City fails to use or encumber any existing funds by the end of the calendar quarter immediately following ten years from the effective date of this section, upon application of the then current fee simple title holder, funds may be returned to such title holder, without interest, provided that the title holder submits an application for a refund to the City Manager or his designee within 180 days of the expiration of the ten‐year period. However, this section shall not apply to Development of Regional impact or any development with phased or long term buildout. Any claim not so timely made shall be deemed waived.

(9) Funds shall be deemed expended for the purposes of this section when a contract, agreement or purchase order encumbering all or a portion of the payment of said funds shall be approved by final City action.

(b) Impact fee computation formula.

(1) The applicant shall pay a Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee amount based on the formula set forth in the table below or as it may be amended by Ordinance of the City Commission. The fee shall be collected by the Community Development Department prior to issuance of a building permit for development activity. Such fee will be based on the cost required to serve the increased demand for use of the circulator system resulting from the proposed new development activity. The formula to be used to calculate the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee is established as follows for each property use:

TABLE INSET:

Land Use (Unit of Measure) Persons per Unit of Measure Fee per Unit of Measure

Residence per Dwelling 0.972 $ 803.05

Office per 1,000 FT 2 1.557 $1,286.59

Retail per 1,000 FT 2 2.175 $1,797.33

Tourist Accommodation per 1,000 FT 2 2.720 $2,247.22

Industrial per 1,000 FT 2 1.319 $1,089.35

Institutional per 1,000 FT 2 2.312 $1,910.09

(2) The fee per residential dwelling unit or fee per thousand nonresidential square feet shall be multiplied by the applicant's total number of dwelling units for residential property or total number of thousands of square feet for nonresidential property. The total will then be multiplied by 1.03 for a general administrative charge of three percent. The resulting total is the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee and administrative charge, which amount shall be paid by the applicant.

(3) An applicant may choose to prepare a study to identify a more precise calculation of the impact of his or her proposed development activity on the City's circulator system. If the applicant chooses

56


this option, the applicant shall prepare and submit to the City Manager an Alternative Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee Calculation Study (the "alternative fee study"), containing professionally accepted methodologies and formats as well as traffic, engineering, occupancy and other documentation in support of the basis upon which the alternative calculation was determined. The alternative fee study shall be prepared and presented by professionals qualified in their respective fields and employ methods recognized within those respective fields. The City Manager shall consider the alternative fee study submitted by the applicant, but is not required to accept such documentation if he believes the information to be inaccurate or not reliable. In this case, the City Manager may require the applicant to submit additional or a different alternative fee study for consideration. If an acceptable alternative fee study is not presented, the applicant shall pay the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee based upon the schedules shown in paragraph (1) of this section. If the City Manager approves a Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee in an amount other than that determined by the alternative fee study, the applicant may appeal the City Manager's decision to the City Commission by filing a written request with the City Clerk within ten days of the date of the City Manager's decision.

(4) In the case of development activity involving a change of use or magnitude of use for which a building permit is required, the proposed development shall be required to pay a Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee only for the increase in use of the circulator system resulting from new development activity. The Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee shall be the difference between the computed Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee for the proposed Development Activity and the computed Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee for the existing development activity. Any building permit which expires or is revoked after the effective date of this section and for which a fee has not previously been paid under this section shall be required to comply with the provisions herein. No refunds will be given for proposed development activity resulting in a negative fee calculation.

(5) If the type of activity within a proposed or current development is not specified, the City Manager or his designee shall use the activity most nearly comparable that will result in payment of a fair and equitable Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee.

(6) In determining existing development activity and the units or thousands of square feet of proposed or existing development, the Community Development Department shall use the building permit and the certificate of use information contained in the building or zoning records of Miami‐Dade County or the City.

(c) Impact fee exemptions.

(1) Alteration, expansion or replacement of an existing building or residential dwelling unit where the use is not changed and the number of residential dwelling units or square footage is not increased shall not be subject to the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee.

57


(2) The burden of demonstrating the previous use or previous payment of a Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee shall be upon the applicant. In cases where there is an existing use, any additional fees shall be based upon the alteration and/or addition to the existing use.

(3) Government or public facilities used for governmental purposes are exempt from the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee, including those parcels, grounds, buildings or structures owned by the federal government, State of Florida, Miami‐Dade County, the City, the Miami‐Dade County Public Schools or the South Florida Water Management District, including, but not limited to, governmental offices, police and fire stations, airports, seaports, parking facilities, equipment yards, sanitation facilities, water control structures, schools, parks and similar facilities in or through which general government operations are conducted. It is provided, however, that the following shall not be considered governmental or public facilities and shall be subject to the provision of this section: (1) privately owned properties or facilities leased for governmental operations or activities and privately owned charter schools; (2) public properties or facilities used for private residential, commercial or industrial activities.

(4) The construction of accessory buildings or structures is exempt where 1) the use is not changed, 2) any additional impact on the circulator system is negligible; and 3) the number of residential dwelling units or square footage is not increased.

(5) A building replacement meeting the requirements of the Florida Building Code, (where such replacement is necessitated by partial destruction) and meeting the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations, is exempt.

(6) Parking garages are exempt from the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee when the structure is accessory to a primary use.

(7) An exemption must be claimed by the applicant prior to paying the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee. Any exemption not so claimed prior to payment shall be deemed to have been waived by the applicant.

(d) Impact fee expenditures.

(1) Expenditures from the impact fee shall include, but not be limited to:

a. All costs related to expansion of the circulator system;

b. All costs related to operation of the circulator system; and

c. All costs related to maintenance of the circulator system.

(2) The three percent general administrative cost portion of the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee, as provided for herein, shall be deposited into the general fund and shall be used to offset the costs of administering the Transportation Mitigation Impact Fee.

58


(e) Establishment of fund. Transportation Mitigation Impact Fees collected pursuant to this section shall be accounted for in the Transportation and Street Maintenance Fund established by the City.

(f) Review and assessment of fee. The City Manager shall review the contents of this section at least every three years and, if appropriate, make recommendations to the City Commission to revise it. The first such review shall be no later than January 1, 2011. The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommended revision(s) to this section and decide whether to adopt them.

(Ord. No. 2008‐08, § 2, 4‐8‐08)

Secs. 2‐303‐‐2‐310. Reserved.

59


60


APPENDIX C: CHARLOTTE COUNTY ROAD IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS This appendix is Section II. Road Impact Fees from the document, “Technical Memorandum on the Methods of Updating Charlotte County Impact Fees” prepared for the Board of County Commissioners of Charlotte County by James C. Nicholas, Ph. D., Draft March 3, 2009.

II. Road Impact Fees

The formula for calculating the road impact fees is: Attributable New Travel in Vehicular Miles per Day = [(Vehicular Trip Ends Per Day X Average Trip Length) / 2] X % New Trips New Lane Miles of Roads = Attributable Travel / Capacity per Lane Mile in Vehicles per Day Road Cost = New Lane Miles of Roads X Cost per Lane Mile Credits = {[(Attributable Travel X Days per Year) / Miles per Gallon] X Capital Portion of

Motor Fuels Tax} X Present Value Factor Present Value Factor = Sum from 1 to 25 of (1 / (1.045 ^N) Where N Is the Year from 1 To 25 Net Cost = Total Cost - Credits The existing system of road impact fees imposes a single county-wide road impact fee by land use. This is based on the assumption that individual travel characteristics do not vary by location within the county. An alternative approach is to account for actual travel characteristics within the county. Pursuant to direction, this updated set of road impact fees will vary travel characteristics within the county and will also recognize that some areas of the county require fewer road improvements in order to accommodate new development. ZONES. Four traffic zones are used in these calculations:

1. Urban – the area from the Gulf of Mexico on the west to the east border of the Urban Service Area (USA), and the area east of the USA and north of CR 74 to west of the abandoned railroad path;

2. Rural 2 – the east of Urban to west of SR 31, less the area north of CR 74 and east of Sections 01, 12, 13, 24, 25, and 36 of Township 40 and Range 24;

3. Rural 1 – the area east of Rural 2, less the area of the Babcock Ranch Development of Regional Impact; and

4. Babcock – the area of the Babcock Ranch DRI.

61


These districts are shown on Map 1, page 18.

NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS BY ZONE. The County’s 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) proposes to provide additional road capacity within the Urban Service Area. Table R1 shows the existing capacity, the projected need for additional capacity, and the extent to which the LRTP will provide the needed capacity. The 2030 long range plan did not include the Babcock DRI.

Table R1

PROJECTED GROWTH, TRAVEL AND NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS BY ZONE 2010 to 2030

Urban Rural 2 Rural 1 Babcock* Total County

SF-Units 2010 73,452 1,771 965 48 76,2362030 101,412 3,820 2,208 133 107,573New 27,960 2,049 1,243 85 31,337Trip Rate 9.57 6.85 5.60 9.57 Trip Length 7.42 10.73 15.73 8.73 2010 VMT 2,607,891 65,055 42,533 2,005 2,717,4842030 VMT 3,600,603 140,322 97,319 5,556 3,843,800New VMT 992,712 75,267 54,786 3,551 1,126,316

MF-Units 2010 30,214 367 148 7 30,7362030 37,820 391 164 10 38,385New 7,606 24 16 3 7,649Trip Rate 6.72 4.81 3.94 6.72 Trip Length 7.42 10.73 15.73 8.73 2010 VMT 753,271 9,471 4,586 205 767,5332030 VMT 942,898 10,090 5,082 293 958,363New VMT 189,627 619 496 88 190,830

Industrial Space per 1,000 FT² 2010 8,089 276 600 16 8,9812030 10,527 625 680 19 11,851New 2,437 349 80 3 2,869Trip Rate 6.97 4.99 4.08 6.97 Trip Length 8.76 14.51 21.27 10.30 2010 VMT 209,808 8,495 22,133 488 240,9242030 VMT 273,044 19,238 25,085 580 317,947New VMT 63,236 10,743 2,952 92 77,023

Commercial Space per 1,000 FT² 2010 5,296 35 8 0 5,3392030 7,393 128 12 0 7,533New 2,097 93 4 0 2,194Trip Rate 46.05 4.99 26.97 46.05

62


63

Table R1 PROJECTED GROWTH, TRAVEL AND NEEDED IMPROVEMENTS BY ZONE

2010 to 2030

Urban Rural 2 Rural 1 Babcock* Total County

Trip Length 3.52 5.99 8.78 4.14 2010 VMT 214,883 262 474 0 215,6192030 VMT 299,968 957 711 0 301,636New VMT 85,085 695 237 0 86,017

Service Space per 1,000 FT² 2010 39,519 974 324 44 40,8612030 55,773 3,198 2,280 234 61,485New 16,254 2,224 1,956 190 20,624Trip Rate 12.08 8.64 7.07 12.08 Trip Length 2.80 4.76 6.98 3.29 2010 VMT 500,973 15,024 5,994 656 522,6472030 VMT 707,020 49,329 42,183 3,490 802,022New VMT 206,047 34,305 36,189 2,834 279,375

Total Vehicular Miles of Travel 2010 4,286,826 98,307 75,720 3,354 4,464,2072030 5,823,533 219,936 170,380 9,919 6,223,768New 1,536,707 121,629 94,660 6,565 1,759,561

Lane-Miles 2008 397.16 48.17 32.94 4.03 482.30VMT per Lane-Mile 10,794 2,041 2,299 832 9,256New Lane Miles 110.09 0.00 0.00 18.40 128.49Lane Capacity 8,250 8,250 8,250 8,250 8,250Planned New Capacity 908,267 0 0 151,800 1,060,067% of Needed Capacity Provided by CIP or Developer 59.10% 0.00% 0.00% Developer

Funded 60.25%

SOURCE: Charlotte County Long Range Transportation Plan, Cost Feasible. * The long range plan did not include the Babcock development.

However, the needed improvements to serve the Babcock DRI are to be privately provided so there is no problem insofar as the data in Table R1 are concerned. The lane-miles of existing and proposed arterial and collector roads in Charlotte County are shown in Table R1a. The improvements shown are from the 2030 Cost Feasible Plan and not the Needs Plan. The data shown are what Charlotte County is planning to provide in terms of new capacity by zone with the exception that improvements associated with the Babcock DRI are to be privately funded. There is an adjustment introduced in Table R1a. The LRTP incorporates impact fees into its revenue projections. Road impact fees amount to 11% of anticipated funds. Inasmuch as the improvements to be provided by the LRTP are incorporated as dedications in the calculation of road impact fees, it is necessary to make an adjustment so that net impact costs are accurately represented. The adjusted figures are 11% less than the totals shown in the fourth column of Table R1a.


64

Table R1a LANE MILES BY ZONE

2008 2030 Cost Feasible Plan

Cost Feasible Plan - Adjusted

Urban 397.16 520.9 123.7 110.09 Rural 2 48.17 48.2 0.0 0.00 Rural 1 32.94 32.9 0.0 0.00 Babcock 4.03 22.4 18.4 18.40 Other * 12.07 12.1 0.0 0.00 Total 891.53 1157.3 265.8 238.59 SOURCE: Charlotte County, Geographic Information System and the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. *Other roads are those that do not fit into the Long Range Transportation Plan.

The travel parameters used in Table R1 are the same as those used for both the Long Range Transportation Plan and for road impact fees. The existing and planned road improvements will provide 59% of needed capacity for the Urban Service Area. Inasmuch as no improvements are planned for the Rural 2 and Rural 1 areas, the net need is 100%. The Babcock development will be providing its own capacity improvements.


65

Map 1 Road Districts


66

The role of the road impact fee will be to raise additional funds to provide the road capacity enhancements that will not otherwise be provided or financed by the county’s transportation improvement program or privately. Table R2 sets out the trip generation rates by zone. These rates employ the Law of Demand; that quantity and cost are inversely related. That is, as trip lengths become greater individuals will tend to make fewer of trips. This is supplemented by the use of Reilly’s Law of Retail Gravitation; which holds that the attraction of a site is inversely proportional to the square of the distance to the site.20 The premise is that the relationship between distance and attraction is non-linear. This may be represented as:21

βα Length * Trips =VMT Where VMT is vehicular miles of travel per day, Trips is the number of vehicular trips taken per day and Length is the length of those trips in moles. The exponents α and β are the elasticities of Trips and Length with respect to distance traveled, VMT. The above can be rewritten to solve for Trips:

α Length/ Trips βVMT= This equation indicates that the number of vehicular trips will decline with distance and do so at an increasing rate. This is simply Reilly’s law restated into a simple equation. This equation is used to estimate the decrease in trip frequency that would be expected to be observed in the Rural 2 and Rural 1 zones due to the greater distances involved. The trip rates shown in Table R2 have been adjusted for the increased distance shown in Tables R3 and R4. The shortest trip lengths are for the Urban, which is also where the higher trip generation rates are seen. As trip length increases in the Rural 2 and Rural 1 zones, trip frequencies, as shown in Table R2, decrease.

