USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study
Physical Description:
1 online resource (iv, 17 p.) : ;
Language:
English
Creator:
Jones, F. Ron
Lachance, Laura C
Williams, Kristine
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Roads -- Finance -- Mathematical models -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Impact fees -- Mathematical models -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
statistics   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Statement of Responsibility:
prepared fo Hillsborough County by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
General Note:
Title from e-book cover (viewed Aug. 29, 2011).
General Note:
"CUTR project team: F. Ron Jones, project director; Laura C. Lachance, Kristine Williams"--P. ii.
General Note:
"August 1999."

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 - 029175681
oclc - 748293200
usfldc doi - C01-00291
usfldc handle - c1.291
System ID:
SFS0032369:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY Phase 1: Review of Impact Fee Formula Variables Prepared for Hillsboro ugh County By the Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University o f So u th Florida. August 1999

PAGE 2

Center for Urban Transportation Research USF College of Engineering 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620 CUTR Project Team: F. Ron Jones, Ph.D. Project Director La ura C. Lachance Kristine Williams Gary I.. Brosch, Director 11

PAGE 3

Tabl e of Contents I ntroduction ..... : .... .... . ........................................ : ........ I D escription of the Impact Fee Formulas ............................ : ..... ...... I Review of Impact Fee Formula Variables ....................................... . 2 Analysis and Calculations ............... .................. ................. . 2 I. Percen tage of Trip Length on Interstate System (%IT) .............. ........ 3 2. Percentage ofT rip Length on Local Roads (%LR) ................. ..... ..... 4 3 Constructio n Cost per Lane Mile (CC) .................. .... . ............ 5 4. Right of-Way Cost as a Percent of Construct i on Cost (%ROW) ................. 6 5. Gas Tax Credit per Gallon (TAX) ...................... ........ ...... : . 7 6. Miles per Gallon of Gasoline (MPG) ....................... .............. II 7. Present Value Factor (PVF) .................. ... ............ .. ...... . I I 8. Other Varia bles ..................................... ... .......... 1 1 Sample Calculation of Impact Fees Using U pdated Values . ............... . ...... 11 Conclusion .......................................... . .................... 15 Appendix ..... .................. .... ................. . ...... : .......... . 1 6 Ill

PAGE 4

List of Tables Table 1 : Transportation and Right-of-Way Impact Fee Formul as ........................ I . Table 2: Impact Fee Formula Variables Reviewed ........................ ........... 2 Table 3: Percentage of Urban and Rural Roadways by Zone ....................... .... 5 Table 4: Average Construction Costs by Zone .......................... ............ 6 Tabl e 5: Average Right-of -Way Costs by Zone ... : ................................. 7 Table 6: Federa l State, and County Gas Tax Available for Transportation Expenditures ..... 8 Table '7: Values Used for Calculation of Current and Updated Impact Fees ............. : 12 Table 8: Results oflmpact Pee Example for Zone I ...................... ........... 13 Table 9: Results oflmpact Pee Calcuiations for Average of All Zones ............ . _. .... 14 Table 10: Comparison of Average Cost and Recovery for All Zones ... . ............. 1 4 IV

PAGE 5

=-r ----1 Intro duc tion On behalf of Hillsborough County, t h e Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) is conducting a review of the transportation and right-of-way components of "The Hillsborough County Co n solidated Impact Assessment Program Ordinance" (Ordi n ance 96-29). Phase I o f this project involved review ing the current impact fee formu la variables and determining what changes in the valu e s are appropriate Descr i ption of t he Impact F ee For mulas The tran s portation impact fee formula contains t hree part s: ( I ) calculation of the impact based on tri p generation and roadway construction costs, (2) a credit for gas taxes paid for the next 50 y e ars, and (3) a percentage adjustmen t. The right -ofway impact assessment formula contains the same components as the transportation impact fee formula with the addition of a ratio of estimated right-of-way costs to construction costs and a right-of-way cost recovery factor. The two form u las are presen ted in the table below both i n their current form and in a sugge s ted restated form The restatement reorders some of the variab les into more log ical groupings and changes some of the variable symbols for clarification. The restatem ent itself does not change the results of fee calculations Des cript ions of each of the variables are included in the append i x. T able 1 Transportation a n d Right-of-Way Impact Fee F o rmulas Current For m Suggested Rt-statement Transportation Impact F u -Formula T rnnsportation Jmpsu:t Fee Formula {[(#X TGR X TL X (l%1T))/CLI2 X cc X (l-%1LR)] {((N X (TGR/2) X TL X (t %IT) X (I%LR))ICL X CC] miltUJ gas tax credit m i nus gas lax .credit [(N X TGR X TL X ( 1 %\T))/2/17 16 X $0.089 X 365 X 13 8)} [(N X (TGR/2) X TL X (l-%1T))IMPG X TAX X 365 X PVF]) multiplied by mull iplied by PC TCR Rigbt of-\Vay Impact Fee Formula Impatt Fee Formula multiply above by . mul tiply above by %ROW' X 916641 %ROW' X RCR' 'These variables are included only in t h e right-of-way impac t fee formula. I

