USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study


Material Information

Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study phase 2 : review of impact fee methodology
Physical Description:
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Roads -- Finance -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )
Impact fees -- Florida -- Hillsborough County   ( lcsh )


Statement of Responsibility:
prepared for Hillsborough County by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of SOuth Florida.
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:
usfldc doi - C01-00292
usfldc handle - c1.292
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
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 ntm 22 Ka 4500
controlfield tag 008 s1999 flu|||| ||||||eng
datafield ind1 7 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00292
2 doi
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
0 245
Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study :
b phase 2 : review of impact fee methodology /
c prepared for Hillsborough County by the Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of SOuth Florida.
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research,
"August 1999."
z Florida
Hillsborough County
x Finance.
Impact fees
Hillsborough County.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Hillsborough County (Fla.).
8 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY Phase II: Review of Impact Fee Methodology Prepared for Hillsborough County By the Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering Un1versity of South Florida A..ugust 1999


. Center for Urban Transportation Research USF College of Engineering 4202 E. Fowler Avenue, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620 F. Ron Jones, Ph.D Project Director Gary L. Brosch, Direc(or


Table of Contents 1 .0 Introduction .......................................................... 1 2.0 Formula Corrections ................................................... 3 3.0 I ssues ................................................................ 4 3.1 Forntuta Restatement Issues .......................................... 5 3.1.1 Should the separate formulas and fee discounts be c ombined? ............ 5 3.2 Cost Issues ......................................................... 6 3.2.1 Should a county-wide average cost for roadway construction and right of way be used? ........................................ 6 3.2.2 How should average eonstruction and right-of-way costs be developed from the County's eost data base? ....................... 8 3.2.3 How should the difference in urban area and rural area right-of-way costs be determined? .................................. 9 3.2.4 Should the market value of dedicated (or donated) right of way be included in the righ t -of-way cost calculation? ................. 10 3 .2.5 Should the cost of reconstruction be included in total costs when existing roads are expanded? ................................ 10 3.3 Gas Tax and Other Tax Credit Issues ................................. 12 3.3.1 Should the explicit gas tax credit be eliminated? ...................... 12 3.3 2 Should credit against impact fees be given for any other taxes or fees? ...................................... ... ......... 13 3.3.3 Should gas tax credit be given for travel (VMn on local and limited-access roads? ....................................... 15 3.3.4 Should th e discount rate used to discount future gas tax payments be changed? ........................................ 14 3 .3.5 Should the period of time for which gas tax payments are included in the gas tax credit b e changed? ........................... 16 3.4 Miscellaneous and Technical Issues ................. .................. 16 3.4.1 Should travel (VMn on county or state roa ds within city limits (or ou tsid e the county) be exclud ed from both the gas tax credit and the impact fee? ................................. 16 3.4.2 Should the data source for the "miles per gallon" variable be changed? .................................................. 17 3.4.3 Should the calculation of vehicles miles of travel (VMT) be based on current data or proje cted future data? ................... 18 3.4.4 Should the roadway deficiency list be updated? ............... 19 Ill


_;A_ -w-4.0 Summar)' .............................. ............................... 20 5.0 A-ppendix ............ ................... : ........................... 26 List of Tables and Figures Table 1: Comparison of Current and Updated Values for Impact F ee for an Average Single-Family Residence .................... 1 Table 2: Comparison of Updated and Co r rected Values for Impact Fees for an Average Single Family Residence ......................... .-. 4 Table 3: Compar i son of Values for Impact Fee VariableSifor an Ave rage Single-Family Residence .............................................. 20 Table 4: Comparison of Possible Impact Fees Among Zones for an Average Family Residence ............................................ 21 Figure 1: T ransportation and Right-of Way Impact Assessment Zone.5 .............. 22 Table 5: Comparison of Average Impact Fee Values for Various Land Uses in Impact Zone 1 .................................................... 23 Table 6: Summary ofissues and Recommendations ....... .................. 24 iv


--w1.0 Introduction Phase I of the Hillsborough Coun t y Transportation Impact Fee S tudy reviewed the current impact fee formula variables and deter mined what changes in the values were appropriat e The changes having the greatest effect on the impacts attributed to new groW1h were the updated cost estimates for roadway construction and right of way As shown in Table I, when all variables were updated, the gross total impact (i.e., the cost to the County) attributed to an average single-family home increased from $3,000 to $9,472 After the $497 credit for gas taxes (and after omitting the excess gas tax credit of$384 discussed in the Phase I report) the net impact increased from $1,783 to $8,975. If the updated net impact is discounted at the average upda ted discount rate of 1 7.79 percent, the new impact fee would be $7,3701 (This is the same as adding the excess gas tax credit of$384 shown in T able I 0 of the Phase I report to the updated val ue of $6,976 shown in Ta ble 9 of the Phase I report The total is slightly different due to rounding error.) Using the updated data, a discount rate of 83.60 percent would be required to keep the impact fee at $1,4 72. In other words, with the average fee currently set at $1,472, the average cost recovery is 16.40 percent (i .e., 100 percent minus 83.60 percent). Table 1 Comparison of Current and Updated Values for for_an ' Current Value Value Total SJ,OOO S9,4n Gas Tax Credit ,217 497 Net $1,783 $8,975 Fee DiScount : 17 .49% 17.7 9% , .... . . $1,472 $7,370 I (6.40%' 82.12%1 :liii:l.:::t.i::l::.l ; . , :-': .. .. ; .;,-.,_y..:' ,: In Phase II, the current transportation and right-of-way impact fee methodologies are reviewed and compared to other communiti es. Alternatives to simplify and improve the assessment fonnulas 1 Discount rate" and "fee discount .. refer to 1hc: combined effects of what currently are refened to as the "reduction factor", "perc:ent charged'-', or cost recovery factor". The discount will vary for different alternatives because the County currently transportation impact fees differently f rom right-ofway impact fees. Therefore. in alternatives where the proportions of construction and right-of-way costs change the discount rate also will change. 1