20 William J. Reilly, Reilly’s Law of Retail Gravitation, New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1931. 21 In spreadsheet format this equation would be; Ln(VMT) = [α * Ln(Trips)] + [β * Ln(Length)] and the equation to solve for Trips is; Ln(Trips) = {Ln(VMT) ‐ [β * Ln(Length)]} / α.


TABLE R2

TRIP GENERATION RATES BY ZONE CHARLOTTE COUNTY

Trip

Rates Urban Rural 2 Rural 1

Single Family Detached 9.57 9.57 6.85 5.06 Attached Housing Unit 5.86 5.86 4.19 3.10 Multi-Family Unit 6.72 6.72 4.81 3.55 Mobile Home 4.99 4.99 3.57 2.64 NON-RESIDENTIAL: Walk-in Bank per 1,000 FT² 156.48 156.48 112.01 82.74 Drive-Thru Bank per Lane 411.17 411.17 294.31 217.40 Mini-Warehouse per 1,000 FT² 2.50 2.50 1.79 1.32 Hotel/Motel per Room 6.90 6.90 4.94 3.65 Movie Theatre per 1,000 FT² 78.06 78.06 55.87 41.27 Place of Worship per 1,000 FT² 9.11 9.11 6.52 4.82 Day Care Center per 1,000 FT² 79.26 79.26 56.73 41.91 Quality Restaurant per 1,000 FT² 89.95 89.95 64.38 47.56 High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant per 1,000 FT 127.15 127.15 91.01 67.23 Car Sales 1,000 FT² 33.34 33.34 23.86 17.63 Offices per 1,000 FT² :

Under 100,000 FT² 22.60 22.60 16.18 11.95 100,000 -199,999 FT² 12.08 12.08 8.65 6.39 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 10.29 10.29 7.37 5.44 400,000 FT² & Over 9.14 9.14 6.54 4.83

Medical Buildings: Medical Offices per 1,000 FT² 36.13 36.13 25.86 19.10 Hospitals per 1,000 FT² 17.57 17.57 12.58 9.29 Nursing Homes per 1,000 FT² 6.10 6.10 4.37 3.23

Industrial Buildings: Gen. Industrial per 1,000 FT² 6.97 6.97 4.99 3.69 Warehouse/Storage per 1,000 FT² 4.96 4.96 3.55 2.62

Commercial/Retail per 1,000 FT²: Under 100,000 FT² 71.49 71.49 51.17 37.80 100,000 -199,999 FT² 58.98 58.98 42.22 31.18 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 46.05 46.05 32.96 24.35 400,000 FT² & Over 38.37 38.37 27.46 20.29

Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 88.16 88.16 63.10 46.61 Fast Food Restaurant 496.12 496.12 355.11 262.32 Service Station per Fueling Station 168.56 168.56 120.65 89.12 Convenience Retail 737.99 737.99 528.24 390.20 SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.

67


Trip length by trip purpose for the nation, Charlotte County and by zone are set out in Table R3. These data are used in Table R4 to establish trip length by land use types. Note the increased trip lengths, which are the basis for the trip rate adjustments found in Table R2.

TABLE R3 TRIP LENGTHS BY TRIP PURPOSE

CHARLOTTE COUNTY

Charlotte County Urban Rural 2 Rural 1

All Trips 8.73 7.42 10.73 15.73To/From Work 10.69 9.09 15.46 22.66Work Related Business 25.01 21.26 36.17 53.02Shopping 5.96 5.07 8.62 12.63Personal Business 6.59 5.60 9.53 13.97School/Church 5.34 4.54 7.72 11.32Social & Recreational 10.54 8.96 15.24 22.34

Travel on Local Roads - Percent of All Travel 15% Residential Based Trips (Miles) -- Average 7.42 10.73 15.73Office Based Trips (Miles) - 40% Work and 60% Personal Business 7.00 11.90 11.90Commercial Based Trips (Miles) - 20% Work and 80% Shopping 5.87 9.99 9.99Industrial Based Trips (Miles) - 80% Work and 20% Average 8.76 14.51 14.51Recreational Based Trips (Miles) - 100% Recreational 8.96 15.24 15.24Short Trip Reduction Factors:

Neighborhood Trip - Percent Reduction 60% 60% 60%Local Trip - Percent Reduction 40% 40% 40%Community Trip - Percent Reduction 20% 20% 20%Convenience Trip - Percent Reduction 80% 80% 80%

SOURCE: US Dept. of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, "Summary of Travel Trends: 2001 National Household Transportation Study," December 2004, p. 16 & 46. US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,"NPTS Databook," October 2001, p. 4-35.

Table R4 shows the trip lengths by zone. These lengths begin with national trip lengths, which are then adjusted to Charlotte County characteristics (88.5% of national). Zones Rural 2 and Rural 1 are the adjusted national trip lengths.

68


TABLE R4

TRIP LENGTHS BY ZONE CHARLOTTE COUNTY

% New Trip Lengths in Miles Urban Rural 2 Rural 1

Single Family Detached 100.0% 7.42 10.73 15.73Attached Housing Unit 100.0% 7.42 10.73 15.73Multi Family 100.0% 7.42 10.73 15.73Mobile Home 100.0% 7.42 10.73 15.73NON-RESIDENTIAL: Walk-in Bank per 1,000 FT² 50.0% 2.24 3.81 5.59Drive-Thru Bank per Lane 25.0% 1.12 1.91 2.79Mini-Warehouse per 1,000 FT² 75.0% 7.42 10.73 15.73Hotel/Motel per Room 80.0% 8.96 15.24 22.34Movie Theatre per 1,000 FT² 60.0% 1.79 3.05 4.47Church/Synagogue per 1,000 FT² 85.0% 2.72 4.63 6.79Day Care Center per 1,000 FT² 50.0% 0.91 1.54 2.26Quality Restaurant per 1,000 FT² 60.0% 2.35 4.00 5.85High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant per 1,000 FT 50.0% 3.52 5.99 8.78Car Sales 1,000 FT² 75.0% 5.87 9.99 14.64Offices per 1,000 FT² :

Under 100,000 FT² 75.0% 1.40 2.38 3.49100,000 -199,999 FT² 75.0% 2.80 4.76 6.98200,000 - 399,999 FT² 75.0% 4.20 7.14 10.47400,000 FT² & Over 75.0% 5.60 9.52 13.96

Medical Buildings: Medical Offices per 1,000 FT² 60.0% 3.36 5.72 8.38Hospitals per 1,000 FT² 60.0% 4.48 7.62 11.18Nursing Homes per 1,000 FT² 60.0% 4.48 7.62 11.18

Industrial Buildings: Gen. Industrial per 1,000 FT² 75.0% 8.76 14.51 21.27Warehouse/Storage per 1,000 FT² 75.0% 8.76 14.51 21.27

Commercial/Retail per 1,000 FT²: Under 100,000 FT² 53.0% 1.17 2.00 2.93100,000 -199,999 FT² 63.7% 2.35 4.00 5.85200,000 - 399,999 FT² 69.6% 3.52 5.99 8.78400,000 FT² & Over 77.7% 4.70 7.99 11.71

Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 50.0% 1.17 2.00 2.93Fast Food Restaurant 25.0% 1.17 2.00 2.93Service Station per Fueling Station 15.0% 1.17 2.00 2.93Convenience Retail 15.0% 1.17 2.00 2.93

SOURCE: Table R3.

The data in Tables R2, R3, and R4 will be used to calculate Vehicular Miles of Travel (VMT) on a daily basis by land use type and by zone. VMT added represents the demand for capacity improvements by land use type and by zone.