PAGE 6

Review of Impact Fee Formula Variables Liste d below in Tab le 2 are the variables that CUTR was asked to review. Shown for each variable is the value currently being used by the County and the updated value . Following the table_are discussions of the analysis and calculatil:ms involved in updating each of the values. Table2 Impact Fee Formula Variables Reviewed Variable Current Value %IT 22 .9% %1LR (%LR) t 5.0"/o Construction CoSI (CC) Urban Lane Mile $664 ,062 Rural Lane Mile $404,1051 Right.of-Way Cost Urban Lane Mile $228,017 Rural Lane Mile $138,756 TAX MPO (7.16 NPV 13.8' 'Scrivener's error of$404,01 S corrected. 2Scrivener's error resulting in 12.2 3 corrected. Analysis and Calculations Updated Value 25.0 % 23.3% $2,716,67? $1,169,624 Sl ,418 ,6 89 $35?,512 21.48 13.8 J. Percentage of Trip Length 011 Interstate System (%IT) The percentage of trip length on the interstate/exp ressway system takes into consideration the portion of an average trip that is trav eled on the interstate/expressway and subtracts it ou t of. the travel that a land use is accountable for in the impact fee. This travel needs to be excluded because impact fee monies do not go toward expansion of the interstate/expressway system (or local streets). Proceeds from the impact fees go toward non-interstate/expressway (and non local) roadways. The value for this variable is based primarily on the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) projected for the year 2015 by the travel demand mo.del used by Hill sborough County. Since the model does n ot include VMT on local roads, the amount of local VMT was estimated using the percent of total travel on local roads i n 1995 for the Tarnpa-St Petersburg-Clearwater urbanized area. That percentage (22.9%) was added to the non-local VMT projected by the model to get total VMT. . 2

PAGE 7

Basing the 2015 estimat e oflocal VMT on the 1995 percent oflocal V M T is likely t o make the %IT slightly lower than i t should be an d at the same time, make the %LR s ligh t ly higher t han it should be because the percent of t rave l on local roads has been decreasing over time and the percent on t he interstate/ express way s ystem has been incr easin g. However, the overall i mpact is like l y t o be negli g i bl e since the decre ase in the % I T variable acts as an off s et to th e inc r ease in the %LR variab le. Th e inter s t a t e /expressway trip length percenta ge i s ca l c ulated by subtracting through (no trip ends in Hill sbo r o u g h County) VMT from all intersta t e/expressway VMT and dividing the res ult by total VMT minus total thr o u g h VMT. Through VMT is subtra c t e d beca use it i s not attribu t a bl e t o an y development w i th i n H ill sboro u g h County. Based on dis c us s i o ns wit h FDOTand its cons ultants, t hr ough VM T i s es timat ed to be 1 ,000,000. The result of the calculation is the percen t of the t otal miles drive n i n Hi llsborou g h tha t are d rive n on the interstate/expressway sys t em for a n average trip that originates and/or ends in Hillsborough County. The calculation is: %IT = (locaUy generated inte r state/expressway VMl) + (total locally ge n erated VMl) = ((total interstate/exp. VMT) (through lnterstate/exp. V Ml)l + ( ( t otal VMl) (total through VMl)] a ( 13 ,41 3, 129-1, 000,000 1 + (50, 589 322 1,00 0 ,0001 = 25.03% The a b o v e ca lculation assumes that all through VMT i s on the interstate/expressway s y s t e m Alth o u g h this may not strictly be true, t he amo unt o f through traffic on non-interstate/exp ress w a y r oads i s likel y t o b e quite small and to have n o n oticeab l e affect on the calculations. 2 P e rcenta g e of Trip Length on Local Roads ( % LR) The per centage o f t rip length o n local street.s ta kes int o consideration t h e port ion of an average trip that is traveled on local streets and subtracts it out of the tra v el that a l and use is accountable for in the impact fee. This travel n eeds to be e x cluded because impact fee moni es d o not go toward expansion of local stre ets (or i n t erstates/expressways). Proceeds fro m the im p a ct fees go t oward nonl ocal (and non -interst ate/expre s sw ay) roadways. T h e value for this variable is based on the s a m e dat a sources a s the previous vaii a bl e (%IT ) T h e l oca l roa d t rip length percentage is c a lculated by s u b tracting through (no trip ends in Hill s bor o u g h Count y ) local s treet VMT (assumed to be zero) from all local street VMT and dividing th e r es ult by t ota l VMT minus total through VMT. Through VMT i s subtracted because it is not attribut able t o any d e v e l o pment within Hillsboroug h County. T hr ough local street VMT is assum e d to b e zero sin ce it is very unlikely that trips that do n o t start or s t o p in the County would travel on any l oca l stree ts. The res ult ofthe calc u la t i o n i s the percen t of the t o t al mile s driven i n Hill sbo r ough th at are 3

