USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

A Review of the current functions of independent transportation authorities in Florida that own or operate roadways or b...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
A Review of the current functions of independent transportation authorities in Florida that own or operate roadways or bridges or toll facilities
Physical Description:
i, 27 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Florida -- Legislature
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Toll roads -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Toll bridges -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Public utility districts -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 27).
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
Statement of Responsibility:
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; prepared for the Florida Legislature.
General Note:
"October 1996."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001927304
oclc - 35952521
usfldc doi - C01-00113
usfldc handle - c1.113
System ID:
SFS0032226:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

A Review of the Current Functions of lnd. ependent Transportation Authorities in Florida that Own or Operate Roadways or Bridges or Toll Facilities Prepared for The Florida Legislature By Center for Urban Transportation Research .College of Engineer ing University of South Florida Tampa, Flo rida October 1996

PAGE 2

Tab le o f Cont ents I. Introduc t ion .............................. ............ . ...... ............ I 2. Why Autho r ities E xist ..... .............. ........ . . . . : ........ ........ 2 2.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Authori t ies ..... _. . ...... ........ 2 2.1.1 Advantages .................. .......... .... . . ..... . ... 2 2.1.2 Disadvantages ......... .. : . . .... ........ ... .. ............. 3 2.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Expressway Autho ri ties ... ... . . . . . . 3 2.2.1 Advantages ... .............. ............... : .............. 4 2.2.2 Disadvantages ............ ... ...... . ...................... 5 3. 1he Florida Expressway A u thority Act ............................ . .......... 5 3 1 The Forma tion of Expressway Authorit ie s ........ ........... . . . . . 6 3.2 The Purposes and Power s of E xpressway A u thorities ..... . ..... ...... 6 3.3 Requ i rements for Coordinated Planning ......... . . ..... . ........ .' .... 6 4 Status of Indiv idual Exp re s sway Authorities ................. .............. ....... 7 4.1 Bay County B r idge Authority ... ........... ............... . ... ... 12 4.2 Brevard County Expressway Authority ... .... . .... .... . ........ 12 4.3 Browa r d County E x pressway Authority . ............................... 13 4.4 Dade County Expressway Authority ............... . .... ........... ... 14 4.5 Escambia County Exp ressway Authority . . ........ ....... . ..... . 14 4.6 Fort Walton Beac h Area Bridge Authority (Okaloosa County) ....... . . . . 15 4 7 Jack s onville T r ansportation Auth ori t y .................. . . . . .... . . 16 4 8 Mid-Bay Br idge A u thority (Okaloosa County) ....... .... ............... 17 4 9 Or l ando O r a n ge Cou n t y E x pressway Authority . ........ ...... . .... . 1 8 4.10 Pasco County Expressway Author i t y ..... . ......... ......... . ... 20 4 .11 St. Lucie County Expressway Authority .... . . ... . .... . . . . 20 4.12 San t a R osa Bay Bridge A u thority ... ................................... 2 1 4.13 Seminole County Expressway Authority ............ .... . ............ 22 4.14 Tampa-Hillsboroug h County E x pressway Authority . .......... .... . . 23 5 Th e Role of Expressway Auth orit i es in the Planning Pr ocess ... .... . ............ 24 5.1 Relationship with other-Gov e rnm ental Entities . ... ... . ...... . .......... 25 FDOT Turnp i ke D i strict ................. .................... .... 25 FDOT Central Offic e .' ................................... . . ...... 25 FDOT Distric t Offices .............. . ..... . ...... ............... 26 Loca l Governments ..... . . ........ ......... .... . ... ..... 26 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) ....... ........ . . ... 26 Ot her L ocal Agencies . . ..... : . ... ....... . . ..... . ........... 27 6 References ........................ . .... .... ...... . .... ........... 27 I

PAGE 3

A Review of the Current Functions of Independent Transportation Authorities in that Own or Operate Roadways or Bridges or Toll Facilities 1. Introduction The Flo ri da Legislature requested that CUTR "perform a review of the current functions of the expressway authorities, transportation authorities, and o ther transportation special districts or entities created by or pursuant to law that own or operate roadways or bridges or toll facilities {but excluding} dependent special districts or departments or any city or county government performing lransportationfimctions For the sake of simplicity, all such authorities, distr ic ts and entities are referred to in this report as expressway authorities. The expressway authorities included in this review are: Bay County Bridge Authority Brevard County Expressway Authority Broward County Expressway Authority Dade County Expressway Authority Escambia County Expressway Authority (emerging) Fort Walton Beach Area Bridge Authority (Oka!oosa County) Jacksonville Transportation Authority Mid-Bay Bridge Authority (Okaloosa Cou nty) Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority Pasco County Expressway Authority St. Lucie County Expre ssway Authority Santa Rosa Bay Bridge Authority Semino l e County Expressway Authority Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority Although the Bay County Bridge Authority, the Fort Walton Beach Area Bridge Authority, and tlie Mid-Bay Bridge Authority are dependent special districts, they are included in the review for inforinational purposes since they were created by acts of the Legislature rather than by local ordinances. In Section 2 of this report the advantages and disadvantages of public authorities and, specifically, o f expressway au thorities are presented. In Section 3, relevant parts ofthe Florida Expressway Authority Act (Chapter 348, Part I, FS) are discussed Section 4 contains detailed information for each of the individual expressway authorities, and Section 5 summarizes the role that exp ressway authorities play in the transportation planning proc ess.

PAGE 4

2. Why Authorities Exist The reasons that authorities exist vary from community to community. Often they exist because of special circumstances or to address unique local iss ue s Included in this section are the argument for and against authorities that tend to be common t o all communities. The advantages and disadvantages of public authorities i n genera l are presented first, followed by the advantages and disadvantages of expressway authorities spe cifically. . 2.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Public Authorities According to Public Authorities and Public Policy, the primary mandate of an authority is .. to develop revenue-producing fac ilities in an atmosphere insulated from political pressures." It says that the authority .. should be structured so as to encourage independence in decision-maiOog from elected officials .... and encourage the staff to think in long -range terms not limi ted by the next election." It also says that authorities ... are the businesses of American government.. [ and] are supposed to operate in the public interest but in the manner of a se l f-supporting business, free from poli tical compromise, public pressure, and bureaucratic red tape 2.1.1. Advantages The primacy reason voiced around the country for special districts or authorities is that their concentrated focus on providing a single project or service allows the m to accomplish what general-purpose governments will not or cannot. Public Authorities and Public Policy says that "the large powers of public authorities (both structural and manage rial) have given them the capacity to achieve goals fa r beyond what might be expected of traditional government agencies or, for that matter, private se ctor firms." The governing boards of these authorities also provide an opportunity for citizens to participate in local government and they help develop a base of civic and political leadership in a community. Another advantage noted in the book Governing Urban America is that "usually, the debts and costs of special districts do not count in determining debt and tax lim its of regular local governments, and the bonds of such districts are sometimes more easily marketed than are those of other local governments." Public Authorities and Public Policy says that authorities provide ... the indepe ndence and flexibility thought to be required for the conduct of businesslike oper ations given current constitutional and statutory restrictio n s on general-purpose governments." 2