69


Not all vehicular trips cause impact to the arterial or collector road system. There are “pass-by” and multiple purpose trips. These are vehicular trips that are on the road anyway, like stopping at the grocery store on the way home from work. The Institute of Transportation Engineers has studied these phenomena and the results of their studies are shown in Table R5. Pass-by trips are factored into non-residential traffic impacts as a reduction in net trip lengths, shown in Tables R9 through R14 as Percent (%) New Trips.

TABLE R5 ITE "PASS BY" FORMULA

BUILDING SIZE PASS-BY PERCENT

NEW TRIPS PERCENT

Under 100,000 FT² 47.0% 53.0% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 36.3% 63.7% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 30.4% 69.6% 400,000 FT² & Over 22.3% 77.7%

SOURCE: Institute of Transportation Engineers, TRIP GENERATION, 7th Edition, 2003. Pass-By Trip % = .9449 - [ .1161 * Ln( X )] X - 1,000 Square Feet Gross Leasable Area

The next issue is the capacity of a roadway to accommodate traffic. Table R6 shows the capacities of a newly constructed road and of an expanded road per lane per day.

TABLE R6 ROAD CAPACITIES

CHARLOTTE COUNTY Vehicles per Day at LOS D

New Construction Expansion Lane Capacity - 2 Additional Lanes

Collectors 7,300 7,300 Arterials 7,775 8,250 Capacity Used 8,250

SOURCE: Florida Department of Transportation.

70


The costs of road improvements in Charlotte County are set out in Table R7.

TABLE R7 ROAD COST BY TYPE AND AREA

Area Cost Unit Urban

Reconstruct 2 lanes $332,000 L-M Add 2 lanes $3,000,000 L-M Curb, Gutter & Sidewalks M ROW & Environmental $3,000,000 M Total per L-M $4,832,000 L-M Vehicles per Day 8,250 L-M Cost per VMT $585.70

Rural 2 Reconstruct 2 lanes $0 L-M Add 2 lanes $3,000,000 L-M Curb, Gutter & Sidewalks M ROW & Environmental $3,000,000 M Total per L-M $4,500,000 L-M Vehicles per Day 8,250 L-M Cost per VMT $545.45

Rural 1 Reconstruct 2 lanes $0 L-M Add 2 lanes $3,000,000 L-M Curb, Gutter & Sidewalks M ROW & Environmental $3,000,000 M Total per L-M $4,500,000 L-M Vehicles per Day 8,250 L-M Cost per VMT $545.45

SOURCE: Charlotte County, Department of Public Works and Florida Department of Transportation.

Table R7a summarizes the improvement costs and adjusts those costs to net of the improvements to be funded by sources other than impact fees through the LRTP or by private financing.

71


TABLE R7a NET ROAD COST BY ZONE

Zone Cost per VMT

Total Cost

Provided by LRTP or Privately Funded

Net Cost

Urban $585.70 59.10% $239.55 Rural 2 $545.45 0.00% $545.45 Rural 1 $545.45 0.00% $545.45

The net cost as shown in Table R7a will be used to calculate the road cost by land use type in Tables R9 through R13. Charlotte County, the State of Florida, and the United States government all impose motor fuels taxes that are used to construct and maintain the road system. New developments will pay these taxes along with all others. Table R8 shows the revenues from all levels expected to be available in Charlotte County to fund road expansions. Note should be taken of the fact that the continuation of the Sales Tax is incorporated into these calculations as “Other.” The sales tax is calculated as a motor fuel tax equivalent so that it can be credited to all land uses.

TABLE R8 ROAD IMPACT REVENUE PARAMETERS

$ PER GALLON

% TO COUNTY

% CAPITAL

EFFECTIVE RATE

FEDERAL $0.201 47.6% $0.096 STATE $0.211 43.4% $0.091 COUNTY: 5TH & 6TH $0.020 100.0% 20.0% $0.004 7TH $0.010 100.0% 0.0% $0.000 9TH $0.010 100.0% 0.0% $0.000 OPTIONAL 1 $0.060 88.9% 0.0% $0.000 OPTIONAL 2 $0.050 90.3% 100% $0.045 Other – Motor Fuel Tax Equivalent $0.150 90.3% 100% $0.135 TOTAL $0.712 $0.371 OTHER PARAMETERS: MILES PER GALLON 17.10 CAPITALIZATION PERIOD (Years) 25 DISCOUNT RATE 4.50% PRESENT VALUE FACTOR 14.83SOURCES: Charlotte County May 2008. Florida Department of Transportation, "Florida's Transportation Tax Sources," January 1994. Statistical Abstract of the US 2007, Tables 1069 and 1081. NOTE: Tax rates shown are weighted averages of gasoline and diesel fuel tax rates.

Putting all these data together yields Tables R9 through R14, which are the net road expansion costs by zone for Charlotte County. The decline in road impact fees for the Urban zone results from lessened vehicular miles of travel charged to Urban area

72


developments and allocation of capacity expansions proposed by the Long Range Transportation Plan.

TABLE R9 NET ROAD EXPANSION COSTS URBAN

Urban Trip Rate

Trip Length

% New

Total VMT Cost Credit Net

Cost 2006 % Change

Single Family Detached 9.57 7.42 100% 35.50 $8,504 $4,169 $4,335 $6,084 -28.8% Attached Housing Unit 5.86 7.42 100% 21.74 $5,208 $2,553 $2,655 $3,725 -28.7% Multi Family 6.72 7.42 100% 24.93 $5,972 $2,927 $3,045 $4,272 -28.7% Mobile Home 4.99 7.42 100% 18.51 $4,434 $2,174 $2,260 $3,172 -28.8% All Units per Ft² $1.57 $2.50 -37.2% NON-RESIDENTIAL: Walk-in Bank per 1,000 FT² 156.48 2.24 50% 87.60 $20,985 $10,286 $10,699 $15,355 -30.3% Drive-Thru Bank per Lane 411.17 1.12 25% 57.60 $13,798 $6,764 $7,034 $20,173 -65.1% Mini-Warehouse per 1,000 FT² 2.50 7.42 75% 7.00 $1,677 $822 $855 $1,192 -28.3% Hotel/Motel per Room 6.90 8.96 80% 24.70 $5,917 $2,900 $3,017 $3,924 -23.1% Movie Theatre per 1,000 FT² 78.06 1.79 60% 42.00 $10,061 $4,932 $5,129 $13,318 -61.5% Church/Synagogue per 1,000 FT² 9.11 2.72 85% 10.50 $2,515 $1,233 $1,282 $2,326 -44.9% Day Care Center per 1,000 FT² 79.26 0.91 50% 18.00 $4,312 $2,114 $2,198 $5,952 -63.1% Quality Restaurant per 1,000 FT² 89.95 2.35 60% 63.40 $15,187 $7,445 $7,742 $16,289 -52.5% High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant per 1,000 FT 127.15 3.52 50% 112.00 $26,830 $13,151 $13,679 $19,187 -28.7% Car Sales 1,000 FT² 33.34 5.87 75% 73.40 $17,583 $8,619 $8,964 $12,578 -28.7% Offices per 1,000 FT² :

Under 100,000 FT² 22.60 1.40 75% 11.90 $2,851 $1,397 $1,454 $6,077 -76.1% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 12.08 2.80 75% 12.70 $3,042 $1,491 $1,551 $4,331 -64.2% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 10.29 4.20 75% 16.20 $3,881 $1,902 $1,979 $4,611 -57.1% 400,000 FT² & Over 9.14 5.60 75% 19.20 $4,599 $2,255 $2,344 $4,096 -42.8%