PAGE 8

driven on local streets fo r an average trip that origiilates and/or ends in Hillsborough County. The calculatio n is: %LR = (locally : local street VMT) + (totalla<:alty genetaled VMD : = [(totallocal street VMT) (th r ough local street VMTJ) + i(t otat VMD (total through VMT)) = [ 11,577,366 OJ+ [50,589,3221 000 ,000) = 23.35% As noted previously, the above calculation assumes that all through VMT is oi the interstate/expressway system. Although this ni.ay not strictly be true, the amount of through traffic on non-interstate/expressway roads is likely to be quite small and to have no noticeable affect on the calculations. 3. Construction Cost per Lane Mile (CC) The updated county-wide average construction cost figures shown in Table 2 were provided by the Hillsborough County Engineering Department. These figures, along with the percenta g es of urban and rural roadways s u pplied by the Hillsbo r ough County Planning and Growth Management Department, were used to calculate unique construction costs per lane mile for each of the ten zones in the unincorporated area of Hillsborough County. For the puqiose of this study, an urban roadway is defined as a roadway i n a "developed" area of the County, and a rural roadway is in a "less-developed" area of the county (regardless of the engineering cross section used). The county-wide average co n struction cost estimates per lane mile for urban roadway and rural roadway are based on road projects that either were in construction i n 1992 or have started construction since 1992, i.e., a five-year history is used. The c alculations were based on the d e sign and construction costs for a roadway that includes sidewalks on both sides, two four foot wide bicycle lanes, and, in accordance with Board of County Commission policy, $50,000 of landscaping per linear mile of roadway. In addition, an overhead cost of 16.55 percent, which was provided by the Hillsborough Coun t y Management a n d Budget Department, was added to the construction and design cost. The percentage split between urban and rural roadways in each zone, as shown in Table 3, was determined by the Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management Department based on the roadways' adjoining land uses in the County's future land-use plan. In those cases where urban uses were on one side of the road and rura l uses on the other side, the road was assumed to be urban. The reduction in the value of "%Urban" from "Current" to "Updated" i.O several of the zones is the result of an earlier change in the land-use plan that reduced the percentage of.la n d designated for urban uses . 4

PAGE 9

Using the average construction costs from Table 2 and the percentages from T abl e 3, the weighted average construction costs shown in Table 4 were calculated. The current ordinance lists the c onstruction cost for a rural lan e mile as $404, 015. According to t h e County, that was a scrivener's e rr o r and should have been $404,105, wh ich is t h e figure used in the calculations in this report Table3 Percentage of Urban and Rura l Roadway s by Zone Current Value U pdated Valu e Zone %Urban %Rural %Urban %Rural I 89 II 35 65 2 62 38 36 64 3 0 100 I 99 4 85 IS 73 27 5 \8 82 II 89 6 0 100 0 100 7 100 0 46 54 8 100 0 100 0 9 82 18 86 14 10 \00 0 81 19 In addition to determining new va l ues fo r construc t ion costs, CUTR was asked to review t he methodology for calculat i ng the cost to be charged for roadway widenings. Issues have been raised regarding whether impact fees should pay for the reco n struction of t he existing lanes of a road whe n the roadway is w i dened In most cases, when a two-lane road i s widened to a four -or six-lane road the existing two lanes must be reco nstruc ted. The co s t of reconstruc t ion currently is contained within the co n struct ioncost-per-lane-mile that i s used in the form ula. The argument for continuing to include this cost within the formula is that the roadway in question would not have to be reconstructed if the road widening were not t aking place The argument for excluding thi s cost is tha t growth should hav e t o pay only for the cost of t h e additional c apacity that it necessitates There is some support for the latte r argument in the literature, but a common practice is t o i nclude all costs that are incurred i n providing new capacity, including the cost of reconstruction. C UTR believes that the stronger argument is that the roadway reco n struction at issue is a direct result of new growth and that the cost of meeting that growth in a prudent and cos t-e ffective manner includes the cost of reconstruc t ion. However, because public attendance was so sparse a t 5