PAGE 5

2.1.2. Disadvantages Nonetheless, there is some opposition to the w ide-s pread use of special districts or autho rit ies Pointing out the disadvantages, Governing Urban American says that although "special districts have often done very good jobs in construction and engineering and sometimes in management...they do not ne cessarily eliminate political patronage, ... do not guarantee professional administration of functions, and do not remove from the arena of politics governmental functions that involve issues of policy. Special districts often result in increased costs of local governn'leni becau s e of duplication or personnel, inefficient u tilization of equipment and inability to save through centralized purchasing and other centralized housekeeping activities. '!bey do not balance the various needs for services o f a community, do not recognize the interdependence of various func t ions, and are not usually provided with a method for coordinating their activities and budgets with those of the other governments in the area in which they exist .... lfthe governing board is indirectly chosen, as is usually the case there is no real responsibility to the public for the function performed." Victor Jones, in an article titled "Local Government Organi7.1ltion in Me t ropolitan Areas" says "a corporate form of metropolitan government i n which the selection of the authority or district commission members is once or more removed from the electoral controls may give us efficient and effective government but it cannot give us good government.. .. (Good government cannot be achieved] by slicing off the most important func tio ns of local government and handing them over to one or several autonomous bodies." Florida bas experience at the local level with both limited and widespread use of authorities. Dade County for instance, is limited in its use of authorities. The Miami airport and the local transit agency, for example, are part o f county government. Hillsborough Co u nty, on the other hand uses the authority form of government quite freely, and the Tampa airport and the local transit agency, for example, are indep endent authorities. At one time there were numerous authorities in Dade County, but they have tended to be absorbed into county government as part of the government consolidation that has taken place there. I t is important to note that contrary to this general trend, Dade County recently created an expressway authority in the belief that this mechanism will improve its ability to fund local transportation needs. 2.2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Expressway Authorities . .Jn addition to the question of how local or state government can best construct and manage toll facilities, there also is the policy issue of whether toll financing of transportation facilities is, in fact, an appropriate funding mechanism. For instance, there arc equity issues such as the extent to which lower -income persons may be unable to use the facilities, and the question of whether the gas tax is a better funding mechanism. On other hand, toll facilities represent the purest form of user fee financing. 3

PAGE 6

2.2.1. Advantages The primary advantage of an expressway authority is: It is a single-purpose agency focused on a specific mission. Its ability to focus on a single m ajor transportation project and not be distracted by competing interests or purposes allows it to accomplish projects that other state and local goverrunental entities often cannot, or allows it to accomplish projects more quickly. Other advantages include: is able in Florida to borrow money from the state's Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund to begin the platllling and implementation phases of toll facilities. This opportunity also is available to local governments but is not available to district offices ofFDOT. It is exempt from some state and federal design standards and processes. This may affect the feasib ility, cost, and schedule of projects. It may be more sensitive to loca l issues than are state agencies because all board members are local residents. When it is composed, in whole or in part, of members who are n ot elected officials it may be better able to implemen t needed but controversial projects. Through its bonding ability, it can undertake major projects whose costs are so high that they could not be funded by district offices ofFDOT. However, local governments and FOOT's T urnpike District also have this bonding a bility. It provides citizens an opportunity to serve their community, and it helps develop a base of civic and political leadership. When the authority is composed of more than one county it may bring a regional perspective to bear on regional transportation needs that may be lacking in local governments. (There currently are no multi-county expressway authorities in Florida.) FDOT district offices might also pfOvide a regional perspective. 4

PAGE 7

2.2.2. Disadvantages The pri mary disadvantage of an expressway authority is: It contributes to the fragmentation of local goverrunent, makin.g coordination and efficient allocation of resources more difficult and making it more difficult for citizens to know where to provide community input. Other disadvantages include: When it is composed, in whole or in part, of members who are not elected officials, it i.s less accountable to local voters than an authority or local government composed entirely of elected officials. It duplicates, to some extent, the efforts and costs of other goverrune n tal entities. This is especially true if the authority is only managing an existing toll facility and is not actively involved in the planning and building of new facilities. A single-county authority may lack the regional perspective needed for expressway projects that affect surrounding counties. A general disadvantage of toll facilities is the high cost of collecting the tolls. In its last year of operating toll facilities, the Jacksonville Transporta tion Authority estimated that the cost of collecting the to Us amounted t o 21 percent of its revenues, not including lost time and h i gher vehicle operating costs experienced by motoris ts due to congestion at toll barriers. The increased use of new electronic toll collection technologies, however could substan t ially reduce this cost. Jacksonville s previous toll facilities are now financed by a sales tax, and the authority's cost of collection is negligib l e. Using a gas tax in place of toll s to finance roadways would have the same effect, i.e., it would eliminate the high cost of toll collection. 3. The Florida Expressway Authority Act Ei<.pressway authorities can b e fomi.ed either pursuant to the Florida Expressway A u thority Act .(Chapter 348, Part I of the Flo rid a Statutes) or by special act of the Legisla t ure Dependent special districts can be created either by local ordinance or by special act of the Legislature Most existing expressway authorities were created before Chapter 348, Part I was e na cted in 1990 and, therefore, are not subject to its provisions. In fact, the recently formed Dade County Expressway Authority is the only authority currently governed by Chapter 348 Part I. Nevertheless relevant sections of Part I aie described here because it is, in a sense, model legislation for future expressway authorities 5

PAGE 8

The differences between this legis lation and the special acts creating the other authorities are pointed out in Section 4 under each of the individual authorities. Perhaps the most significant difference is that the projects of expressways not governed by Part I of Chapter 348 are not required to be consistent with the loca l MPO plan. However, Chapter 338 251(2) does require that expressway authority projects be consistent with the MPO plan for the authority to be eligible to borrow from the state's Toll Facilities Revolving Trust F und, and most authorities have borrowed from the trust fund. 3.1. The Formation of Expressway Authorities Under Part I of Chapter 348, "any county, or two or more contiguous counties located within a single district of the [Florida Department ofTransportation] may, by reso lut ion adopted by the board of county commissioners, form an expressway authority." 3.2. The Purposes and Powers of Expressway Authorities Section 348.0004 of Chapter 348 says that an expressway authority "may acquire hold, construct, improve, maintain, operate, own, and lease an expressway system." It has the power of eminen t domain and the right to issue bonds It does not have the power to tax. It may use county gasoline tax funds as a secondary p ledge of revenues for repayment of bonds if it has the prior express written consent of the board of county commissioners. Any county gasoline tax funds used for bond payments must b e reimbursed by the authority. The terms of repayment are set forth in the individ ual lease-purchase or interlocal agreements. Section 348.0006 allows an authority to enter into a lease-purchase agreement with FDOT. Under such an agreement, the authority leases the expressway system to FDOT, which then undertakes certain functions rela ted to the operation of the system. Upon completion of the agreement, title to the system is transferred to the state. 3.3. Requirements for Coordinated Planning Section 348.0004 of Chapter 348 says that expressway authorities may "add additional -expressways to an exp{essway system ... (only ] with the prior express written consent of the board of county commissioners ... and [only if they] are compatible with the existing p lans, projects, and programs of the authority." It also provides that in home-rule cou nties surplus revenues can be used for certai n public transportation pro j ects if" ... the expenditures are consistent with the metropolitan planning organization's adopted long-range plan and they are approved by the board of county commissioners after a public hearing. 6