and methodologies are discussed and recommendations are present ed. This report draws no nor makes a n y recommendation regarding the appropriate level of impact feeS. After all impacts of new growth are correctly and equitably accounted for, the level of impact fees is set as a policy matter by adjustment of the fee discount. This report's recommenda t io ns are limited to how to correctly a nd equitably account for the impa cts of new growth . There arethree basic components of a n i mpact fee formula: (I) the demand generated by ne w growth for roadway capacity, (2) the cost to provide new roadway capacity, and (3) the credit that new growth is given for other revenues it will generate (e.g., gas taxes) that will be used in add ition to impact fees to fund new roadway capacity. A fourth component is a fee discount or cost recovery fac to r. It is a policy-de te rmined percentage that represents th e extent to which new growth is charged for its impacts. In its s implest f orm, the generali.z.ed impact fee calculation i s: Roadway Cost per Gas taxes demand in lane mile to paid by Gross lane miles X provide new new impact fee = generated by roadway growth new growth capacity Within this relatively simple framework there is the potent i al--but not the requiremeni--to develop extremely complicated formu las and pr ocedure s. Altho ug h some c ounties have chosen to do that, the degree of complexity varies significantly among Florida counties. Shown below for visual effect only are Hillsboro ugh County's formulas as \vritten in the impact fee ordinance. (For persons wishing to explore the f?rm u las in more detail, the appendix of this report contains a description or definition of ea ch of the formula elements.) 'Q!e County's transportation impact fee formu l a addresses the construction, design, etc. cost s of roads. The "righ t-o f-way impact fee" formula addresses the cost ofland Transportation Impact Fee= {[(# x TGR x TL x (I-%IT))ICU2 x CC x (l-%lLR)] -[(#X TGR X TL X (l%1T))I2/17.16 X $0.089 X 365 X 13.8]} X PC Right-of-Way Impact Fee= { {[(# x TGR x TL x (1-%IT) )/CU2 x CC x (1-%1LR)] [(# X TGR X TL X (1-%11'))12/17.16 X $0 089 X 365 X 13.8]) X PC} X (%ROW X 9!664) 2


HUisbortmgh CounfY Transportat ion Impact Ft.e Smdv Although on the surface it may not appear to be the case, Hillsborough Co unty's methodology is in between the extremes of complexity and is typical of Florida jurisdic tions. It is more complicated than it t echnically need s to be, but less compli cated than some jurisdictions. By way of contrast, Pinellas County has a single, combin ed formula for both transportati on and right of way impact fees: I ((fGR X %NT X TL X COST) X PCV(CL X 2) I As this compar ison suggest s, within the bounds of what is technically and legally p ossib l e, there is considera ble room for simplification of the Hillsborough County fonnulas and the underlying calcu l a tions. The question of whether or not or how much they s hould be simplified i s ultimately a policy question. 2.0 Formula Corrections Prior to a discussion of possible simplifications or other modificat i ons of Hillsborough County's fonnulas, a correction needs to be made in the formulas relating to trip lengths and travel on local (i.e., reside nt ial) roads. The demand for roadway capacity generated by new growth i s calculated based on th e v eh i c l e miles of travel generated by th e n e w growth which, in tum, is a function of the length of each trip generated by the new growth. However, growth i s not assessed impact fees for its impacts on local roads because in Hillsborough County impact fees are not used to pay for tho se roads. Therefore in the calc ulation of new growth's i mp acts, the vehicle miles of travel that it generates on local roads should be excluded This can be accomplished in two diffe re nt ways : (I) before the trip lengths are used in the impact fee calculation they can be shortened to eliminate the portions of the trips th at are on local roads, or (2) during the calculation the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on local roads can be removed. It is done both ways in Florida, although the more commo n method is to use trip l eng ths that exclude local road VMT. This is beca)lse most trip l engths are developed from data from travel demand mode l s that exclude local road tr a v el. Inadvertently, Hillsborou g h County has used trip l e ngths that exclu de local road tr avel as well as removed local r oad VMT during the calcu lation. In other words, the County bas deducted local road VMT twice. A similar situatio n occurs in the calcula tion of the gas ta x credit. A lthough the County does not spend gas taxes on l ocal roads, it does collect gas taxes for travel on local roads, and it uses those t axes, along with impact fe es, to fund other roads within the County. As a consequ e n ce, the County has intended to give credit to new growth for the gas taxes it pays for trav e l on local roads. 3


" -y --' Inadvertently, that has not happened, however, because the trip length s used to calculate the gas tax credit exclude the local road portio n The correction that is required is to elimin ate the dup licate deduction of loc al road VMT from the impa ct assessment part of the formulas (by removing "the term "l-%1LR'') and to give credit for local road VMT in the gas tax credit part of the formulas (by adding the term "l/(l%LR)"). Th is results in the "corrected values" shown in Table 2. . .. $9, 472 $12,350 -497 -648 $8 ,975 $11,701: 17.79% 17.79% .. .. $7,370 $9,609 Cost 82.12%" 82 11%" . . . : . The correc tion increases the to tal impact $i,878 the gas tax credit $151 and the impact fee $2, 239. 3.0 I ssues The scope of work for Phase II identified a number of specific issues related to Hillsborough County s methodology that were to be examined and for which. a reco mm endation wa s to b e provided. These issues are discussed below. Stated under each issue is the reasori for the recommendation and the effect it would have on the i mpact fee for an average sing le -family home. For illustrative purposes, the comparison is made to the "corrected value" of$9,609 shown in Table 2. The effects described below are the increases or decreases in this a verag e corrected value that would result from each recommendation The combined effects of all r ecommend ations are shown la t er for e ach of the Cou n ty s ten impact fee zones i n Table 4 in Sec t ion 4.0. As discussed at some length in the Phase III report, the goal of impact fee calculations is fairness and reason ableness, nor precision, and the recommendations should be j udged accordingly 4


" 3 .1 Formula Restatement I ssues 3.1. 1 Should the separate formulas and fee dis counts be combined? T here curren t ly exist two separate formu l as only because the t ra nsportation fee and the right-of way fee were adopted at different times and because separate, restrictive trust funds were set up for the two fees. The restrictions were removed in 1 992. Since these funds no w may be used interchangeably, there no longer is any reason nor particular benefit in having separate formu l as. In fact, as noted in the Phase I report, the use o f two separate formulas has contributed in the past to excess credit being given for gas taxes. Combining the formulas is simply a matter of (I) adding construction cost and right-of-way cos t so that there is only one cost figure, and (2) deciding on one dis c ount rate for the total impact fee Currently, the transportation impac t fee is multiplied by "PC" ("percentage charged," set by BOCC policy a t 84 306 1 percent, i.e., the fee is discounted 15.6939 percent), while the right-of way fee is multiplied by both "PC" and by .91664 ("right-of-way cost recovery factor", also set by policy). This process t en ds to obscure what t he t o ta l discounting or cost recovery of the se fees is. There also is no justification for the cost recovery to be less for right-of-way impact fees t han for transportation impact fees, and the County has not explicitly adopted a policy of having different recovery rates. If the fee discounts a r e combined, the average discount would be 17.79 percent, as shown in Table I. If the formulas and fee discounts are combined, co rrected as discussed above, and restated as recommended in the Phase I report the new formula would be: {[(N X (TGR/2) X TL X (l-%IT))ICL X CC) [(N X (TGR/2) X TL X (! %IT) X (l/(I%LR)))!MPG X TAX X 365 X PVF]} X CR Recommendat ion Combine the formulas and fee discounts. Reason It would simplify lhe fonnula and make more transparent the extent of discounting. Effect on fee None. 5