PAGE 10

.. the meeting held in Aprill997 to discuss this and other issues, CUTR recommends that the issue be revisited in Phase II of this study to ensure that there is adequate public input. In the meantime, CUTR recommends that the County continue with its practice of including all relevant costs in the impact fee calculations. Table 4 Average Construction <:;osts by Zone . Zone CUrrent Value Updated Value : I $635,467 $1,711,093 2 $565,278 $1,726,564 3 $404,105 $1,185,095 4 $625,068 S2,298,974 5 $450,897 $1,339,800 6 $404,tds $1,169,624 7 S664,o62 $1,881,269 8 $664,062 $2,716,679 9 $617,270 $2,500,091 10 $664 062 $2,422,739 $569438 $1,895 193 4 Rigllt-of-Way Cost as a Percent of Construction Cost (%ROW) The right-of-way percentage is the ratio of rightof-way cost, including engineering and administration expenses, to roadway construction cost. However, because there was insufficient data to calculate updated right-of-way cost as a percent of construction cost, it was decided to calculate updated right-of-way costs independently, in the same manner as construction costs. This resulted in the updated right-of-way costs shown in Table 2 and Table 5. The average current values for urban and rural right-of-way costs shown in Table 2 were calculated using the average "%ROW" for all zones, which is 34.337 percent. Therefore, average urban right-of-way cost is 34.337 percent of$664,062 which is $228,017, and average rural right-of-'jVay cost is 34.337 percent of$404,105, which is $138,756 The updated right-of-way costs include an overhead factor of 6.64 percent, which was provided by the Hillsborough County Management and Budget Department, to cover the cost of engineering studies and administration. 6

PAGE 11

_i.L_ _______________ -w-" TableS Aver a ge Right o f-Way Costs by Zone Zone Cur nat Value ,,, valu e 1 $235,123 $730.224 2 $209, 153 $740,816 3 $149 ,519 $ 3 70,104 4 $250.0 2 7 S 1, 132 711 5 $166,832 $476,02 1 6 $149 51 9 $ 359,512 7 $179,297 $846,733 8 S 2 45,103 $1,418 ,689 9 $111 109 $ 1, 270,404 10 $258,984 $1 2 1 7.4 4 5 U<6 266 5. Gas Tax Credit p er G a llo n (TAX) This is the amou n t of federal, st a t e and cou n ty gas tax e s p e r gallon that goes toward i n c reas ed roadway capacity necessitate d by new g r owth. T11e total amounts available for transportat ion ex p e n ditures are shown in Table 6. These amou n ts are lat e r ad j usted to determine the amou n ts tha t are available fo r the constru c tion of t h e a d ditiona l r oadway capacity needed for n e w growth Thi s is done b y eliminating the amounts budge t ed for m aintenance and resurfacing, inters t a t e/expressway construc t ion, transit, e x isting defic i encies, etc In the case o f t h e Hillsborough C o unty budge t (th e CIP), maintenance and resurfacing is not included in the road cons t ruction b u dge t and, t h erefore i n Table 6the count y gas laX that goes towatd ma i ntenance and resurfacing is r e moved. The differences between the "Current Value" and t he "Updated Value" i n T able 6 are due to statutory changes in gas taxes, c h anges in actual admi nistrative costs and changes in the actual proport i ons sp e nt o n mai n t e n ance vers us construction 7