PAGE 9

Section 348.004(3) says that ... the consent of any municipality is n ot necessary for any project of an existing or new authority .. .ifthc project is consistent with the locally adopted comprehensive plan However, if a project is inconsistent with the affected municipal comprehensive plan the project may not proceed without a hearing ... at which it is determined that the project is con sistent with the adopted metropolitan planning organization transportation improvement plan, if any, and the applicable strategic regional plan, and at which regional interests are determined to clearly override the interests of the municipality." It also says that in any home-rule county ... no expressway authority shall undertake any construction that is not cons i stent with both the metropolitan planning organization's transportation improvement program and the county's comprehensive plan.; 4. Status oflndividual Expressway Authorities The expressway authorities in the state are authorized under Chapter 348, FS, Parts I IX. In addition, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority is authorized under Chapter 349, FS. The dependent special districts reviewed in this report, such as the Bay County Bridge Authority, are authorized by acts of the Legislature contained in chapters of the Laws o f Florida. Other dependent special districts are authorized by local ordinance. The authorized purposes and powers of each of the eight expressway authorities and the one bridge authority created by Chapter 348 are essentially the same, except in the case of the Dade County Expressway Authority, which has the authority to usc its revenues for multi-modal transportation services. The Jacksonville Transportation Authority is responsib le for both expressways and transit servtce. One of the primary differences among the authorities in Florida--as well as among authorities around the country--is the composition of the boards. These boards range from being composed entirely of elected officials (Bay, Pasco, Seminole), to mostly elected officials (Broward, St. Lucie), to mostly appointed members (Orlando, Tampa), and to entirely appointed members (Dade, Fort Walton Beach, Jacksonville, Mid-Bay, Santa Rosa), as shown in Table I These differences usually reflect local preferences in the desire to insulate the development and management of toll facilities from politics versus the desire to maintain control and accountability. On some oftb.e boards--but not all--the FOOT district secretary serves as an ex officio voting member. The boards vary in size from five to thirteen (Dade). Of Dade's thirteen members, nine are voting members and those nine are a ll non-elected members Another organi7..ational difference seen in Florida and around the country is the placement within state and local goverrunent of the responsibility for the management of toll facilities. In some counties, the board of county commissioners serves as the expressway authority board, so that, in effect, the expressway authority is part of county government. Toll facilities owned by the state come under the authority of either FOOT's Turnpike District or the loca l FDOT district. 7

PAGE 10

Table 1 Board Compositio n And Size of F l orida's Expres sway Authorities' Elected Non-Elected T otal MPO Aut hority F DOT Voting Officia l s Members Members1 Members Bay County Bridge Authori ty 5 0 0 S' 5 Brevard County Expressway Authority 5' 5' 0 5 0-5 Broward Co u nty Expressway Authority 3 4 2-1' 0 5 0 Dade County Expressway Authority 0 8 I 9' 0 Escambia Cou n ty Expressw a y Author ity (emerging) 5' O' 0 17 5 67 5 Fort Walton Beach Area Authority 0 7 7 0 J acksonville Transportation Authority 0 6 I 7 I Mid-Bay Bridge Author i ty (Okaloosa County) 0 5 I* 5 0 Orlando Orange County Expressw a y Autho rity I 3 I 5 2 Pasco County Expresswa y Authority 5 0 0 s 5 SL Lucie County Expressway A u thority 6 3 0 9 0 S a nta Rosa Bay B r idge Authority 0 6 I 7 I Seminole County Expressway Auth o rity 7 0 0 7 4 Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority 2 4 I 7 2 '!Non -voting member 1 As provided in state and loca l statutes. Not all authoriti. es are currently a ctive. 'Number of designated joint voting memberships (cross memberships) between t h e authority and tbe MPO. ) The b oard consists of the County Commission. There curTently are 5 County C ommi ss ioners. 4 The board may consist of either the Co unty Commission or appointed members. sAt t h e discret ion o f the County Commission. [n additi on. there are four non-voting appointed members. 1 Prooosal is for the board to b e the County Commission; FDOT membership has not yet be e n addressed 8

PAGE 11

Summary information on Florida's expres s way authorities and t h eir curre n t status i s p r esented in Table 2. There are eig h t acti ve authorities, with a ninth being considered. Of the eight ac t ive authorities, four curre n tly operate toll facilities and the Dade County Expressway Authority expect s soon to be operating toll facilities in Dade County Seven of the eight have plans for (or are studying) new facil i t ies T ab l e 2 Statistica l Summary for Florida's Expressway Authorities No. Of F First Roadway 1995 New T oll Authority Status FiE Admin Created Proje
PAGE 12

Table 2 (cont in ued) Statistica l .;;:, for Florida's Authorities No. or FY1997 First Roadway 1995 New Authorlly Status' FTE Admin. Created Project Miles Toll Miles Revenue Employees Budget' Completed Operated (000,000) Planned Orlandoatt ive 32 $2,382,520 1963 1967 79 $13.5 35 Orange County Expressway Pasco County inact ive 0 0 1973 none none none none Expressway Authority St. Lucie active 0 0 1983 none none none b ridge County Expr essway Authority Santa Rosa active 0 0 1984 none none none 3 Bay Bridge (bridge) Authority Seminol e active 2 8296,908 1974 1994' 12' none 6' County Expressway Tampa active 4 $487,419 1963 1 976 13 $13. 6 3 plus Hillsborough misc . County improve. Expressway Authority 1 Authority is cons idered acti\'C i f it meecs on a regular basis. 1 Caution shoul d be used ifbudgc:ts arc compared. The functions and types of expenditures included may vury among che authorities. } Budget is being de\eloped; p r ev ious year was a Startu p ye.ar. Negocjations process to tum over to the Authority 31 of expressways with 1995 to11J"venues of SJ 8 7 million. s For e n gi neering (highway) division only. T h e Authority also has a transit divi s ion. 6 Projects wer e begun by predecessor agency. 1 PCojects are turned (wer to state or local government u p o n completion. j then turns r to I Selected debts of the authorities are shown in Table 3. Most ofthe a uth orities, incl uding three inacti ve ones, owe money to the state's Toll Facilities Revolving Tntst Fund As noted earlier the projects of expressway authorities that borrow from the Revolving Trust Fund must be consistent with the local MPO plan Detailed information on each of the individual authorities foll ows the table 1 0

PAGE 13

Table 3 Selected D ebts of Florida's Expressway Authorities June 30, 199 6 Author ity Bonds Long-Term !Xbt1 'fFRTF Outslaodin g Loans1 Bay County Bridge so so $583,398 Authori ty Drevard C ounty Expressway 0 0 0 Authority Broward County 182,590 0001 0 0 E xpressway Authority Dade County Expressway 91,300,000' IJ,547,213 0 Authority Escambia County 0 0 500,0 00 Expressway Authority (emerging) Fort Walton Beach Area 0 0 1,022.069 B r i d ge A u thority Jacksonvi ll e 303,655,000 0 0 Autho rity Mid Bay Btidge A u th ority 86,250,0001 1,397,614 0 (Oka loo sa County) (9/30/ 95) Orlando--Orange County 785,520 000 94,375.958 16.730 .971 Expressway A ul11ority Pasco Co u nty Exp r essway 0 0 800 000 Authority St. Lucie County 0 0 2,217,475 Expre ssway A u thority Santa Rosa Ba y Brid ge 0' 0 8,442,513 Authority Seminole Co\mty 0 0 15,380,275 Expressway Authority Tampa-Hillsboroug h County 67 ,387, 990 3,734,341 Exp r essway Authority Source: Florida Department of T ransportation 1 Long-term receivable d u e FOOT as a result o f subsid i z ing operation and maintenance expense and compl e t i ng the p r oject when bon d proceeds were insufficient. 1 Toll Fac ilities Revolving Trust Fund loans ad.,anecd t o provide for preliminary engineering, design, an d traffic and revenue stud i es F lorida Turnpi k e has opCJ"a;tional QOntrol and, if toll re.venues are insufficient, will provide for t h e deficienc ies. The Authority i s in the process of defeasing o r refunding t he OutStanding b onds. Excluding refunded bonds. Th e Authorirv is in the process of issuing approximat e $94 9 m i llio n of bonds. 1 I