3.2 Cost Issues 3.2.1 Should a county-wide average cost for roadway construction and right of way be used? Many jurisdictions in Florida use a county-wide average cost for roadway construction and right of way (ROW) T hese include Orlando, Orange County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, Sarasota County, Miami-Dade County, Collier County (construction only, no ROW fee) a nd Palm Beach County (construction only, no ROW fee): Hillsborough County calculates a separate constntction and right-of-way cost for each of its ten impact fee zones. The primary concern with Hillsborough County's current approach is that the County's cost d ata base does not contain enough projects in the ten diffe r ent zones to make a statistically significant distinct ion in the costs among zones. This same problem plus tk complexity of trying to make distinctions among zones, is what has led ot her counties to use an average cost county-wide. It also is argued that res i dents use roads county-wide, not just the ones in their zone, and, therefore, that it is more equitable to use an average cost county -wide Ano th er argument often presented is that impact fees are based in large part on trip len gths and that a l most all jurisdictions us e average trip lengths county-y

data base. Increasing attention to environmental mitigation issues also may increase the future cost of new roads Pinellas County faced a similar situation when it updated its impact fee formula. A detailed analysis of their costs determined that right-of-way cost ranged from $199,000 per lane mile in Districts 3 and 9 to $2,207,000 in District I 0. Construction costs ranged from $495,000 per lane mile in District 7 to $2,756,000 in District 12. The total cost ranged from $879,000 in District 3 to $4,324,000 in District 12. Nevertheless, they decided to adopt a single county-wide average cost for right of way and construction Their reasoning is presented below: ... there is a wide variability in the cost component of the impact fee equation between the twelve districts After much discussion with County staff, it was decided to go with the single weighted average cost for the impact fee cost component as opposed to using twelve individual cost components, one from each district. There are a number of reasons why i t makes sehse t o go with a single cost component for the impact fee equation. First, ... improvements span district boundaries and cost of individuals improvements will actually be the same as they span district boundaries ..... Third, implementation and administration of the impact fee funds and the development of the corresponding capital improvement program is easier if there is only one Countywide fee as opposed to a district fee. Fourth, the main purpose in establishing impact fee districts is to demons t rate benefit when it comes to the expenditure of roadway funds for road improvements and not the imposition of differing impact fees between districts. Fifth, the trip length and percent new trip studies performed for Pinellas County were not designed to be district specific. In order to obtain enough samples to determine if differences in trip length and percent new t rips exist between districts a sign ificantly larger sample would have had to be taken. The cost and time of taking such a sample would be prohibitive w ith the likelihood of statistical differences questionable Finally the gas tax and sales tax. revenue recoupment is applied on a countywide basis as opposed to district-wide basis Further, it is probable that the expenditure of gas tax and sales tax funds is greater in those district which are highly urbanized and that have had or are going to have specialized capacity improvements. T hus, if a dist rict revenue recoupment were applied, it would have a tendency to equalize the differences between the district impact fee schedules. For the above reasons it was decided to go with a countywide cost component fee for the impact fee equation." In most counties it also is likely that the cost variation within any particular impact fee zone will be quite large, possibly even larger than the variation across zones. For instance within developed areas of Hillsborough County the range of right-of-way costs is 4 7 times the lowest cost, while the range between developed and less-developed areas is an average of only 3.9 times. In other words, when the County uses different costs for each zone there may be a greater chance that it will over or under charge someone within a given zone than if the County used uniform costs county-wide 7


__..p.jl Hillsborough County Transportation Impact Fee Study --w= --lo . . Rtcommendatlon Adopt a county-wide average cost for both construction and right of way. Reason Current data ar<:: not adequate to give reasonable confidence in cost at a less than county-w:ide Jevel. Also, the use of uniform costs would s implify formula calcu lations and, perhaps, support other County goals, such as reduced sprawl. Effect on fee Uniform costs would rcsuh in uniform fees across zones. On average there would be no effect. The fees in some zones would increase and would be offset by decreases in the other zones. At the extremes, the fco in zone 6 would increase $4 .472 to S9 ,609, and the fee in zone 8 would decrease $5,061 to $9,609. The average fee would remain at $9 ,609 . 3.2.2 How should average construction and right-of-w 'ay costs be developed from the County's cost data base? It is clear that it costs more to build roads in urban areas than in rural areas. Whether an average cost is u sed county-wide or a separate average cost is calculated for each zone, the average should 'be a weighted average of the roads in urban areas and the roads in rural areas. Therefore it is necessary to estimate separate costs for urban area roads and rural area roads and then average those co. sts based on how much of each type road is expected to be built in the future. In the past there was a significant difference between the construction costs of urban design (curb and gutter) roads and rural design (open drainage system) roads. To determine the effect ofthls difference the County assumed that the proportion of urban a n d rura l designed roads varied among the impact fee zones, and that the factor that determined which design (i.e., cross section) would be used was the projected future land use of tlie adjoining land. That is, rural design would be used next to rural land uses and urban design would be used next to urban land uses In cases of a mixture of rural and urban land uses, urban design would be used Today, these distinctions are not as clear cut as they may once have been. Because of changes in standards that have been applied equally to both urban and rural roads, the cost of the different designs have become more similar, and urban designed roads have become more common in rural areas. Today, the cost differences have less to do with the type of cross and more to do with whether the roads are cons tructed i n urbanized areas, which have higher costs for utility relocation, maintenance of traffic, land, etc. One way to estimate what portion of a zone's future roads will be in urban areas and what portion will be in rural areas is to use the County's urban service boundaries. 8