PAGE 12

Tab\e 6 Federal, State, and County Gas Tax Available for Transportation Expenditures Current; Minus 7.7% for Administration and Collection Minus Deficic Reduction State Fuel Sales Tax Current: Minus 7.7% for Administration and Collection Minus 12.2% for Collection and General Fund Conititut\onai Fuc\ Tax and 6th Cent'') Local Current: 40.0% to County Minus 51.8% of62.6% for Maintenance and .Current Value (/gal.) Updated Value (/gal.) 8.8 2.0 As of the date of this report, the total federal tax rate on gasoline is 18.3 per gallon. Of this tax, 4.3 is allocated to the federal fund for deficit reduction. The remainder i s distributed to the states for transportation expenditures. In the current formula, 7.7 percent of the federal tax is deducted for administration and collection. However, this is not appropriate and is changed here because federal rules prohibit states from using federal gas taxes for administration and collection costs. Also taken into account here, but not considered previously, is the fact that the state's revenue from the federal gas tax is not equal t o the amount collected The state receives about 80 8

PAGE 13

percent of the actual net collections after deduction for the deficit reduction (i.e., 80% of [18.3 4.3]), and, therefore, 20 percent is subtracte d from total collections to get the amount available. The state of Florida collects 8.8 per gallon through the fuel sa les tax However, according to the Florida Departmen t of Revenue only 87.8 percent of the t ax is available for use by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) since 12.2 percent is distributed to the state's general revenue account and other uses, such as education and aquatic weed control. In addition to the fuel sales tax, the state levies a 4 .8 state comprehensive enhanced transportation system ( S CET S) tax in Hillsborough County of which 7.3 percent goes into the state's general revenue fund. The remaining 4.4 from this tax are deposited in the State Tran sportati on Trust Fund In Hillsborough County a total of 11 of tax for local use is l evied on gasoline This 11 is made up of the following: Constitutional Fuel Tax ('5th and 6th Cenr) County Fuel Tax (7th Cent'") Municipa l Fuel Tax ('8th Cent'") Nin th Cent Fue l Tex ('9th Cenr) Local Option Fue l T ex 2 .. t ;, 1 ; l ... 6 However, not all of the 11 i s a v aila ble to be used for roadway construction in the County. The 7th cent and the 9th cent are dedicated by the County to maintenance and r esurfacing and the 8th cent goes to the cities in th e County. In addition, 51.8 percent of the County's share of the local option gas tax goes to maintenance and resurfacing. (This is a change from the last update of the transportation impact fee, when nearly 100 percent of the local option gas tax went toward construction ) Of the total 6 oflocal option gas tax, 62.6 percent goes to the County and 37.4 percent goes to the three cities in the County, as reported in the Local Government Financing Handbook. /996. An insignificant amount (0 .02 percent) of the Constitutional Fuel Tax ("5th and 6th cent") goes to the State Board of Administration, and it has no noticeable affect on the amount of county gas tax available. As s hown in Table 6, the total federal and state gas tax available for transportation expenditures is currently 23.3. The available county gas tax is 3.8. Because impact fees are not used to pay for roa d maintenance or correction of existing (as of adoption of the ordinance in I 985) capacity deficiencies, the portion of the gas tax that pays for those activities is not included in the gas tax credit. (Note that if all the local gas tax were used for operat ions instead of construction, as is the case is some counties new developm ent would r eceive zero credit for local gas taxes ) Also excluded from the credit is VMT operated on the interstate sys t em a n d on expressways The reason for this exclusion i s not clear because the 9

PAGE 14

portion of gas taxes that is spent on limited-access roads already is deducted during the calculation of the availab le gas tax. The County receives the balance of the gas tax for each gallon of gas sold regardless of where the gas is used. CUTR recommends that this issue be addressed i n Phase II. . To remove the above components from the gas tax credit, the FOOT five year work program for 1997-2001 and the Hillsborough County six-year capital improvement program (CIP) for 1997200 2 were reviewed to determine the percent of total funding available for new capacity that is spent on non-interstate/expressway new capacity needed to accommodate new growth. (The current ordinance incorrectly includes interstate new capacity, while eli minating interstate VMT. After discussion with County staff, it was decided to exclude interstate new capacity in the updated gas tax credit.) As noted previously, maintenance and resurfacing arc not included in the County CIP, and, therefore, the percentage calculated for the County is the percent of total construction rather than the percent of total expenditures, as shown below, For federal and state gas tax:
PAGE 15