PAGE 14

Repayment of the debts to the Revolving Trust Fund are required to begin no later than seven years after the loan and to be completed no later than twelve years after the loan. The repayment of long-term debts to FOOT and local governments are governed by lease-purchase and other agreements, which vary a mong the authorities. For instance, in the case of the Tampa Hillsborough County Expressway Authority when toll revenues exceed administrative costs plus bonded debt payments, the excess revenue must first be applied to bond repayment (133 percent of the annual debt service must be set aside for bond repayment, with the "extra" 33 percent being plai::ed iri a sinking ftmd). Excess revenues over that amount must be applied first to the FOOT operations and construction debts until they are paid off, then to the county gas tax debt until it is paid off, and then to the FOOT maintenance debt. 4.1. Bay County Bridge Authority Legislation. The Bay County Bridge Authority is a dependent special district that was created in 1984 by Chapter 84-391, Law s of Florida, wbich authorized the County to construct a bridge over North Bay in Bay Cou nty. It is authorized under the current legislation to undertake projects only related to the bridge. Its legislation does not req u ire consistency with the MPO plan or with local comprehensive plans. Current System. None. Status and Future Plans. During the course of the Authority's study about the fcasibility of a new bridge enough public opposition to the bridge arose that the Authority abandoned the project in 1993 prior to determining its financial feasibility. The Authority has been inactive since then and has no plans for other projects. The bridge remains on the MPO "needs" plan but not on the MPO "cost feasible" plan because toll fmancing is no longer considered an option and no other source of ftmding has been identified. Planning Process. The study described above resu l ted from a joint agreement among the MPO, FOOT, and the county that a bridge authority should be created to undertake a study to determine the feasibility of constructing a bridge across North Bay as a toll facility. The need for additional capacity acwss North Bay was identified and added to the MPO plao during the MPO's transportation planning process. All of the Authority's fiv e members are also members of the MPO, cons tituting a third of the MPO's membership. 4.2. Brevard County Expressway Authority Legislation. The Brevard County Expressway Authority was created in 1972 by Part II of Chapter 348, FS. Brevard's pwposes and powers are essentially the same as provided in Part I of 12

PAGE 15

Chapter 348, except that the provision for consent of a municipality is not as restrictive. There also are no provisions for consent of the board of county commissioners to add expressways or for consistency with MPO and county p lans. It was specifically authorized in its legislation to . construct a toll fa c ility in Brevard County establishing a two-lane or four-lane bridge located in the southern area of Brevard county, south of the municipality of Melbourne connecting existing U.S. Highway No. I with. State Road AlA across the Indian River ... Cu.rrent System. None. Status and Future Plans. The Authority has never met. It does not own or operate any transportation facilities and, apparently, has no plans to do so or to otherwise become active. Planning Process. Not applicable. Process never established. 4.3. Broward County Expressway Authority Legislation. The Broward County Expressway Authority was created in 1983 by Part III of Chapter 348, FS. Broward s purposes and powers are essentially the same as provided in Part I of Chapter 348 with a slight variation in the municipal consent clause and no requ irement for consistency with. the MPO plan. The Authority was specifically authorized in its legi s lation to .. construct roadways commonly known as the nonintersta t e funded portions of the I-595/Port Everglades Expressway, the Deerfield Expressway, and Sawgrass E xpressway." It also was authorized to ... sell, transfer, and dispose of all property of the Sawgrass Expressway ... to the Department of Transportation as part of the Turnpike System .... Current System. None. Status and Future Plans. The Sawgrass Expressway was comp leted in 1 986. From the beginning, the expressway fell far short of initial revenue projec tions and be came a financial drain on the county, which had pledged its local option gas tax to support the bond payments. Consequently, the county prevailed on FDOT to assume operational and fmancial responsibility for the expressway, and it was tumed over to FDOT in 1990. The Authority became inactive at that time and no other project has been undertake n and none is planned. Planning Process. The need for tbe Sawgrass Expressway was initially identified by the MPO and placed on its plan as the University Parkway The MPO subseqiently decided that the facility had the greatest likelihood of being funded and constructed if i t were undertaken as a toll facility. An expressway authority was then formed to undertake the project. 13

PAGE 16

4.4. Dade Couuty Expressway Authority Legislatioo. The Authority was creat e d by Dade County Ordinance No. 94-215 in December 1994 pursuant to Part I of Chapter 348, FS. Current System. As of the date of this report (October 1996), the Authority did not own or operate any transportation facilities However, it was negotiating with FOOT to transfer the operationa l and financial control of31 miles of expressways to the Authority. . Status and Future Plans. The Authority is newly formed and is in the process of initiating strategic planning and developing a master plan. Tentatively, i t expects these plans to in clude early implementation of electronic toll collection, several capacity and operational improvements to existing expressways, and five to ten miles o f new expressways. As permitted in Chapter 348, it also expects to provide funding for public transportation projects. As part of the transf e r of control of the expressways, the Authority will assume a debt to FOOT of approximately $12 million (was $13,547,213 as of June 30, 1996). The Authority also will owe Dade County $450,000 for advances to cover administrative costs. Planning Process. The Authority's executive director was added to the Dade County Transportation Planning Council, which is the technical arm of the MPO. There currently is no designated spot on the MPO for an Authority member; however the Authority hopes to have s tate legislation changed to add one. O n e of the Authority's board members coi ncidentally now serves on the MPO by virtue of another affiliation The Authority expects that potential future proj ects will be identified by its staff working jointly with other transportation agency staff through the Dade County Transportation Planning Council. Part I of Chapter 348 requires that projects undertaken by the Authori t y be consistent with the MPO transportation improvement program. Consequently, the staff expects to start with the MPO long-range plan and attempt to identify needed projects that would be feasible to finance with toll revenues. Potential projects would then be taken to the Authority for approva l. They also would be presented to the MPO for approva l to finance the projects wit h tolls. Part I of Chapter 348 also requires that the projects be consistent with the county's comprehensive plan and, unless there arc overriding public interests, with affected municipal comprehensive plans. 4.5. Escambia County Expressway Authority Legislation. None yet. Current System. None. 14