Hillsboror4gh Countv Transportation Impact Ftc Study Recomm e ndation Make distinctions between the costs of urban area and rural area roads on the basis of whether they are inside or outside the County's urban services boundarie. s. Reason This is a more logical and, presumably, more .accurate method of estjmating the weighted average cost of roads within the County. Effect on fee The average fee would increase $1,621 from $9,609 10 $11 ,230 3.2.3 How should the difference in urban area and rural area right-of-way costs be determined? In the past the County has attempted to calculate a unique right-of-way cos t for each of the ten i mpact fee zones and then express that cost as a percentage of the construction cost in e ach zone. However, there has not been a sufficient number of roads b ui lt in each of the zones to calculate a unique right-of-way cost. T herefore, for the zones in which no r ight of way was purchased, the County assum e d that the right-of-way cost would be equal t o the county-wide average righ t -of way cost, which was 37 percent of construction cost. This resulted in six of the te n zones having a right-of-way cost equal to 37 percent o f cons t ruction cost. Obviously, due to the lack of data, this method is not much different from using a coun t y-wide average cost. Other thari the lack of data, the primary problem with this approach is that there is no strong justification for tying right -o f way cost to construction cost, i.e., for calculating right-of way cost as a percentage of construction cost. The factors that cause construction costs to vary over time and to vary between urban and rural areas are not the same as the factors that cause the p rice ofland to vary across the coun ty. Therefore the right-of-way costs shou ld b e calculated independently of cons truction costs. The right -ofway costs should be developed from the County's cost data base in the same m anner as construction costs a r e calculated. In fact, due to this lack of data it was necessary in Phase I of this study to calculate updated right of-way costs independently, as suggested above. Therefore, the effects of this change a l ready are reflected in the updated fee of$7,370 and the "corrected" fe e of$9,609. Recommendation Use the same method to caJculate right -of-way costs a s used for construction costs Reason The current method of using cons-truction costs t o estimate right-of;. way cos t s is less reliable than calculating the rightof-way costs independentl y Effect on fee Unknown, but probab\y insignificant The increased acc:uracy could mean either higher or lower fees, depending on whether the current me.thod over or under estimates right-of-way costs. 9


-w \.2.4 Should the market value of dedicated donated) right of way be included in the right-of-way cost calculation? :::urrently, right-of-way cost is based on the County's average out-of-pocket payments for land. fhis includes the cost of administration, business damages, and eminent domain proceedings, but ioes not includ e any value for dedicated right of way. Therefore, the County's average right-of way cost figure includes some land to which a value of zero has been assigned, which means that ilie resultant average is less than the true market va lu e .of right of way. This would not be a .problem if every development dedicated right of way and dedicated the exact same percentage of t otal right-of-way costs, but of course that is not the case. Some developments dedicate 100 percent of the needed right of way, some dedicate only part oftb.e rigb.t of way, and some dedicate none at all. To be equitable, the true market value of righ t of way should be used t o assess right of-way impacts and only then should credit for dedicated right of way be given. The current method of averaging in a zero value for dedicated right of w3:y before impacts are calculated results in everyone receiving partial credit for the dedications, including those who do not dedicate. [t also means that those who do dedicate receive credit for the dedication twice, once whi:n th e below-market average cost figure is used to calculate their impacts (which indirectly gives a partial credit) and again when they are given an offset for the dedication. An alternative to developing estimated market values for dedicated1igb.t of way is just to omit p roject s with dedicated right of way from the calculation of aver;;ge cost, which essentially is what Sarasota County does. However, the Hillsborough County data base used for cost calculations already is sm aller than desirable. Recommendation Maintain a data base ofthe value of dedicated rig ht of way and include that value in the caku\ation of average right-of-way costs. Reason It would correct the current underestimation of ROW cost. Effect on fee Unknown. It would increase the ROW cost used in the formula and, consequently, would increase the impact fee, but there fs not sufficient data to estimate the impact. As a general indicator of the sensitivity of the impact fee to changes in ROW cosls. a 10 percent increase in ROW costs will increase the impact fee 3.1 percent. 3.2.5 Should the cost of reconstr uction be included in total costs when existing roads are expanded? In most cases, when a two-lane road is widened to a four-or sixlane road the existing two lanes must be reconstructed. The cost of reconstruction currently is contained \vi thin the constmction cost per lane mile that is used in the County's impact fee formula. 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 taking place. The argument for excluding this cost is that growth should have to pay only for the cost of the addit ionallanei that it necessitates. There is 10


some support for the latter argument in the literat u re, and many jurisdictions do not include reconstruction costs But it also is common practice to include all costs that are incurred in providing new capacity including the cost of reconstruction. The debate and the differences in practice arise from differences in how the question is formulated. We believe the appropriate question is: "How much does it cost the County to provide a lane mile of new capacity", not "How much does it cost the County t o construct a lane mile of new road." l fthe first question is asked, we believe the answer is clear. If the second question is asked, the answer is debatable, although we still would argue that the cost of construction includes the cost of reconstruction We believe that the roadway reconstruction at issue is a direct result of new growth and that the cost of meeting that growth in a prudent and cost-effective manner includes the cost of reconstruction However, it also can be a rgued that new growth should not bear the entire cost of reconstruct ion For instance, if the roadway in question is in need of reconstruction even if it is not widened, the need for additional capacity is not the cause of the reconstruction and, therefore perhaps new growth should not bear all of the cost of reconstruction. This approach would call for a method of calculating costs wherein the value of existing roadways is depreciated so that, if a roadway that has reached onehalf of its useful life and must be reconstructed during widening, new growth would be charged for only one-half of the reconstruction costs. Basing the impacts of new developmen t in part, on the depreciated value of roads that must be reconstructed would be a relatively simple matter of including in the calculation the age and expected life of each road, although it obviously does add some complexity. A simple alternative would be to assume that, on average, all reconstructed roads were at one-half of their useful life Recommendation a Continue to include all relevant cost s in lhe total costs of providing new capacity. b. Include 50 percent of reconstruction costs in these total costs based on the assumption that, on average, reconstructed roads had only one-hal f of their useful life remaining. (This is a from the 100 percent now included.) Reason Reconstruction that is nocessitated during road \,.idcning is as much a result of new growth as is the widening itsel f b. New growth should be charged only for its fair share of reconstruction cost. Effect on fee None. b. Including reconstruction costs at a depreciated value would reduce impact fees If straight-line depreciation is used and if it is assumed that on average the reconstructed roads had reached one-half of their useful life, the average impact fee would decrease $1,322 from $9,609 to S8,287. 11