6. Miles per Gallon of Gasoline (MPG) This variable is intended to represent the average fuel efficiency achieved by automobiles and small trucks during the VMT that are attributable to new development in Hillsborough County. It is used in the impact formula to calculate the number of gallons of gas consumed as a result of new development. The updated value for this variable was derived from information contained in the document, National Transportation Statistics. 1996 published by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics of th e U.S. Department ofTransportation, which gives a national average of2 1.48 miles per gallon. There is no published source of mpg for Hillsborough County alone, but the national average should be a reasonable estimate. 7. Present Value Factor (PVF) The purpose of this variable is to convert the one-year gas tax credit to a multi -year credit. The impact fee ordinance specifies that impact fees should be credited for 50 years of gas taxes, and that an 8 percent discount rate should be used. This results in a present-value factor of 12.23 The present-value factor currently in the ordinance is 13.8, which is the factor for 50 years at 7 percent. According to the County, the 8 percent is a scrivene r's error and the rate should be 7 percent, which is the figure used in the calculations in this report. 8. Other Variables The values for the "Transportation Cost Recovery Factor" (TCR) and the "Right-ofWay Cost Recovery Factor" (RCR) formula elements are policy-driven. They represent the extent to which policy makers desire to discount or reduce full-cost impact fees. Sample Calculation oflmpact Fees Using Updated Values The following is a sample calculation of the transportat ion impact fee that compares the results obtained using the current values of the formula's variables and the results obtained using the updated values presented in this document. The example used is a single-family residence in Zone I of Hillsborough County (Northwest area). The values for each of the variables are shov.'I\ in Table 7. According to the County, the TGR of 10 .62 shown in the ordinance is a scriv ener's error and the correct rate is 9.55, which is the figure used in the calculations in this report II

PAGE 16

Table 7 Values Used for Calcul ation of Current a nd Updated Impact Fees Var iable -Currtnt Value N I TOR 9 .551 TL 9.4 %IT 22.9'/o %LR 15.0% CL 7 )500 cc $635,4672 MPG 17.16 TAX $0.089 PVF 13.8 TCR 84 .3061% %ROW 37% RCR 91.664% 1Scrivencr's error of 10.62 corrected. 'From Table 4. Upd.ated Value I 9.551 9.4 25.0% 23 3% 7,500 $1,71 J.,0931 21.48 $0.063 13.8' 84.3061% 86% 91.664% 3Scriventr's error resulting in 12.23 oorrected. Using the suggested restatement of the impact fee formula sho w n io Table I, the calcu lati ons of the impact fees for the above example are shown below and the results are pres e nted in Table 8. For current values: Transportation fee= {((1 x (9.55+2) x 9.4 x (1-22. 9%) x (115.0%)) + 7500 x $635,4671 minus gas ta)f cr:edff [(1 )< (9.55+2) X 9 4 X (122.9%))+ 17,16 X $.089 X 365 X 13.8)} multiplied by 84. 3061% equals . . ... . !1,339_ Right-of-way fee= $1,339 x 37% x 91.664% = $454 12

PAGE 17

For updated values: Transporta tion fee = {((1 (9.55+2) 9.4 (1-25.0%) (123.3%)) + 7500 $1, 711 ,093] minus gas tax [(1. (9.55+2) 9.4 (12 5 0%)) +21.48. $ 063 365 .8} multiplied by 84. 3 0 61% equa l s $4.547 R ight-of -way fee = [ same calc u latio n as trans. fee except ROW cost is $730,224] 9 1 .664% = $ 1,558 Note i n Table 8 that the County's impact fee form ula gives cre d it fo r gas taxes t wice, once as a c r edit against the transportation impact and again as a credit against the right of-way impact. Using current va l ues, gas taxes paid by new growt h are $904, b u t cred i t is given for $1,2 3 8 (i.e. $904 + $334). Presumably, the Coun ty's intent was not to give credit for m ore t h an 100 percent of gas taxes and it may wish to restruct ure the formula accordingly. Table 8 Results o f Impact Fee Example for Zone 1 Formula Component Transporta tion Impact Minus: Gas Tax Credit Times: Reduction Factor (fCR) Transportation Fee Right-o f-Way Impact Minus: Gas Tax Credit Times: Reduction Fac tor (TCR x RCR)1 Ri g h tof-Way F ee Total Fee 'Transportation figure t imes %ROW (37%) 1TCR X RCR 8 43061 X .91664 = 77278 C u r r en t Va l ue Up d ated Value s 2,492 s 5 89 1 904 497 8 4 3061 .84 3061 s 1 ,339 s 4,547 $9221 s 2,5 1 4 3341 497 77278 .77278 s 454 s 1,558 s s 6 105 The results of doing the above calcu lations for a single-family resid e nce for all ten zones and taking an average are shown in Table 9. 13