PAGE 17

Status and Future Plans. The E scamb ia Co u nty Board of County Commissioners is cons idering the establislune n t of an expressway authority to constmct a toll road that would be a conoector betw een the junct ion ofl-11 011-10 and U .S. 2 9, a distance of approximately I 0 miles. The BOCC borrowed $500,000 from t h e state s Toll Fac ilities Revolving Trust F und t o conduct the ini tial traffic and revenue and corri dor studies. They expect t o decide whether or not t o estab lis h an au thority by January 1997. Planning Process. The conoector was identified as a need during the MPO transportation p lanning process some years ago and also was identified at that time as a candidate for toll fmancing T h e BOCC recently indi c ated an interest in crea t ing a n expres s..yay authority to undertake this partic u lar project, and the MPO a n d FDOT both concurred in exp loring the poss ibility of moving the project forward as a toll f acility. 4 .6. Fort Walton Beach Area Bridge Authority (Okaloosa County) Legislation The Fort Walto n Beach Area B ri dge A ut h o rit y is a dependent special district (budget must be approved by the county) that was created in 1990 by Chapter 90-412, Laws o f Florida and granted the power to construct and operate a bridge(s) over C h octawhatchee Bay and/or Santa Rosa Sound. The Authority is not authorized u nde r its current legislation to undertake projects not related to the bridge(s). T his Authority was formed to construct a second to ll b ridge over Choctawhatchee Bay and/or Santa Rosa Sound a t a time when the M id -Bay Bridge Authority and its resources were fully commi tted to the construction and operation of t he first toll bridge across the bay. Current System. None. Status and Future Plans. The Authority conducted a feasibility study of severa l bridge alignments and decided not to undertake the pro j ect. The Authority borrowed from the Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund for tbis study and currentl y owes t he fund $1 millio n. The Authority has been inactive f or the past t w o years and h as no plans to become active. The MPO i n fac t has requested that the Auth ori t y be abolished. The M PO "needs" plan cont inue s to show the need for additional bridge capacity but a s p ecific bridge project is no lo nger s hown on the M P O "cost feasible" plan. Planning Pro cess. The study described above was the r esult of a joint agreeme n t amo n g the MPO, FDO T and the county that a bridge authori t y s h oul d be created to undertake a study to de termine the feasibili ty of constructing a bridge across Choctaw hatc hee Bay as a t oll facility. During the MPO's transportation planoing process a need for additional capac ity acro ss Ch o ctaw hat chee Bay had p revious ly been identified and a dded to t h e MPO plan. T he Authority was not a member ofthe MPO but was a member of the MPO's technical coordinating committee 1 5

PAGE 18

4.7. Jacksonville Transportation Authority Legislation. "!be Jacksonville Transportation Authority was created in 1955 under Chapter 349, FS. In addition to the right to function as an expressway authority, Jacksonville's legislation gives it the power to operate a mass transit system, construct parking facilities, and to ... construct and operate all other facilities necessary to a complete and coordinated transportation system .... There are no provisions for consent of a municipality, for consent of the board of county commissioners to add expressways, or for consistency with MPO and county plans. However, there is a provision for public hearings and for review and comment by the Jacksonville area planning board. Current System. The Authority operates the local transit agency but does not own or operate any highways. It funds and constructs roadways and then turns them over to FDOT or local goverrunent for operation Status and Future Plans. The toll facilities in Jacksonville were operated by the Jacksonville Transportation Authority (J TA), which also operates the local transit system. T h e tolls were eliminated through referendum and replaced by a local sales tax effective in 1989 due, in large part, to the congestion caused by the toll barriers. Nonetheless, tolls may be us e d to fmance new facilities when the needs exceed the sales tax revenues A substantial part of the sales tax (over 20 percent) goes into transit, replacing some of the reduction in federal transit assistance. The Authority's primary debt is $303,655,000 in outstanding bonds. TI1e annual debt service (principal and interest) on the bonds is approximately $27,000,000 per year. The county has pledged two cents of its gas tax to support the Authority's bond issues. "!be Authority has approximately 480 employees, of whom 26 are in the engineering (highway) division and the balance of whom are in the transit d i vis i on The administrative budget for the e n gineering division is $1 410,000 for FY1997. The development of the Authority s work program is an on-going process. Highway projects are set for construction when additional bonds are issued, which occurs when bonding capacity permits. "!be next bond issue is planned for 1997. Planning Procss. According to the authority having transit and expressways in the same authority has resulted in much greater coordination of the two. JT A says that i t exists because there are roads that need to be built that FDOT and the city of Jacksonville cann .ot build The Authority's staff starts with the MPO's priority list and asks the city and FOOT for input. The staff then develops recommendations that it discusses wit h the board in a series of workshops. The board then makes the fmal decision on which projects to undertake and presents it to the city council for approval. There is no requirement that the Authority's projects be on the MPO's priority list or be consistent with the MPO's plan. However, the Authority does ask the MPO to 16

PAGE 19

put the Authority's proposed projects in the MPO plan and the TIP, and apparently, the MPO has never asked the authority not to undertake a project that the board selected There are no elected officials on the JT A board. Three members are appointed by the Governor, three are appointed by the Mayor, and the seventh member is the FDOT Dist rict Secretary. The Authority has a designated membership on the MPO and two members o f the Authority's staff are members of the MPO s technical coordinating committee. 4.8. Mid-Bay Bridge Authority (Okaloosa County) Legislation. The Mid-Bay Bridge Authority is a dependent special dis trict that was created in 1986 by Chapter 86-465 Laws of Florida, which authori7..ed the Authority to construct a bridge across Choctawhatchee Bay in Okaloosa County. The Authority is authorized under its current legislation to u ndertake projects only related to the bridge. Current System The three-mile Mid-Bay Bridge over Choctawhatchee Bay. Status and Future Plans. The Authority constructed the Mid-Bay Bridge as a toll facility in I 993 and current l y operates the bridge .. Under a lease-purchase agreeme nt, FOOT pays all operation and maintenance costs which the Authority is obligated to repay when it has sufficient revenues. The Authority's expenses, including its debt service, are supported in part by the county's pledge of 40 percen t of its share of t he local option gas tax, which the Authority also is obligated to repay. As of September 30, 1995, the Authority owed FDOT $1,397,614 for accumulated operations and maintenance costs and owed Okaloosa County for advances of $7,847,910 from the local option gas tax The other major debt of the Authority is the outstanding principal on the bonds for the bridge of $86,250 000. (The original bond i ssue of $81,740,000 is being refunded through the sale of $86,250,000 in revenue refunding bonds ) The current debt service (principal and interest) on the bonds is approximately $6,200 000 per year. T he Authority's toll revenue for 1995 was $4,083 ,3 61. The balance of the debt service cost comes from gas tax and interest revenue The Authority has one full-time employee plus the executive director who is one-half tim e T he Authority has no plans for future projects. Planning Process. During the MPO's transporta ti o n planning process a need for a bridge across Choctawhatchee Bay was identified and added to the MPO plan. Subsequently it was jointly agreed among the MPO, FOOT, arid the county that a bridge authority should be created to undertake a study to determine the feasibility of constructing the bridge as a toll facility. T he Authority is not a member of the MPO but is a member of the MPO's technical coordinating committee. 17