3.3 Gas Tax and Other Tax Credit Issues 3.3.1 Should the explicit gas tax credit be elimin a ted ? The gas tax credit caiculation presents the most significant opportunity to simplify Hillsborough County's impact fee formula. The calculation of the gas tax credit is perhaps the most complex part of the impact fee calcu l ation, yet it amounts to only about five percent of the total impact. There is no legal requirement to give new growth explicit credit for gas taxes. The only pertin ent requirem ent is not to overcharge new growth for its impacts. Historically, both impact fees and gas taxes have been used in Hillsborough County to fund th e increased roadway capacity necessitated by growth. If the impact fees levied on new groWth covered 100 percent of growth's impacts and if new growth also paid gas taxes-which it doesnew growth would be overcharged for its tranSpOrtation impacts. Consequently, most-but not all--jurisdictions reduce their impact fees by the amount of gas taxes paid to avoid this overcharging. However, there is a much simpler way to avoid overcharging. The amount of gas taxes that new growth will pay is estimated based on three factors: the vehicle miles of travel (VMT) that the growth is projected to generate, the expected miles per gallon of gas that the vehicles will average, and th e amount of tax per gallon of gas. The credit for these gas taxes is then given for a certain number of years into the future (currently 50 years) discounted back to a present value for the current year, and 'subtracted from the total impact. The calculation of the amount of gas tax per gallon for each type of federal, state, and local gas tax that goeS toward capacity improvements (which are eligibie for impact fee funding) versus other improvements, such as maintenance, (which are not eligible for impact fee funding) is very complicated. The calculation oflocal road VMT also is complicated. Neither of these calculations is necessary if credit is not given for gas taxes. (The details of these calculations and the complications involved are discussed in this study's Phase I report.) There also are other issues discussed later in this section that would be moot if the gas tax credit calculation were eliminated. The County currently discounts the transportation and right-of-way impact fees for a single>-family home by about 80 percent. For the transportation fee the explicit discount in the formula is 16 percent, for the right-of-way fee it is 23 percent. The remainder of the discount results primarily from the use of out-of-date construction and right-of-way costs. Since the gas tax credit for a single-family home amounts to about 5 percent of total impacts, any discount greater than 5 percent can be assumed to inc lude credit for the gas taxes. In Pinellas County, the total impact fee is discounted 73 percent, so they have felt comfort.ablc not giving credit for gas taxes. At that. discount level it is quite clear that overcharging is not occurring. 12


If Hillsborough County eliminated the explicit gas tax credit and assumed that it is embedded in the fee discount, it too should provide a reasonable margin for error. It would seem that a discount rate of20 percen t or greater, which is four times the gas tax credit, would provide more than suffici ent margin for error Elimination of the explicit gas t!IX credit would shorten the formula considerably and eliminate some complex calculations, as shown below. Formula with gas tax credit: {[(N X (TGR/2) X T L X (l%1T))/CL X CC] [(N X (TGR/2) X TL X (!-%IT) X (l/(I-%LR)))/MPG X TAX X 365 X PVF]} X CR Formula without gas tax credit: [(N X (TGR/2) X TL X (l-%IT))/Ci X CC] X CR Recommendation If the total impact fee continues to be discounted by at least 20 pcrnl, assume that the gas tax credit is embedded jn the discount, and eliminate the separate gas tax calculation. Rtason It would simplify the formula and eliminate complex catc.ulations. Effect on fee Elimination of the explicit gas tax credit would increase the fee $533 from $9.609 to $10, 142. 3.3.2 Should credit against impact fees be given for any other taxes or fees? Precision--if that were the goal --wou ld dictate that new growth receive credit for every tax or fee that is paid by new growth and that is used, at least in part, to fund new roadway capacity. Some jurisdictions do give credit for such fees as motor vehicle license fees (e.g., Miami-Dade and Orange Co un t ies), but most limit iheir credit to the gas tax. The other fees generally are considered to be too insignificant to be worth the complexity they would add to the impact fee calculations. However, ifthere is a major tax or fee that is used for roadway construction and if the future amounts of that tax or fee that will be used for transportation can be estimated with a reasonable degree of certainty, it may be appropriate to develop a methodology to incorporate credit for it into the impact fee calculations. The Hillsborough County community investment tax may meet some of these criteria, but it probably will not meet the criterion of reasonable certainty of fut!lre amounts to be spent on transportation. If that should change, consideration should be given to allowing credit for t h e community investment tax, or any other large tax that meets the above criteria. 13


A-s discussed above in 3.3.1, th e simples t way to give such credit would be just to ensure that th e County's fee discount is of suffi cient magnitude that it m ore than com pensates for any tax credits that are not explicitly incorporated into the formula. Recommendation Do n o t g\v t credit for other taxes or fees at this time. Rea,son The r e currently are no ocher taxes or fees of sufficient size or longterm certainty. EfTedon fu None. 3.3.3 S hould gas tax credit be given for travel (VMT) on local and limited-acc ess roads? (Note: This issu e is moot if recommendation 3.3.1 is adopted.) When ca lculating the impacts of new growth, the County estimates the VMT that the gro.wth will add t o the roadway network on which the County spends impact fees. This includes all roads except for local roads and limited-access roads ( inters tates and toll roads). These are excluded because l oca l roads are assumed t o be built by developers and capitalized into the cost of homes, etc. paid for by new growth, and limited-access roads are paid for out of state and federal funds and toll revenues. the County does collect gas taxes for travel on loca l roads and limit e d access roads, and it u ses these taxes along with impact fees, to fund th e oth er roads within the County. Th erefore ,,it is app ropr iate to include travel o n local and limited-access roads in the gas tax credit if such travel can be reasonably and accurately measur ed. C u rren tly the County gives gas tax credit for VMT on local roads (after th e corrections made above in section 2.0) but n o t for VMT on limited-access roads. If the County keeps the .explicit gas tax cal culation in the impact fee formula, it should giv e credit for limited-access road VMT as well as local road VMT. This would simply require that the term "(1 -o/oiT)" be removed from t he gas ta x credit calculation. Some coun ties including Miam i-Dade and Orange, d o not give gas tax credit for local road trave l because they b e lieve that local r oadVMT cannot be reasonably and accurately measured and that the fonnu l a and calculations should be kept as simple as possible. If Hillsborough County decides to retain the explici t gas tax calculation, some simplification could be achieved by following the Miami-Dade and Orange County approach. counties go even farther by ignoring the di stinction bet ween limited -a ccess VMT and other VMT. That is, they do not-subtract limited-access VMT from either the impact calculation or the gas tax credit calculation, which means that they assess new growth for impacts on limit ed-access roads as well as give gas ta x credit for travel on those roads. Unlike local road VMT, th e VMT for limited-access roads is readily available from local trav el-demand models. Therefor e, the s light ,increase in simp licity gained by ignoring the limited-access VMT distinction does not seem to be worth th e distortion caused by inc luding that VMT in the impact calcu lation. 14