Medical Buildings: Medical Offices per 1,000 FT² 36.13 3.36 60% 36.40 $8,720 $4,274 $4,446 $12,953 -65.7% Hospitals per 1,000 FT² 17.57 4.48 60% 23.60 $5,653 $2,771 $2,882 $3,958 -27.2% Nursing Homes per 1,000 FT² 6.10 4.48 60% 8.20 $1,964 $963 $1,001 $2,327 -57.0%

Industrial Buildings: Gen. Industrial per 1,000 FT² 6.97 8.76 75% 22.90 $5,486 $2,689 $2,797 $3,834 -27.1% Warehouse/Storage per 1,000 FT² 4.96 8.76 75% 16.30 $3,905 $1,914 $1,991 $2,728 -27.0%

Commercial/Retail per 1,000 FT²: Under 100,000 FT² 71.49 1.17 53% 22.30 $5,342 $2,619 $2,723 $8,141 -66.6% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 58.98 2.35 64% 44.30 $10,612 $5,202 $5,410 $10,378 -47.9% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 46.05 3.52 70% 56.80 $13,606 $6,670 $6,936 $11,211 -38.1% 400,000 FT² & Over 38.37 4.70 78% 70.30 $16,840 $8,255 $8,585 $12,758 -32.7%

Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 88.16 1.17 50% 25.90 $6,204 $3,041 $3,163 $4,435 -28.7% Fast Food Restaurant 496.12 1.17 25% 72.90 $17,463 $8,560 $8,903 $12,478 -28.7% Service Station per Fueling Station 168.56 1.17 15% 14.90 $3,569 $1,750 $1,819 $2,544 -28.5% Convenience Retail 737.99 1.17 15% 65.00 $15,571 $7,632 $7,939 $11,137 -28.7%

73


The proposed Rural 2 road fees are higher than the Urban zone because of greater vehicular miles of travel due to the more remote locations of Rural 2 and no proposed capacity expansions in the Long Range Transportation Plan.

TABLE R10 NET ROAD EXPANSION COSTS RURAL 2

Rural 2 Trip Rate

Trip Length

% New


Cost 2006* % Change

Single Family Detached 6.85 10.73 100% 36.75 $20,045 $4,315 $15,730 $6,084 158.6% Attached Housing Unit 4.19 10.73 100% 22.48 $12,262 $2,640 $9,622 $3,725 158.3% Multi Family 4.81 10.73 100% 25.81 $14,078 $3,031 $11,047 $4,272 158.6% Mobile Home 3.57 10.73 100% 19.15 $10,445 $2,249 $8,196 $3,172 158.4% All Units per Ft² $5.69 $2.50 127.7% NON-RESIDENTIAL: Walk-in Bank per 1,000 FT² 112.01 3.81 50% 106.75 $58,227 $12,535 $45,692 $15,355 197.6% Drive-Thru Bank per Lane 294.31 1.91 25% 70.12 $38,247 $8,234 $30,013 $20,173 48.8% Mini-Warehouse per 1,000 FT² 1.79 10.73 75% 7.20 $3,927 $845 $3,082 $1,192 158.6% Hotel/Motel per Room 4.94 15.24 80% 30.11 $16,424 $3,536 $12,888 $3,924 228.4% Movie Theatre per 1,000 FT² 55.87 3.05 60% 51.09 $27,867 $5,999 $21,868 $13,318 64.2% Church/Synagogue per 1,000 FT² 6.52 4.63 85% 12.84 $7,004 $1,508 $5,496 $2,326 136.3% Day Care Center per 1,000 FT² 56.73 1.54 50% 21.90 $11,945 $2,572 $9,373 $5,952 57.5% Quality Restaurant per 1,000 FT² 64.38 4.00 60% 77.16 $42,087 $9,060 $33,027 $16,289 102.8% High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant per 1,000 FT 91.01 5.99 50% 136.35 $74,373 $16,011 $58,362 $19,187 204.2% Car Sales 1,000 FT² 23.86 9.99 75% 89.37 $48,747 $10,494 $38,253 $12,578 204.1% Offices per 1,000 FT² :

Under 100,000 FT² 16.18 2.38 75% 14.44 $7,876 $1,696 $6,180 $6,077 1.7% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 8.65 4.76 75% 15.44 $8,422 $1,813 $6,609 $4,331 52.6% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 7.37 7.14 75% 19.74 $10,767 $2,318 $8,449 $4,611 83.2% 400,000 FT² & Over 6.54 9.52 75% 23.35 $12,736 $2,742 $9,994 $4,096 144.0%

Medical Buildings: Medical Offices per 1,000 FT² 25.86 5.72 60% 44.36 $24,196 $5,209 $18,987 $12,953 46.6% Hospitals per 1,000 FT² 12.58 7.62 60% 28.77 $15,693 $3,378 $12,315 $3,958 211.1% Nursing Homes per 1,000 FT² 4.37 7.62 60% 10.00 $5,455 $1,174 $4,281 $2,327 84.0%

Industrial Buildings: Gen. Industrial per 1,000 FT² 4.99 14.51 75% 27.16 $14,815 $3,189 $11,626 $3,834 203.2% Warehouse/Storage per 1,000 FT² 3.55 14.51 75% 19.32 $10,538 $2,269 $8,269 $2,728 203.1%

Commercial/Retail per 1,000 FT²: Under 100,000 FT² 51.17 2.00 53% 27.09 $14,776 $3,181 $11,595 $8,141 42.4% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 42.22 4.00 64% 53.98 $29,444 $6,338 $23,106 $10,378 122.6% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 32.96 5.99 70% 69.13 $37,707 $8,117 $29,590 $11,211 163.9% 400,000 FT² & Over 27.46 7.99 78% 85.57 $46,675 $10,048 $36,627 $12,758 187.1%

Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 63.10 2.00 50% 31.51 $17,187 $3,700 $13,487 $4,435 204.1% Fast Food Restaurant 355.11 2.00 25% 88.67 $48,365 $10,412 $37,953 $12,478 204.2% Service Station per Fueling Station 120.65 2.00 15% 18.08 $9,862 $2,123 $7,739 $2,544 204.2% Convenience Retail 528.24 2.00 15% 79.14 $43,167 $9,293 $33,874 $11,137 204.2% These are the impact fees adopted in 2006, without the administrative charge.

74


The proposed Rural 1 zone road fees are higher than the Urban and Rural 2 zones because of greater vehicular miles of travel due to the even more remote location and no proposed capacity expansions in the Long Range Transportation Plan.