PAGE 20

4.9. Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority Legislation. The Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority was created in 1963 under Part V of Chapter 348, FS. In the Authority's legislation there arc no provisions for consent of the Board of County Commissioners to add expressways or for consistency with l'v1PO and county plans. However, the Authority's legislation does require that "before making any app lication for [a ] pledge of gasoline tax funds, the authority shall present the plan of its proposed project to the Orange Councy planning and zoning commission for its comments and recommendations." . A lso, the provision for consent of a m u nicipality is more restrictive than general legislation. The Authority's legislation states that ... acquisition of right-of-way for a project of the aut hority which is within the boundaries of any m unicipality in Orange County shall not be begun unless and until the route of said project within said municipality has been given p rio r approval by the governing body of said municipality." It also states that "the authority shall have no power other than by consent of Orange County or any affected city, to enter int o any agreemen t which would lega lly pro hibit the construction of any road by Orange County or by any city within Orange County." The Authority was specifically authorized in its legislation to .. construct finance operate own, and main tain that portion of the Western Beltway known as the Northwest Bel tway Part A, extending from Florida's Turnpike near Ocoee north to U.S. 441 near Apopka .... and ... to exerc ise its condemnation powers, construct, finance, operate, o..,n and maintain tha t portio n of the Western Beltway known as the Western Beltway Part C, extending from Florid a s Turnpike near Ocoee in Orange County southerly through Orange and Osceola Counties to an interchange with I-4 n ear the Osceola-Polk County line . . Current System. The 79-mile expressway system operated by the Orlando Orange County Expressway Authority consists of three expressways: the 34-mile Central Florida Greeneway (S.R. 417) on the south and east sides of Orlando, the 23-mile Bee Line Expressway (S.R. 528) on the nort h side of the Orlando Airport, and the 22-mile East -West Expressway (S.R. 408) on the north s ide of Orlando. Status and Future Plans. The Orlando-Orange County E xpressway Authority opened its first expressway in 1967. From then until I 995 FOOT provi ded toll-collection and maintenance services Last year the authority began contracting with the private sector to provide these services In FY 1996, FOOT contributed $1,288,000 of the $5,900,000 roadway maintenance budget, and the Authority has an interlocal agreement with FOOT to provide certain types of main tenance on portions of S .R. 408 that previous ly were performed by the city of Orlando. The authority also has begun to establish partnering relationships with FOOT and local governments to undertake jointly the constntction of new fac ilities The authority's five-member board consists of the Chair of the County Commission, )he District Secretary ofFDOT, and three persons appointed by the Governo r 18

PAGE 21

As of June 30, 1995, the Authority's long-term debt included $70,210,000 for accumulated operations and maintenance costs and $14,038,000 for initial construction loans owed to FOOT and $66,000 for advances for preliminary engineering studies owed to Orange County. The debt owed to Orange County for advances of local gas tax revenues was repaid in 1995. Other major debts of the Authority as of June 30, 1996 are shown i n Table 3. The current debt service (principal and interest) for the Authority's bonds is approximately $39,000,000 per year. Current t oll revenues are approximately $74,000,000 per year. The excess of revenues over debt service generally goes toward operating expen ses, such as operations, maintenance, and depreciation. The Authority's future plans call for a 35-mile north south expressway (the Western Beltway) on the west side of Orlando. It will extend from 1-4 in Osceola County near the Polk County line to U.S. 441 ncar Apopka. The Authority has received a loan of$6.3 million from the state's Toll Fac ilit ies Revolving Tmst Fund for the initial studies on this project and has received a grant of $13.7 million fro m FOOT for the purchase of right-of-way. The state legislature gave the Authority the right to construct and operate the portion of this expressway that will be in Osceola County. '!be Authority's 2015 Master Plan also call for over $400 millio n in improvements on the existing expressway system. Planning Process. The Authority says that it does not undertake any project unless it is approved by the MPO and is consistent with and part of the MPO plan. The Authority begins its plarming process with the MPO plan and then develops its own long-range plan after receiving input from the public and other interested parties. The Authority then takes its list of projects to the MPO for approval. Upon approval, the MPO includes the Authority's projects in its transporta t ion improvement program (TIP) for informational purposes. The chairman of the Authority is a designated member of the MPO and the executive director of the Authority is a member of the MPO' s transportation technical committee. Coordination activiti es includ e : An interlocal agreement with the city of Orlando for the Authority to assist in the widening of a city road (John Young Parkway) that connects with an expressway interchange. The Authority also will pay the city $66,000 for work on the interchange. An interlocal agreement with Orange County to undertake a highway beautification project on the Bee L i ne Expre ssway. The A u thority and the county will split the $579,141 cost. Establishment of a tas k force to assist in the development o f the proposed Western Beltway. The task force includes elected offic ials and chief staff personnel f rom the cities of Apopka, Winter Garden and Ocoee; Orange and Osceola counties; and FOOT. 19

PAGE 22

An agreement with Osceola County for the Osceola Parkway to co!Ulect to the Authority's host computer for the transfer of toll revenues An agreement with FOOT's Turnpike Distric t to provide electronic toll collection facilities and services on the Seminole County portion of the Central Florida Greeneway and the Turnpike's southern extension of the Greeneway. 4.10. Pasco County Expressway AuthoritY Legislation. The Pasco County Expressway Authority was created i n 1973 under Part VI of Chapter 348, FS. Pasco's purposes and powers are essentially the same as provided in Part I of Chapter 348, except that the provision for consent of a municipality i s not as restrictive. There also are no provisions for consent of the board of county commissioners to add expressways or for consistency with MPO and county plans Current System. None. Status and Future Plans. The Authority began a feasibility study of a Pasco County expressway (the Bi-County Expressway) in 1987 and concluded in 1995 that the pwject was not feasib le. The Authority borrowed about $800,000 from the Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund for the initial work and that is now being repaid by the county. The Authority became inactive in 1995 and has no plans to become active again. Planning Process. The proposed Bi-County Expressway was geographically outside of the MPO's pl31Uling area (the county's urbanized area) and, therefore, was not part of the MPO planning process. The proposed expressway was identified by the county as a potential toll facility and included in the transportation element of its comprehensive plan. When the MPO's planning area was expanded to include the Bi-County route, the MPO began the process of includ ing the Bi-County on the MPO plan but before that process was completed the project was determined not to be feasible and, therefore, was not added to the plan. However, it does remain as a conceptual route on the regional road network plan that is jointly maintained by the Pasco, Hillsborough Pinellas, and Hernando MPOs. The Authority was the County Commission which also makes up the majority of the MPO. . 4 : 11. St. Lucie County Expressway Authority . Legislation. The St. Lucie County Expressway Authority was created in 1983 under Part VII of Chapter 348, FS. St. Luc ie 's purposes and powers are essentia lly the same as provided in Part I o f Chapter 348, except that the provision for consen t of a municipality is not as restrictive There also are no provisions for consent of the of County Commissioners to add expressways or for consistency wi th MPO and county plans. 20