Al Hmsborough County Transportation Impact Fee Studv Recommendation If the explicit gas tax calculation is continue to g i ve credit for road VMT. b If the explicit gas tax calculation is retained, give credit for l imited8 access road VMT. Reason a. Jt woul d maintain fonnulaequity. b It would increase formula equity. Effect on fee None b. Including these VMT in the gas tax crcdil wo uld decrease the fee $178 f rom $9,609 to $9,431. 3.3.4 Should the discount rate used to discount future gas tax payments be changed? (Note: This issue is moot if reco m mendation 3.3.1 is adopted ) The present val ue of the projected future s tream of gas tax payments by new growth is detennined by discoun tin g future payments by seven percent per y e ar. This is the same discount rate used by the U.S. Departme n t ofTransportation and the Florida Department ofTransportation. That does not necessarily mean that seven percent is t he correct per centage to use in Hillsborough County b ut there i s no ''correct" discount r ate, merely reasonable ones and seven percen t is reasonable. Although selec t ion of a discount rate is somewhat subjecti v e, there is a connection between prevailing interest rates and discount rates. If the Federa l Reserve continues to lower in terest rates and maintains them at new lower the County may wish to consider lowering its discouni, or, perhaps, t o follow the lead of the Florida or U.S. D ep art men t of Tran s portation Recommtnda.tion C ontinue to use a seven perccnl discounl rate. b Consider future adjustment s as necessary to maintain consistency with the Florida Depanment ofTransponation. Reason a. Seven percent is a reasonable rate and it is consistent with transponation agencies. b. FOOT would be a convenient reasonable source for rate changes. Effecl o n fee a None. b Future increases in the rate would increase the impact fe .e; decreases in the rate would decrease the fee. For reference, a one percentage point increase in the rate would increase the fee $61; a one percentage point decrease in the rate would decrease the fee $68 (based on the current time period.) 15


' 3.3.5 Should the period oftime for which gas tax payments are il!cluded In the gas tax credit be changed? (Note: This issue is moot if recommendation 3.3.1 is adopted.) The County now gives credit for a 50-year fi!ture stream of gas tax payments discounted back to its present value. It is more conunon within the state for jurisdictions to give credit for a 20to 30year period of time. The logic for the shorter time periods is that the time period should be the same as the life of the facilities that are being built with impact fees. New gi:owth pays impact fees to build the additional facilities it needs and receives a credit against those fees for the gas taxes it pays that also are used to build the additional facilities. New growth does not pay impact fees to build a second generation of facilities after the useful life of the first facilities has run out. To continue to give credit for gas taxes paid after the usefiJ! life of the facilities is to give credit against impact fees that are not paid. On the other hand, right of way may have a much longer useful life than the road located on it, although right of way also loses value over time as roadway realignments and other changes occur. To accoun.t for this difference, different time periods could be used for the gas tax credited against the road impact fee and the gas tax credited against the right-of-way impact fee, but tbat seems like an unnecessary complication. This is not a major issue, and the effects of a change iri the time period are minor. . .. RecommendatiOn Shorten the time period io correspond more' closely with the average useful life of facilities built with impact fees. Reason A shorter time period seems somewhat more logical and would be more consistent with other jurisdictions. Effett on fee Using a ti!l'e period of30 years would increase the fee $54 to $9,663. Using a time period of25 years would increase the fee S81 to $9,690. Using a time period of20 years would increase the fee $ to $9 732. 3.4 Miscellaneous and Technical Issues 3 .4.1 Should travel (VMT) on county or state roads within city limits (or outside the county) be excluded from both the gas tax credit and the impact fee? The County bases its impact fees and gas tax credits on among other things, the total VMT that new growth generates, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the VMT occurs. For example, consider a person who lives in Hillsborough County just south of the border w i th Pasco County and commutes to work in Hernando County. Hillsborough County charges that person for his impacts on Pasco County and Hernando County roads and spends tbe money on Hillsborough County roads. It also gives him credit for the gas taxes that he pays in those counties. Likewise, Pinellas charges its conunuters to Hillsborough County for their impacts on Hillsborough's l roads and spends the money on Pinellas' roads. 16


" Is this a problem? Probably only if our goal is precision. Precision in this case would require special studies to determine what portion of VMT generated by new growth occurs in each jurisdiction and then the development ofinterlocal agreements that would specify how impact fees and, perhaps, gas taxes are t o be shared among the jurisdictions But, as stated at the beginning .of this report and at" length in the Phase Ill report equity and reasonableness, not precision, should be the goal. It probably is not unreasonable to assume that the net result of the current process is close enough to a wash to make it very cost ineff ec tive to make a change. However it is important to be aware that if substantial growth is occurring in surrounding coun t ies and if Hillsborough Coun ty is a net importer of workers, impact fees levied at 100 percent of impacts would still not cover the cost of growth. Recommendation No aclion Reason Any change would add unnecessar y complexity and cost. Effect on fee None. 3.4.2 Should the data source for the "miles per gallon" variable be changed? (Note: T h is issue is moot if recommendation 3.3.1 is adopted. ) The current data source is an analysis the city ofTampa did of the city automobile fleet in 1985. In addition to being obviously out of date, that source is limited to automobiles, whereas the VMT generated by new growth includes all vehicles. It includes the moving van that brings new growth here, the large diesel trucks that bring their food to the grocery store, and the motorcycles they occasionally drive. What is needed is a data source that i s credible, readily available, and updated frequently. There is no such source that is limited to Hillsborough County fuel consumption, but there are sources for the state of Florida and the U .S. Miles per gallon for the state of Florida can be calculated by using data from two tables in the Florida Statistical Abstract (Tables 13.29 and 15.60) Miles per gallon for the U.S. are published by the U.S. Departmen t of Transportation in National Transportation Statistics and no ca l culation is required. Both sources are updated annually, and the data are very similar: 1 6 .69 miles per gallon for Florida and 16.84 for the U .S. for all vehicles. For automobiles only, the U.S. figure is 21.48 miles per gallon. (Florida mileage for automobiles only is not readily available from the Florida Statistical Abstract ) These compare with the 17.16 miles per ga ll on for automobiles only that current ly is used by the County. Another national source is the Statistical Abstract of the United States published annually by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Miles per gallon for automobiles is given in Table No. I 029 in the 1997 edition Miles per gallon for all vehicles requires a calculation. (This is the source used by Orange Coun t y.) 17