TABLE R11 NET ROAD EXPANSION COSTS RURAL 1

Rural 1 Trip Rate

Trip Length

% New


Cost 2006* % Change

Single Family Detached 5.06 15.73 100% 39.80 $21,709 $4,673 $17,036 $6,084 180.0% Attached Housing Unit 3.10 15.73 100% 24.38 $13,298 $2,863 $10,435 $3,725 180.1% Multi Family 3.55 15.73 100% 27.92 $15,229 $3,278 $11,951 $4,272 179.8% Mobile Home 2.64 15.73 100% 20.76 $11,324 $2,438 $8,886 $3,172 180.1% All Units per Ft² $6.17 $2.50 146.6% NON-RESIDENTIAL: Walk-in Bank per 1,000 FT² 82.74 5.59 50% 115.59 $63,049 $13,573 $49,476 $15,355 222.2% Drive-Thru Bank per Lane 217.40 2.79 25% 75.93 $41,416 $8,916 $32,500 $20,173 61.1% Mini-Warehouse per 1,000 FT² 1.32 15.73 75% 7.79 $4,249 $915 $3,334 $1,192 179.7% Hotel/Motel per Room 3.65 22.34 80% 32.62 $17,793 $3,830 $13,963 $3,924 255.8% Movie Theatre per 1,000 FT² 41.27 4.47 60% 55.32 $30,175 $6,496 $23,679 $13,318 77.8% Church/Synagogue per 1,000 FT² 4.82 6.79 85% 13.91 $7,587 $1,633 $5,954 $2,326 156.0% Day Care Center per 1,000 FT² 41.91 2.26 50% 23.72 $12,938 $2,785 $10,153 $5,952 70.6% Quality Restaurant per 1,000 FT² 47.56 5.85 60% 83.53 $45,562 $9,808 $35,754 $16,289 119.5% High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant per 1,000 FT 67.23 8.78 50% 147.60 $80,509 $17,332 $63,177 $19,187 229.3% Car Sales 1,000 FT² 17.63 14.64 75% 96.76 $52,778 $11,362 $41,416 $12,578 229.3% Offices per 1,000 FT² :

Under 100,000 FT² 11.95 3.49 75% 15.64 $8,531 $1,836 $6,695 $6,077 10.2% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 6.39 6.98 75% 16.72 $9,120 $1,963 $7,157 $4,331 65.3% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 5.44 10.47 75% 21.35 $11,645 $2,507 $9,138 $4,611 98.2% 400,000 FT² & Over 4.83 13.96 75% 25.28 $13,789 $2,968 $10,821 $4,096 164.2%

Medical Buildings: Medical Offices per 1,000 FT² 19.10 8.38 60% 48.03 $26,198 $5,640 $20,558 $12,953 58.7% Hospitals per 1,000 FT² 9.29 11.18 60% 31.15 $16,991 $3,658 $13,333 $3,958 236.9% Nursing Homes per 1,000 FT² 3.23 11.18 60% 10.83 $5,907 $1,272 $4,635 $2,327 99.2%


Commercial/Retail per 1,000 FT²: Under 100,000 FT² 37.80 2.93 53% 29.32 $15,993 $3,443 $12,550 $8,141 54.2% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 31.18 5.85 64% 58.41 $31,860 $6,859 $25,001 $10,378 140.9% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 24.35 8.78 70% 74.84 $40,822 $8,788 $32,034 $11,211 185.7% 400,000 FT² & Over 20.29 11.71 78% 92.65 $50,536 $10,879 $39,657 $12,758 210.8%

Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 46.61 2.93 50% 34.11 $18,605 $4,005 $14,600 $4,435 229.2% Fast Food Restaurant 262.32 2.93 25% 95.98 $52,353 $11,270 $41,083 $12,478 229.2% Service Station per Fueling Station 89.12 2.93 15% 19.57 $10,675 $2,298 $8,377 $2,544 229.3% Convenience Retail 390.20 2.93 15% 85.66 $46,724 $10,058 $36,666 $11,137 229.2% These are the impact fees adopted in 2006, without the administrative charge.

75


Charlotte County’s current systems of road impact fees do not vary by zone. Table R12 shows what the road impact fees would be if the County did not implement a zonal system and stayed with a single countywide impact fee.

TABLE R12 NET ROAD EXPANSION COSTS COUNTYWIDE

Countywide Trip Rate

Trip Length

% New


Cost 2006* % Change

Single Family Detached 9.57 7.42 100% 35.50 $12,909 $4,169 $8,740 $6,084 43.7% Attached Housing Unit 5.86 7.42 100% 21.74 $7,905 $2,553 $5,352 $3,725 43.7% Multi Family 6.72 7.42 100% 24.93 $9,065 $2,927 $6,138 $4,272 43.7% Mobile Home 4.99 7.42 100% 18.51 $6,731 $2,174 $4,557 $3,172 43.7% All Units per Ft² $3.16 $2.50 26.4% NON-RESIDENTIAL: Walk-in Bank per 1,000 FT² 156.48 2.24 50% 87.63 $31,865 $10,290 $21,575 $15,355 40.5% Drive-Thru Bank per Lane 411.17 1.12 25% 57.56 $20,931 $6,759 $14,172 $20,173 -29.8% Mini-Warehouse per 1,000 FT² 2.50 7.42 75% 6.96 $2,531 $817 $1,714 $1,192 43.8% Hotel/Motel per Room 6.90 8.96 80% 24.73 $8,993 $2,904 $6,089 $3,924 55.2% Movie Theatre per 1,000 FT² 78.06 1.79 60% 41.97 $15,262 $4,928 $10,334 $13,318 -22.4% Church/Synagogue per 1,000 FT² 9.11 2.72 85% 10.55 $3,836 $1,239 $2,597 $2,326 11.7% Day Care Center per 1,000 FT² 79.26 0.91 50% 17.99 $6,542 $2,112 $4,430 $5,952 -25.6% Quality Restaurant per 1,000 FT² 89.95 2.35 60% 63.40 $23,055 $7,445 $15,610 $16,289 -4.2% High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant per 1,000 FT 127.15 3.52 50% 112.03 $40,738 $13,155 $27,583 $19,187 43.8% Car Sales 1,000 FT² 33.34 5.87 75% 73.44 $26,705 $8,624 $18,081 $12,578 43.8% Offices per 1,000 FT² :

Under 100,000 FT² 22.60 1.40 75% 11.86 $4,313 $1,393 $2,920 $6,077 -52.0% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 12.08 2.80 75% 12.68 $4,611 $1,489 $3,122 $4,331 -27.9% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 10.29 4.20 75% 16.20 $5,891 $1,902 $3,989 $4,611 -13.5% 400,000 FT² & Over 9.14 5.60 75% 19.18 $6,975 $2,252 $4,723 $4,096 15.3%

Medical Buildings: Medical Offices per 1,000 FT² 36.13 3.36 60% 36.42 $13,244 $4,277 $8,967 $12,953 -30.8% Hospitals per 1,000 FT² 17.57 4.48 60% 23.61 $8,585 $2,772 $5,813 $3,958 46.9% Nursing Homes per 1,000 FT² 6.10 4.48 60% 8.20 $2,982 $963 $2,019 $2,327 -13.2%


Commercial/Retail per 1,000 FT²: Under 100,000 FT² 71.49 1.17 53% 22.26 $8,095 $2,614 $5,481 $8,141 -32.7% 100,000 -199,999 FT² 58.98 2.35 64% 44.35 $16,127 $5,208 $10,919 $10,378 5.2% 200,000 - 399,999 FT² 46.05 3.52 70% 56.80 $20,655 $6,670 $13,985 $11,211 24.7% 400,000 FT² & Over 38.37 4.70 78% 70.32 $25,571 $8,257 $17,314 $12,758 35.7%

Pharmacy with Drive-Thru 88.16 1.17 50% 25.89 $9,415 $3,040 $6,375 $4,435 43.7% Fast Food Restaurant 496.12 1.17 25% 72.86 $26,495 $8,555 $17,940 $12,478 43.8% Service Station per Fueling Station 168.56 1.17 15% 14.85 $5,400 $1,744 $3,656 $2,544 43.7% Convenience Retail 737.99 1.17 15% 65.02 $23,644 $7,635 $16,009 $11,137 43.8% *These are the impact fees adopted in 2006, without the administrative charge.

76


77


APPENDIX D: MOBILITY FEE WORKING CONCEPT METHODOLOGY

The general methodology for determining the mobility fee relies on certain specific requirement or assumptions for a better understanding of its scope. These assumptions and requirements are presented here along with more detailed explanations and example applications of the working concept.