PAGE 18

T Table9 Results oflmpact F ee Calcu l ations for Average of A ll Zones Formula Component Current Value TransJ)Ortation Smpact Minus: Gas T ax Credit Times: Reduction Factor (TCR) TransportQtion Fee Right-of-Way Impact Minus: Gas Tax Credit Times: Reduction Factor (TCR x RCR)1 Righ t -of-Way f' Total Fee 'Tr a n sportation figure times %ROW (34. 337%) 'TCR X RCR = .843061 X .9 J 664 = 77278 s 2 ,233 904 ,843061 s 1,120 $ 767' 3101 .77278 s 352 $1 472 Updated Value $6,525 497 s 5,082 s 2,9 4 8 497 77278 s 1,894 ,976 Us ing the data from Table 9, Table 10 compares the County' s total tra n sportation and right-of way costs for a single family residence w it h th e amounts recovered unde'r the c u rrent impact fee formula and under the update . As noted above, the formula's structure is s uch that it gives more than I 00 percent credit for gas taxes u n der both the current formula and the u pdate. If the credit were limited to 100 percent (i.e., given for the transportation impact but n o t given again for the right-of-way impact), the County's unrecovered costs would be reduced by 77.278 percent (the ROW reduction factor) of the right-of-way gas tax credit shown in Table 9 (i.e 0.77278 of$31 0, which equals $240, and 0.77278 of$497, which equals $384). Table 10 Comparison of Ave r age Cost and Rec overy for A ll Zon es Costs and Revenues Currtat Value Updated Value Actual Cost of Impact s $9,473 $9,473 Minus: Actual Gas Tax Revenue 497 497 Net Cost to County $8,976 $ 8,976 Impact Fee AssesSment $ 1 472 $6,976 Averaec Cost Recovery 16.4% 77.7% Exce ss Gas Tax C redit $240 $384 (after discount) Average Cost Re conry 19.1% 82.0% [_(if eliminate excess gas lax credit) 1 4

PAGE 19

Conclusion Hillsborough County's impact fee formula obviously is complex. As suggested in this report and in the scope of work for Phase II, there are a number of methodological and structural issues that need to be addressed and that may simplify the formula and the calculations involved. A comprehensive analysis of the impact fee formula and procedures will be 1.mdertaken in Phase II, but initial indications are that the formula is generally consistent with the formulas used in other jurisdictions both in the factors it attempts to measure and in how it measures those factors. At a minimum, it can be concluded from the updated information presented in this report that the current transportation and right-of-way impact fees fall far short of the actual costs (as estimated by the impact fee formula) of new development to the County. Two of the major issues that arose during CUTR's evaluation of the values used in the formula are the method of giving credit for gas taxes generated by new development and the method of calculating the cost of urban and rural right of way. In the case ofthe gas tax, I 00 percent credit for the payment of gas taxes is given against the transportation impact fee and an additional credit is given against the right-of-way fee. The fact that the average current credit exceeds I 00 percent of the gas taxes actually paid appears to be attributable to the structure of the formula rather than an intent on the County's part to giv e more than 100 percent credit for actual gas taxes paid. As noted in Table 10, this results in an excess credit of$240 for the average single-family house in Hillsborough County, or an impact fee of $1,472 instead of$1,712. Another issue that affects the gas tax credit is that the miles-per-gallon variable is limited to cars and light trucks and does not include all other vehicles that are attributable to development and that have transportation impacts. A Florida miles-per-gallon figure for all vehicles is provided annually in the Florida Statistical Abstract, and a national figure is published annually by the U.S. Department of Transportation. In Phase II, the use of a more comprehensive miles-per-gallon figure should be explored In the current formula, the cost of right of way is presented as a percentage of construction cost (e.g., on average, right-of-way cost is equal to 34.337 percent times the construction cost). However, there was not sufficient data to continue to tie right-of-way costs to construction costs during the update. Therefore, right-of-way costs were calculated independently. This issue should be addressed again in Phase II. A related issue is that the right-of-way costs used in the update do not include the value of donated property, which results in understating the actual right-o f-way impacts and the resulting fees. A means of inc luding this "opportunity" cost should be developed in Phase II. 15