F.,_,e.,e-"S'-'1""-'dy"As with many of these issues, the question arises ofhow precise we need to be or want to be and at what cost. Special s t udies ofHillsborol!gh County updated periodically may give somewhat better precision, but at a very high cost. The Florida miles per gallon may be closer to Hillsborough's average than the U.S figure, but that is not certain. The F lorida data source does require a calculation, albeit a minor one. Recommendation Use the miles per gallon data for "all vehicles" published by the U.S. Department ofTtansportation. (The other sources listed also would be reasonable to use.) Reason The current source is outdated. The data for "all vehicles' should be used because growth generates trips by all vehicles. not jus t automobiles. Effect on fcc Using 10311 vehicles" fuel consumptjon of J 6.84 mpg would decrease the fee $t47 from S9,609to $9,462. 3.4 3 Should the calculation of vehicles miles of travel (VMT) be based on current data or projected future data? (Note: This issue is moo t if recommendation 3.3.1 is adopted.) The purpose of this <;alculation primarily is to determine the percentage distribution of future VMT between roads fo r which impact fees are not ass e ssed (i.e., interstates/expressways aitd local roads) and roads for which impact fee$ are assessed. Because the impacts that the impact fee formula attempts to measure are the future impacts of growth and l)ecause the gas tax credit is given for future VMT (currently for 50 years into the future), it. makes sense to base the calculation of vehicle miles on projections of future conditions, which is what the County does The County uses data from the long-range transportation p lan (currently for the year 20 1 5) and the local travel demand model to make these projections. However the model does not include data on local road VMT, and there areno sources that provide such projections The only reliable data on local road VMT are h i storical (one or two years old). The local data can be factored up to be reasonab l y consistent with the projected data for other ro ads but that adds complexity to the calculations and the results lire not as accurate as they would be if data from the same year were used. When also considering that there is some uncertainty in projecting travel patterns 20 years in the future, attempting to base VMT distribution on future-year data appears to add substantial complexity to the calc u lations without any obvious improvement in precision or reasonableness over using curren t-year data .. Of course, if the explicit gas tax credit is dropped, as recommended in 3.3.1, local road VMT would no longer need to be calculated and this issue would become moot. 18


=w,, Recommendation lfthe explicit gas tax credit is retained, base the VMT C

_.;._.-,_ 4.0 Summary If all the changes recommended in Phase II are adopted and if the "percent new trips" variable (%NT) is added, as recommended i n Phase III, the single impact fee formula would be: . ((N x (TGR/2) x TL x (I-%IT) x %NT)/CL x cosn x cR The effects of making the various changes discussed in this report are shown in Table 3. Also indicated in Table 3 is that the implicit fee discount would n eed to be increased from 17.49 percent t o 88.57 percent t o maintain the current average fee at $1,472. "' . . . ... . . Table 3 ... . . . . .. .. ; . 4: Comparison ofValu:es for ImpaC-t .. > . Current Methodology ; ... : : Curre111 Updated Corrected ..... . f/alue Value . . $3,000 $9, 472 $12,350 $12,881 $12,881 Gas -1,217 -497 -648 0 -0 $1, 783 $8,975 $ 1 1,702 $12, 881 Sl2,881' Fee Discount ; 17.49% 17.19"A. 17 .79% 18.36% 88 57% .. Sl,472 $7,370 $9,609 $10,515 S1, 472 16.40% 82 12% 82.11%* 81.63% 11.43% to rotindiRg The variation among zones of these poten tial changes is shown in Tab l e 4. The different impact fee zon es are shown on the map in Figure !. The effects o n various commercial land uses as well as on the average single-family residence of mak ing the changes discussed in this report plus the changes discussed in the Phase III report, are shown in Tab l e 5. The values for t he average s ingl e-family residence are simple averages of t h e ten zones; the values for other l and uses were calculated using average costs and are c l oser to weighted averages. The total gross impacts ;hown in Table 5 are the impacts as measured by the recommended methodology in Phases II and lll These impacts are lower than the Phase II impacts becau s e of the allowance for pass-by capture in Phase III. 20


.. Table 4 . Comparison or Possible Impact Fees among Zont1 .... ,. . '. Current Impact Fee Zone ;;.current Updated .: Value 1 Value 2 Value 1 $1,793 $6,500 $8,475 $10 515 $1, 4 72 2 1,482 6,573 8,570 10,515 1, 472 3 769 4,013 5,232 10,515 1,472 4 1 ,783 9,278 12,097 10,515 1,472 s 976 4,745 6,186 10.515 1,472 6 769 3 940 5,1 37 10,51 5 1 ,472 7 1.788 7 304 9 523 10,515 1,472 8 1,920 1 1 ,252 14,670 10,SIS 1,4 72 9 1 ,49 0 10,229 13,336 10,515 1,472 10 1,946 9,863 12,859 10,515 1,472 .,,. $1,472 S10 515 $1,472 Average 17.49% 17.79% 17.79% 18.36% 88.57% Average Cost 16.40% 82. 12% 82.1 J% 81.63% 11.43% . Not equal to rounding erro r . : . .. . -1Based on c urre 'Df disCount rate, . i' . . . : ' . ,. ,:_ ;.,.;. : -; t i'ate that .. .. .. I fee. .. . ... . 21


\pr-/ I / Figure 1 Trans portation and Right-of-W ay Impact Assessment Zones 22 I ZONE 3