Assumptions/Requirements

It is assumed that the procedure to estimate trip distribution and assignment used in transportation concurrency analysis is reasonable and acceptable for VMT computation. This includes using the most current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation and FSUTMS/Cube‐Voyager.

An updated and/or calibrated regional FSUTMS model is available through an associated MPO or FDOT.

There are a number of planning areas clearly delimited (i.e., downtown or multi‐modal district, urban center, urban reserve, and rural area). For each planning area, the size, land use types, and associated densities are available. In the case of transit oriented developments and /or suburban activity centers, total trip generation should be previously determined.

A detailed mobility plan that includes capital improvements (i.e., roadway, transit, and other multimodal facilities) and travel demand strategies has been adopted. The total construction cost for each improvement or strategy is estimated resulting in an estimated cost for the entire mobility plan.

Development will occur in accordance with the planned land use, established cost estimates, and planning horizon.

Methodology Overview

The proposed methodology consists of three preparation steps and an implementation step. It provides flexibility to choose either a fixed rate (average rate) or a variable rate per vehicle mile based on location (location‐based rate). A general overview of the methodology is presented in Figure D1.

78


Determine planning areas (e.g. urban core and urban reserve)

Derive future land uses for each area from

regional mobility plan

Determine trip rates for future land uses on

each area

Aggregate socioeconomic data for

each area

Input aggregated data in regional model

(FSUTMS)

Estimate new VMT for the region and by area

Estimate the cost of the mobility plan for the plannig horizon

Estimate the committed revenue (e.g fuel tax)

Calculate the target transportation mobility

fee funding level

Establish the VMT rates, either flat rate or location‐based rate

Apply established VMT rates to new developments

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3 Implementation

Figure D1: Mobility fee conceptual methodology overview

Step 1: Estimate the total VMT for jurisdiction/region This step determines the total VMT for the jurisdiction or region using the travel demand model (FSUTMS/CUBE). It is comprised of four major tasks: scenario generation, land use aggregation, travel demand modeling, and VMT computation. A summary of the tasks is presented below:

• Generate a future land use scenario based on adopted land use plans in the established horizon year including future planned development and roadway/transit improvements. Enter corresponding data in the jurisdiction’s/region’s travel demand model.

• Aggregate similar or compactable nearby future land uses in each planning area

79


80

• Run the travel demand model for each projected aggregated land use, generate the network report, and validate the results.

• Use the calculation utilities embedded in CUBE (FSUTMS) to obtain the link distribution percentages for each aggregated planned land use.

s

• Export the results to GIS or use the GIS and calculation utilities embedded in CUBE to tput of this step includes both the total VMT in the

(a)

d

e development when no further information is available. This practice will accommodate a wide variety of possibilities and will produce a more robust

short range developments more detailed land use information

(b)

arket and specialty retail center trips in a

subarea can be added together under one single major category such as commercial. This information can be aggregated geographically to facilitate the data input in the FSUTMS model as illustrated in Figure D2.

• Using aggregated trip generation rates from ITE Trip Generation, calculate the link tripfor the aggregated land uses.

compute VMT. The ouregion/jurisdiction and the VMTs for each planning area.

Scenario generation

This task starts by generating a scenario based on adopted future land use plans to estimate total VMT from developments in the planning horizon. Because there are uncertainties associated with long range planning, general land uses and estimatedensities can be used as a starting point, particularly for developments with a planned buildout in excess of ten years. It is recommended that the highest trip generation rate be chosen for futur

analysis. For medium tomay be available.

Land use aggregation

Given the size of the planning region, a considerable number of modeling details may require simplification to keep the proposed methodology feasible. For this purpose, anaggregation step is completed to prepare the future land use data for input into the FSUTMS model. Similar or compatible land uses can be aggregated within subareas,for instance all the shopping center, superm


Residential Recreational Commercial

Figure D2: Aggregation of planned land use data

The aggregation step will also help to match ITE land uses with FSUTMS input requirements. Typical land uses for trips productions in FSUTMS are single‐family dwelling, multi‐family dwelling, and hotel‐motel units. The required data for trip attractions consists of industrial employment, service employment, commercial employment and school enrollment.

Estimates of the trip rates for planned land use can be obtained by using the ITE Trips Generation Handbook Procedure

Where T: Total trip ends (trips)

welling units) R: Trip generation rate (e.g. trips/d.g. dwelling units/ft2) D: Density (e

A: Area (ft2) L: Land use type (ITE code)

Only half of the calculated trip ends (T) correspond to trips generated by new development. If more detailed information about planned development is available, internal capture and pass‐by trips can be subtracted to obtain net new trips. Transit or bicycle trips (e.g., within transit oriented developments) can be subtracted from the calculated trips to obtain more accurate future trip rate estimates and VMT reductions.

81


(c) FSUTMS‐based VMT computation

This step incorporates the results of the future land use scenario aggregation described above into the travel demand model. Planned roadway/transit improvements are also incorporated.

The model is run to obtain the link distribution percentages for future aggregated land uses. The results can be exported to GIS or the calculation utilities embedded in CUBE may be used to compute VMT (an application will be developed on a later stage in the project).The output of this step is the total VMT in the region/jurisdiction and the VMTs per planning area. The VMTs per planning region/jurisdiction are calculated as the sum of the VMTs that fall into the boundaries of the planning areas (See Figure D3).

Step 2: Determine the target mobility fee funding level Determine estimated cost of the mobility plan and committed revenue for providing multi‐modal infrastructure improvements to accommodate projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within the given region or jurisdiction. Examples of the committed revenue could be impact fees from exist uel tax revenue. ing and expected developments, and motor f

Where nue, revenue from pre‐existing development agreements, etc. Committed revenue = gas tax reve

Step 3: Establish the VMT rate This procedure assumes that there are a fixed number (n) of planning areas denoted as urban center, urban reserve, and rural (n is 3 in this case). Each area has its own total vehicle miles traveled (based on planned land use) denoted by VMT1, VMT2...VMTn respectively (see Figure D3). The proposed methodology is applicable to jurisdictions or regions with more than one planning area. Among all these areas, the most desirable area to develop and achieve higher density is regarded as the urban center. The previous step established a mobility fee target funding level (TFL) to be achieved from the mobility fee collected in planning areas. In other words, the TFL is equal to summation of mobility fees (MF) collected from of all n planning areas due to new developments (TFL = MF1 + MF2 + … + MFn).

This approach requires the determination of a VMT rate for each planning denoted by Rate1, Rate2...Raten respectively. These VMT rates can be determined based on adopted regional policies and regulations. In this case, they are based on the cost of the mobility plan minus the committed revenue. If a single VMT rate is implemented for all the planning areas (urban center, urban reserve, and rural), the rate is the average rate (i.e., Rate1 = Rate2 =…Raten = Average rate).

82


Rural Reserve

Urban Reserve

Urban Center

Planning Region

VMT for developments inside the urban centers

VMT for developments in the urban reserve

VMT for developments in the rural reserve

+ + =

Total VMT for the planning region

Total VMT for the urban centers (VMT1)

Total VMT for the urban reserve (VMT2)

Total VMT for the rural reserve (VMT3)

Figure D3: Overview of the FSTUMS‐based VMT calculation

83


(a) Average rate A mobility fee average rate for the jurisdiction or the region can be determined by dividing the target funding level (TFL) by total increased VMT in the region or jurisdiction within the planning horizon as follows:

Where, VMT Total = Summation of the individual increased VMT for all the areas in a region or a jurisdiction in a planning horizon as illustrated in Figure D3 (new increased VMT due to new developments in the region).