PAGE 23

Current System. None. Status and Future Plans. The Authority conducted a feasibility study of the propo sed "Palmer Expressway" in the 1980s and then decided not to proceed with t he project. I t was inactive until r ecent interest in the possible construction of a toll bridge (the "Walton Bridge') over the Intracoastal Waterway. The Authority has no emp lo yees I t owes $2,217,475 to the T o ll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund for money it h as bor ro wed for studies on both the proposed Palmer Express\vay and the proposed Wal ton Bridge. l'lanning Process. The Authority identified the need for the Wa lton Bridg.,: and reque sted that the MPO add it t o the MPO plan so that the Authority would be e l igible to borrow fr o m the Toll Facilit ies Revolving Trust Fu nd. The MPO added the proposed project to its transp o rta t ion improvement program and its "needs" plan last year, b u t n ot to i ts "cost feasible" plan. The Authority borrowed $500,000 from the Revolving Trust Fund and is now u ndert aking a feasibility study of the proposed bridge. No members oftbe Authority are designated mem b ers of th e MPO or the MPO's technical advisory committee. However two county commiss ion ers c urr ently serve on both the MPO and the Authority boards. 4.12. Santa Rosa Bay Bridge Authority Legislation. The Santa R osa Bay Bridge Authority was cre ated in 198 4 under Chapter 348, Part IX, FS, to construct and operate the Santa Rosa Bay Bridge System, which is d efined as ... a bridge berween Red Fish Poin t on the mainland and Garcon Point of the cape which may inc lud e an eventual c o nnection to Santa Rosa Island . .. The Authority is not authorized under its current l egislation to undertake projects not related to the bridge. Santa Rosa's purposes and powers are e sse n tially t he same as provided in Part I of Chapter 348, exeept that the provision for consent of a municipality is not as restric t ive. There also are no provisions for consent of the Board of County Commissioners to add to the system or for consistency with MPO and county plans. Current System. None. Status and Future Plans. The Authority h as compl eted a study that determined that the construction of the Garcon Point bridge as a toll facility i s feasible. The authority hopes to sell bonds this year and begin construction shortly afterwards. Through a lease-purchase agree m ent, FDOT will advance the money for opera t ions and main tenance costs with a pwvision that the Authority repay the costs at some point. The Authority has borrowed $8,442,513 from the T oll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund for the initial studies, design, and right-of-way purchase for t h e 21

PAGE 24

bridge project. The county did not pledge its gas tax to support the bonds for the bridge. The Authority has no employees and has no other plans. Planning Process. During the MPO's transportation planning process a need for a bridge to Garcon Point was identified and added to the MPO plan. Subsequently, it was jointly agreed among the MPO, FOOT, and the county t hat a bridge authority should be created to undertake a study to determine the feasibility of constructing the bridge as a toll facility. The authority is a member of the MPO but not the MPO technica l coordinating committee. 4.13. Seminole County Expressway Autbority Legislation. The Seminole County Expressway Authority was created in 1974 under Part VIII of Chapter 348, FS. The Authority's purposes and powers are essentially the same as provided in Part I of Chapter 348, except that the provision for consent of a municipa lity is not as restrictive. There also are no provisions for consent of the board of county commissioners to add expressways or for consistency with MPO and county plans. Current System. The Authority does not operate any expressways It completed the engineering and design for the 12-mile portion of the Central Florida Greeneway in Seminole County and then turned the project over to FDOT. The bond financing and the construction of this segment were handled by the Turnpike District ofFDOT, which now operates tbe expressway. Status and Future Plans. The Authority is now partnering with FOOT to extend the Greeneway six miles to connect with I-4. The Authority is handling the design and enginee ring for this segment while District 5 of FOOT is handling right-of-way acquisition The Authority expects the Turnpike District of FDOT to undertake the financing, construction, and operation of this segment The Authority has no plans for other activities after it completes the design and engineering of this segment in 1998. For initial work on the Grecneway the Authority owes the Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund $15 380,275. It also owes $731,000 to Seminole County for advances to cover administrative costs The Authority expects these debts to be assumed by the FOOT Turnpike District when it assum e s r espo nsibility for the new segment. Planning Process. In the 1960s the MPO iden tified the need for a beltway in Seminole County. In the I 980s the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority identified t he need to extend its expressway system into Seminole County and suggested that the beltway identified in the MPO plan be constructed as a toll facility, and that project has since been part of the coordinated MPO p lan ning process. Although the Authority does not have designated memberships on the MPO, four members of the Authority currently are also members oftli.e MPO. These include three county commissioners 22

PAGE 25

and the mayor of Sanford. The Authocity's executive director is a designated member of the MPO 's transportation technical committee. 4.14. Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority Legislation. The Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority was created in 1963 under Part IV of Chapter 348, FS. There are no provisions for consent of a municipality, for consent of the board of county commissioners to add expreSsways, or for consistency With MPO plans. However there is a strong provision for consultation with the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission and for consideration of the county's comprehensive plan In addition to the power to construct and operate an expressway system the authority is given the power to construct along the system and lease ... telephone telegraph television, electric power and other wires or cables, pipelines water mains and other conduits ... Current System. The Authofity manages the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway, whi ch extends 14 miles between Gandy Boulevard in the Inter-Bay area in Tampa and Interstate 75 near Brandon. Status and Future Plans. The Authority's bonded debt payments and its administrative costs are paid out of toll revenues. When toll revenues are not sufficient to cover these costs, Hillsborough County has pledged to make up the difference out of its local gas tax revenues. Toll revenue on the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway has recently begun to exceed the debt service payments and, therefore, the county is not currently having to contribute local gas tax revenue toward bond payments. However, at current rates, toll revenues are not expected to be sufficient to cover all of the current operations and maintenance costs before the bonds are due to be retired in 2008. Therefore, FOOT is expected to continue to advance funds to cover the operations (toll collection) and maintenance costs of the expressway. As of the end of 1995, the Authority owed FOOT $36,608,361 for accumulated operations costs, $8,170,539 for accumulated maintenance costs, and $18,884,709 for initial construction loans. In addition, the Authority owes Hillsborough County $45,226 ,588 for local gas tax revenues that have been applied to bond payments as of the end of the county's 1995 fiscal year (June 30, 1995). Other major debts of the Authority are $3,938,719 owed to the FOOT Toll Facil i ties Revolving Trust Fund for planning and design work on extensions to the expressway, and the oulstimding pri n cipal on the bonds for the expressway of $120,030,000 The current debt service (principal and interest) for the bonds is approximately $13,000,000 per year. Other than the bonds, none of these debts bear interest. The Authority did the planning and initial development for the Veterans Expressway but, when it became apparent that the Authority had insufficient flnancial capacity to finance the construction, the Authority established a partnering arrangement with the FDOT Turnpike Dismct wherein the 23

PAGE 26

Authority became the Turnpike District's right-of-way agent for the project and the T urnpike undertook the construction and management of the facility. In April 1996, the Authority adopted a master plan of new projects to be funded and b uilt in partnership with Hillsborough County and FDOT. Preliminary design is underway on the largest of the new projects, a planned connector between Interstate 4 and the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway. This $225 million project is funded jointly by the Authority and FOOT and is being developed in conjunction with the reconstruction of the Interstate Highway System in the Tampa Bay area. The projec t includes the construction of additional lanes on the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway from downtown Tampa to the present eastern tenninus of the expressway at In terstate 75. Discussions are currently under way with FOOT, Hillsborough County, and the Hillsborough MPO to extend that terminus by constructing additional access to the expressway in the Brandon area. Two projects in the Brandon area ha ve tentatively been identified and $50 million has been programmed in the Authority's master plan for these projects and related improvements. The master plan now includes $280 million of funded improv em en t s to be constructed over the next 15 years, with the first construction scheduled to begin in 1997. The improvements will be funded by refinancing outstanding bonds and selling new bonds backed by toll revenues. '!be first bond sale is scheduled for January 1997. Planning Process. Through its int ern al analyses of the level of service on its exi sting facility the Authority may identify capacity or other improv ements that are needed. It then takes those proposed improvements to the MPO for approval. It also attempts to identify projects currently on the MPO plan that may be feasible toll projects. It does not undertake any projects that are not approved by the MPO and made part of the MPO plan. Coordination with local comprehensive plans and other planning agencies, such as FDOT and the Planning Commission, occurs within the MPO planning process. The Authority is a member of the MPO and participates on various MPO committees. 5. The Role of Expressway Authorities in the Planning Process Expr essway authorities primarily are one of the implementers of the transportation plan that is developed by the local MPO Along with FOOT, the county and the cities within the urban area, the local expressway authority funds and constructs roadways, and, in some cases, transit. Expressway authorities usually are also one of the developers of the MPO plan by virtue of membership on the MPO, or through input in the public forums during which the plan is developed. This input typically consists of advice on which roads currently on the MPO plan could be financed through tolls and recommendations on new roadways not currently on the plan that could be toll-financed and may be apj>ropriate to add to the plan. 24