PAGE 20

.. 1-#ll,tboraugh Cormtv TransPOrtation Impact Stttdy Ap p endix The cum:nt symbol or value for each element described below is shown in the left-hand column. Shown in parentheses are suggested changes in syml:>ols that may help to identify some of the e l ements more clearly. The element descriptions are taken from the impact fee ordinance and include minor changes that do not affect the meaning of the definitions. More substantive suggested changes or additions are in italics. . .. .......... ": ; : .... . . ... (or N) . a. For residential use: Numberofdwellinaunits b. For aU other land uses: The appropriate measure of si"" expressed i n the Trip Ends Generation Report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers shall be determined by lhe and used in the impact fee formula. Trip generation rate This rate is determined usina the Trip Ends Generation Repon by the ' Institute ofTransporta:tion Engineers. This rate measures the average number of trips that are generated by a land use in one day, The rat e 1.$ dlv1'ded by 2 to split tht. impact oj generated trips between trip producers and trip ourilctorl. Trip length. 'l)le trip length represents the ovcrogc trip length (measured in miles) of the trips by a land use. arc defined in the fee ordinance, Percentage of trip length on the in Hillsborough County. CL Capacity per lane mile. The capacity per lane mile is a constant in the impact fcc formula. As established by the Florida Department ofTran1porta.tion. an dai'y lane capacity of a tw o ... four ... and six .. Jane collector and arterial r oadwa y operat ing at leve l of service '"D" is 7,SOO Cost to c:::ons:truct one lane mite. This is a weighted average, by zone, of urban and rural ;,.,i.oil: A constNCiion cosu. Percentage of interstate/expressway and local roads. This term represent$ the percentage or total travel that is o n local roads plus the percentage of intmtate/expressway travel that represents through trips not attributable to any development in Hillsborough County. The suggested restatement of this clement, which I s discussed in the .. Analyses and Calculations section, moves interstate/ex-pressway through trips to the .. %11'' calcu lation. which is the more appropri3te locati
PAGE 21

Description Element s (contin u ed) Symbol Description $0.089 Gas tax credit p er gallon This is the cent.s per gallon paid in gas taxes that go toward (or TAX) construction of new capacity for growth. 365 .. Number of day s in one year. 13.1 Present-value factor . (orPVF) PC Percentage charged to impact fee (or transp ortalion co.st recov-ery factor). This is a (orTCR) percentage s e t b y policy malcers that rtpre.stnlt the txtent to which impacts on transportat ion co.fl s ore cove red by transportati on Impac t fees. The current factOr i s 84 .3061 percent o/oROW Rightof way perccntaJe. This is the ratio in a pani eul:ar zone of estimated right-of-way costs to estimated construction which includes an approp riat e factor t o fund the required engineering studies and administration 0.9166-4 cost recovery factor. This is a perctntagt stt by policy rnabn lhot npnstnts (orRCR) the ex.ttnt to which impocts on right--of-way costs arc r::tJW.rtd by right-ofwtry impocl The current faecor is 91.664 pernt. The octu.at nco'!Jiry of righr .. o}way costs is also a function of "PC (or "TCR "J and is equal to : 84.3061" 9/.664%. or 77.178 perC

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 2200373Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029175681
005 20110829181935.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110829s1999 flu os 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00291
035
(OCoLC)748293200
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE309.F6 (ONLINE)
0 245
Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study.
n Phase 1,
p Review of impact fee formula variables
h [electronic resource] /
prepared fo Hillsborough County by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
[1999].
300
1 online resource (iv, 17 p.)
500
Title from e-book cover (viewed Aug. 29, 2011).
5 FTS
"CUTR project team: F. Ron Jones, project director; Laura C. Lachance, Kristine Williams"--P. ii.
FTS
"August 1999."
FTS
650
Roads
z Florida
Hillsborough County
x Finance
Mathematical models.
Impact fees
Florida
Hillsborough County
Mathematical models.
1 700
Jones, F. Ron.
Lachance, Laura C.
Williams, Kristine.
710
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
2
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
776
i Print version:
t Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study. Phase 1, Review of impact fee formula variables.
d [Tampa, Fla.] : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, [1999]
w (OCoLC)264637879
773
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.291
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:001967734;
FTS