TFL: Target mobility fee funding level

If the average rate is used, assume there are n planning areas in a region or a c l ajurisdi tion, the target funding leve can be expressed s follows:

This method charges the same fee for each vehicle mile traveled. The further development is located from an urban center will result in a greater number of vehicle miles traveled and, therefore, a higher mobility fee than a development closer in.

Figure D4 shows the different planning areas and the urban center. The regional VMT can be a measure of the impact of all future developments in the planning horizon. It is also can be isolated by planning areas.

(b) Location‐based rate

To further promote compact, mixed‐use, sustainable development with a net reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the jurisdiction or the region may adjust the mobility fee rate in each planning area. The rate for an area promoting higher density with compact, mixed‐use developments should be set lower. The rate for a rural area or outside the urban service area should be set higher. Even though different rates are established for different planning areas, the TFL will remain the same which can be expre sssed as follow :

The mobility fee rate for each area can be derived using different criteria. One criterion is to determine the rate based on the ratio of average distances of areas to the center of urban center or activity center of a region or a jurisdiction. Areas with greater average

84


distance to urban centers will have a higher mobility fee rate. To apply this criterion, the actual geometry of the planning region should be transformed into an equivalent region. This equivalent region consists of a series of concentric circles representing the different planning areas (see Figure D4). As an example, this criterion will be applied to a region with three major planning areas: urban center, urban reserve and rural reserve; but it can be extended to a region with additional planning areas.

The equivalent region determination starts by defining a prioritized list of planning areas. The areas where development is planned should be set first in the list. The last area in the list is such that developments occur at the slowest pace in the region. For illustration purposes, assume that the prioritized list consist of urban center, urban reserve, and rural reserve planning. A brief description of the acronyms used in the example is presented below:

• AUC: Area of urban centers defined as the sum of the net areas of the different urban centers in the region as presented in the following figure

• AUR: Area of urban reserves defined as the sum of the net areas of

the different urban reserves in the region as illustrated below

• ARR: Area of rural reserve areas defined as the sum of the net areas of the different rural reserves in the region as depicted in the following figure

The equivalent areas must guarantee that each area in the list contains the previous one. The first area will not contain any other area and therefore it will be smallest. The following is a description on how to form the equivalent planning region for the example case:

• The first element in the list becomes the innermost circle, in this case the urban center. Its equivalent area is the sum of the net areas of the urban centers of the regions (See Figure D4).

EUC=AUC

• The second element in the list becomes the second concentric circle. This circle must be of an area such that contains the equivalent urban center (previous element in the list). In the example case, the equivalent urban reserve (EUR) must contain the areas corresponding to the urban reserves (AUR) and the equivalent urban center (EUC) as depicted in Figure D4.

EUR=AUR+EUC

85


• The last element in the list becomes the outermost circle and must contain all of the inner planning areas. In the example case, the equivalent rural reserve (ERR) must contain the rural reserves and the equivalent urban reserve, EUR (which also contains the urban center) as can be observed in Figure D4.

EUR=ARR+EUR

Once the equivalent region is obtained, the average distance from the urban center can be obtained by finding the radius of the circle whose area is equal to the area of the equivalent region of interest. This distance can be found by applying the following formula to the equivalent areas:

The suggested procedure is to obtain the average distance to the midpoint of the urban center D1, D2, and D3 for the urban center, urban reserve, and rural areas, respectively. These distances can be obtained as follows:

,

,

,

86


87

Figure D4: Planning areas

Rural Reserve

Urban Reserve

Urban Center

Original planning region

Equivalent planning region

Rural Reserve

Equivalent rural reserve area (EUR=AUR+EUC)

Equivalent rural reserve area (ERR)

D3

Urban Reserve

Equivalent urban reserve area (EUR=AUR+EUC)

)

Equivalent urban reserve area (EUR)

D2

Urban Center

Original urban center area (AUC)

Equivalent urban center area (EUC)

D1


The distances D1, D2, and D3 can be observed in Figure D4. This procedure can be applied even in cases in which there are planning areas scattered over a region. The average measure of distance is based on the desirability of development in terms of land use type and accessibility and not necessarily physical proximity to the urban center. This procedure can be modified to accommodate different cases and must be applied with caution, checking that the resulting tiered‐rate structure is reasonable.

Once the equivalent planning region has been determined it can be treated as the original planning region for fee calculation purposes. The following procedure describes how the different rates can be calculated provided that an equivalent planning region was previously determined.

Based on the previous procedure, D1 could be taken as the average radius of the urban center area. Once the Rate1 for the urban center is determined, the remaining rates are proportional to the ratio Dn/D1. For instance, if D1=3 (urban center) miles, D2=6 miles (urban reserve), and D3=9 miles (rural) then the VMT rate for a development located in the urban reserve is going to be two times the VMT rate of the urban center, and three times for developments located in rural area.

Distance from the urban center midpoint

D1, Rate1

D2, Rate2=2 x Rate1

D3, Rate3=3 x Rate1

D1 2D1 3D1

Urban Center

Urban Reserve

Rural

Planning areas

Figure D5: Location‐based VMT rate for the different planning areas

Based on the Figure D5, it can be observed that the only necessary rate needs to be determined is Rate1. This can be accomplished by establishing the condition that the collected mobility fee (MF) for all of the planning areas should be equal to the target funding level (TFL). Each area contributes to the target funding level with its mobility fee (MF). This mobility fee is proportional to the VMT Rate for the urban center (Rate1) and to the ratio of distances to the urban center midpoint (D2/D1, D3/D1 … Dn/D1). The mobility fees for the planning areas add up to the target funding level (MF1+MF2+…MFn=TFL). Therefore:

88


89

TFL = VMT1 x Rate1+VMT2 x (D2/D1) x Rate1 + VMT3 x (D3/D1) x Rate1 …VMTn x (Dn/D1) x Rate1

This expression can easily be solved for Rate1 as follows:

Rate1 = TFL/ [VMT1+ (D2/D1) x VMT2 + (D3/D1) x VMT3 + … (Dn/D1) x VMTn]

Once Rate1 is determined the remaining fees can be calculated based on the expressions presented in Figure D5. This fee structure should be revised every time the regional mobility plan is updated.

Step 4: Compute mobility fee for new developments (implementation) Steps 1 through 3 are performed to revise fee structure or when a new long range plan becomes available. Step 4 is performed on a regular basis to compute a VMT‐based mobility fee for a new proposed development. Step 4 can be performed in two ways similarly to Step 1. The methodology for the VMT‐based mobility fee computation for new development is described below. The VMT‐based mobility fee computation can be performed by qualified consulting firm and submitted to local government for review and approval.

Step 4.1 Computation of VMT‐based mobility fee using Cube Voyager The VMT‐based mobility fee for an individual development can be computed using the following process:

• Build the proposed new development in the appropriate FSUTMS regional model

• Use FSUTMS/Cube‐Voyager to estimate trip distributions on the roadway network

• Use ITE Trip Generation, latest edition and the estimated trip distribution from FSUTMS/Cube‐Voyager to assign trips on the roadway network

• Run an application developed from this Mobility Fee project to aggregate network paths and calculate the development’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in each planning area (specific application to be designed on a later stage in the project)

• Compute the mobility fee for the new development which is the summation of individual computed mobility fee in the each planning area Area1, Area2…Area n. The individual computed mobility fee is equal to the computed VMT of the development in the plan area multiplied by its associated mobility fee rate or average rate.

florida transportation mobility fee study...florida mobility fee study, phase 1 march 25, 2009 the...

Documents