PAGE 27

However, as discussed earlier, most expressway authorities do not have to follow the MPO's plan nor its priorities. Although this fact docs not appear to have been a source of serious conflict in the past, there certainly is the potential for conflict or uncoordinated plans. 5.1. Relationship with other Governmental Entities FDOT Turnpike District Some authorities have established a partnering arrangement with the Turnpike District in order to bring expressways to fruition. For instance, in the case of the Veterans Expressway in Tampa, the Tampa-Hillsborough County Expressway Authority initially developed the project and then purchased the right of way on behalf of the Turnpike. The Turnpike financed and constructed the expressway. This arrangement will remain in effect until all current legal cases involving right-of-way acquisition are resolved, which is expected to occur within the next year. As part of that arrangement, the Turnpike District has reimbursed the Authority for a substantial share of its administrative cost. Since the agreement went into effect in October 1990 that share of the Authority's administrative cost has been as high as 70 percent and is currently aoout 30 percent. Tampa and other authorities are proposing additional partnering relationships with the Turnpike on future projects. U nder the lease-purchase agreements that exist between FDOT and most expressway authorities, if the bonds on an authority's expressway are retired, the expressway will be transferred to state ownership, and toll facilities owned by the state come under the authority of either the Turnpike District of the local FDOT district. FDOT Central Office The FDOT Office of Toll Operations is responsible for toll collection on all state toll roads, including the Florida Turnpike. It also performs this function under contract for most expressway authorities. This relationship usually is stipulated in the expressway's oond covenants; otherwise, the authority could hire its own toll takers or contract that function out to the private sector. The lease-purchase agreements between FDOT and expressway authorities usually provide that the cost of toll collection (referred to as operations cost) will be advanced by FDOT and wiil be repaid by the authorities when the bonds are retired. Within the FDOT Office of Financial Planning a revolving trust fund (the Toll Facilities Revolving Trust Fund) is maintained from which local goverrunents, including expressway authorities, can borrow up to $500,000 per year for the initial design and planning of expressway projects. Additional amounts can be appropriated by the Legislature. Current amounts owed to that fund are shown in Table 3. If expressway authorities borrow from the fund, their projects are required to be consistent with the local MPO plan. 25

PAGE 28

FDOT District Offices It often is stip u lated in the bond covenants that FDOT perform the maintenance on expressways ; otherwise the authorities could hire their own maintenance workers or contract that function out to the private sector. When stipulated or otherwise requested, the local FDOT district performs this fu nction. As in the case of operat ions costs, the lease purchase agreements between FDOT and expressway authorities usually provide tha t the cost of ma'iritenance will be advanced by FDOT and will be repaid by the authorities when the bonds are retired. As shown in Table I, the District Sec retary often is a member of the expressway board and often also participate s in expressway authority affairs through non-voting member ship on the loca l MPO. Coordination at the local level be t ween FDOT and expressway authorities occurs formally through the MPO planning proc e ss and through lease-purchase agreements. Local Governments Count ies ofte n support the bonds for expressways by pledging their local option gas tax. Without that pledge there would be cases where authorities either would not be able to sell bonds or would receive Jess favorable rates. Cities and counties often arc represented on expressway authority boards by elected officials, as shown in Table 1 and expres sway authorities often are members ofMPOs, which include loca l elected officials. Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) Under Chapter 348, Part!, FS pro j ects undertaken by an expressway authority m us t be approved by the MPO as part of the MPO's long -range plan. However, most authorities were created prior to the passage of Part I of Chapter 348 by special acts that do not require consistency with the MPO plan or any other involve men t with the MPO. I n practice, most authorities work closely with their MPO and the authorities' projects are almost always selected from needs first i dentified by the MPO. In part, this is due to the requirement that the projects of expressway authorities that borrow from the Revolving T rust Fund be consistent with the local MPO plan. The spec ific projects selected from the MPO long range plan for construction by an authority tends to be a result of negotia tion among the authority, the MPO and other involved partie s There is, however the potential for conflict. As noted in Table I, there tends to be cross m embership between the boards of expressway authorities and MPO s. In addition, authority staff often are members of the MPO's technical committee, which advises the MPO board. 26

PAGE 29

Other Local Age ncie s The i nteractio n o f expressway authorities with other local agencies is usually limited to ad hoc involvement or to joint membership on the MPO, transportation commi ttees et c. However, in some cases there is substan tial interacti on w i th the loca l trans i t age ncy. In Jack sonville, the transit agency is part of the authority I n Dade County, the authority's legislation specifically includes public transportation projects in i ts mission. R e feren ces Adrian, C harl e s and Charles Press Governing Urban America. McGraw-Hill Book Company New Y o rk 1972. B o ll ens, John C Special District Governments in the Unit e d States. Univers i ty of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles 1957. Bromage, Arthur W. Political Representation in Metropolitan Agencies. Ins t itu t e o f Public Administration U ni versity of Michigan, 1962. Cape, William H., Leon B Graves, and Burton M Michae ls Government by Special Districts Governmental Re s earch Center University of Kansas, 1969. Commission on Local Government. Special Districts in Florida, Special Report 73-8, June 28 1974. Dan i elson, Michael N. Metropolitan Politics Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, 1971. Florida Advi sory Cou ncil on Intergovernmental Relations. ACIR Special Dist r ict Accountability R ecommendations and Rationales 876, N ovember 1987. Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmental R e la tions. Special D i strict A ccountability in Florida 87-5 Nove m ber 1987. M i tchell, Jerry Public Authorities. and Public Policy: The Bus iness of Government. Greenwood Press, New York, 1992. Porter Douglas R., Ben C. Lin and Richard B. Peiser. Special Districts: A Useful Techniques for Financing Infrastructure. Urban Land I nstitute, 1987. 27


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200265Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 001927304
005 20080327134011.0
008 961118s1996 flu b 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00113
2 local
035
(OCoLC)35952521
040
CBT
c CBT
d FHM
043
n-us-fl
049
FHMM
090
HE5633.F6
b R58 1996
0 245
A Review of the current functions of independent transportation authorities in Florida that own or operate roadways or bridges or toll facilities /
by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; prepared for the Florida Legislature.
260
[Tampa] :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1996]
300
i, 27 leaves ;
28 cm.
500
"October 1996."
504
Includes bibliographical references (leaf 27).
530
Also available online.
650
Toll roads
z Florida.
Toll bridges
Florida.
Public utility districts
Florida.
1 710
Florida.
Legislature.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
994
C0
FHM
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.113