Land Use Single-Family Rt.sidence' Bank (drlvt-ln)' Total Crosa .Impact* (Ph;.eil +Ill) $12,881 34, 248 18,564 Tobie 5 -' Compari!an of Average lmpac:t Fte VaJuts > for VariouJ Land tins .. : .. .. .CUrrent Value $1,472 12,883 6,161 .' Current Mtthodology ', ' :.;, : M ttlrodology Current Cost Recovery 11.4 % 37.6% 33.2% Yolue ', .. . '. ,., ... cornrcJt(J :. Pluur /1 ;: Value Value ' ., v ...... .. .. ' -. : : .: Phnse If+ Ill Value .1 $7,370 $9,60 9 $10,515 $10,51 5 65,322 85,166 93, 196 27,959 31,241 40,732 44, 572 15,155 Marktt (wltas)' Cos Statlotr' Rtstouront (lligh Slropplrrg Ctnter lOOK sq.Jt.' 5,415 45,939 11 ,545 Excluding ga lox credit 1 Per dwelling unit 1 Per 1000 square fc:ct 'Per pump 1,273 23.5% 8,640 18. 8% 3,433 29. 7 % '.' 23 6,455 8 ,416 9,209 4,420 43,810 57,119 62,504 37,503 17,407 22,695 24,835 9,425 .. ::: '


) L., .. -w-Hilisoorough Countv Transportation Impact Fee Study Each of the individual issues discussed in the report is listed in Table 6 along with the plus..or-minus change the recommendation would cause in the "corrected" average fee of$9,609. 12.0, 3.1.1 Correct error in fonnula regarding loca l road VMT. formulas and fe e discounts to simp l ify formulas and make extent of disco unting more transparent Costluua . 3.2./ 3.2.2 3.2.3 Use average costs: Mroty wide because zonal data are not Use urban service boundary to make distinction between urban area and ruraJ area roads. Would be more logical and accurate tha n current method. Use some to calculate rightofway costs as ... used for constn 1 ction costs. Would b e l ogical ;:.. nnd accurate than curre nt method. 3.2.4 Jncludo the value of dedicated right-of-way in total right-of-way cost. Would c o rrect current understatement of right-of-way cost 3.2.5 Reduce portion of reconstruction cost charged to new growth from I 00% to 50% Would be more equitable. 33.!. ,'. 3.$.2.:' . Eliminate the explicit gas tax credit Would greatly simplify the formula Do not give credit for any other taxes. There are no taxes ofsufficien t l ong-t e rm certainty If the exp l icit gas tax credit is retaine d give credit for limited-acCess road VMT W o uld increase equity. (Moot if3. 3.1 adopted) I Use same discount rate as FOOT for gas tax credit. : Rate is reasonable and is consistent with other I :';'' aaeneies. (Moot if33.1 adopted) 24 +$2,239 +$1,197 to +$3,418 Zero Zero . . . Zero -SS,06lto +S4,472 +$1621 -$1,144 to+ $6,169 Unknown, but p r obably insignificant Unknown increase. b ut probably not significant -$1,322 -$2.)02 to S4S7 +SS33 +$533 Zero Zero -Sl78 -$178 Zero, unJess FOOT increases or decreases the rate.


Hillsborough C o untv Transportation Impact Fee Study Table 6 . .. . ro{ and : r!f!:;'. 'Fu.' Home: .. RtJWrt Location Recomme ridation . . . Zonal 3.3.5 Shorten the time period for gas ta x credit from 50 years to 30 yea rs. Shorter period is more logical +$5 4 +S54 and more with other jurisdictions. {Moot if3.3.1 and Techniclil . .. ; 3.4.1 Do not exclude VMT outside of Country from impact fcc. Would add unnecessary complexity Zc:ro Zero and cost without any certa i n improvement in calcu l ations ].4.2 For gas tax credit, use miles per gallon data for all vehic l es published by U S DOT. Current source is -$147 $147 outdated, and i mpacts are not caused by only automobiles (Moot if3.3.1 ],4.3 Base VMT calculations on current-year data Would simplify calculations. (Moot if3.3.1 Unknown, but probably insignificant. adopto:d) J.M Do not revise the deficiency list Would serve litt l e Zero Zero and would reduce County's flexibi l ity. Total all changes includjng cornction (item 2.0) +$3,145 -5737 to +$6,575 I all afttr 1 (Item 2.0) +S907 -"'cc 5.378 25


,d.' I S dv -;t,r 5.0 A pp endix .. .... ': . ... : :' : z.t : . :::' .. .. . > . . .... \ 'oU'orriiulii E ) emen'ts . :, . . ;..(.' ,},. . :. .' : : .. . .. ..... ':r'-... '. :.r:... : : : .p: ... . : ,-F:.: :?:: : : :. . . . ... '" ... . . . : . .. ' .... . Symbol ..... . :Qescrlption;1. ... .: . . . . . '.(t,, .. 4: . '' ... . . ,, . .. ... , ': . . ';-, . ... . '.. .... . . .... . The number of dwellings or other units on which the impact fe. e is assessed. # (orN) -TGR : . T rip generation rate. This rate i s determined using the trip generation report published by the Institute of T ransportation Engineers. This rate measures t he average numbe r of trips that are generated by a land use on an average week day. The rate is divided by two to split the impact of generated trips between trip producers and trip attractors. TL Trip length. The tr ip len1,>th represents th e average trip length (measured in miles) ofthe trips generated by a land usc These trip lengths are defined in the impact fee ordinance . They do not include travel on local roads (i.e., neighborhood streets) %IT Percentage of trip length on the interstate/expressway system in Hillsborough County. C L Capacity per lane mile. The capaci t y per lane mile is a constant in the i mpact fee formula. Based on data from the Florida Department ofTranspor(ation, the Hillsborough County impact fee ordinance spe cifies im average daily Jane capacity of two-; four-, anci six-lane collector and arterial roadways operating at level o f service "D as 7 ,500 trips per day . cc Cost to c onstruct one lane mile. This is a weighted average, by zone, of urban and rural construction costs. %ILR Percentage of int erstate/expressway and local roads. This t erm represents the percentage of total travel that is on local roads (i.e., neighborhood streets) p lus t h e percentage of inter state/expressway travel that represen t s through trips not attributa ble to any dev elopment in Hillsborough County. %Lw; : Percentage of trip length on local roads in Hillsbo r ough County. 1 7.16 Miles per gallon of gasoline . ..... . . /(or J.\olfG) ' ,. Gas tax credit' per gallon. This is the cents per gallon paid in gas taxes that go toward $0.089;' . (orT.q);; cons truction of new capacity for growth. . t.;:: :: N umber of days in one year. 13 8 --...... ,:. .,.. <' (or pVF):. Present-value factor. 26


--w-' ' .. '; Description of Formula Elements (con t inued) . . ,-, ' . . SymboL .--,. . ... Descrlpiloil" . PC Percentage charged t o impact fee (or transportation cost recovery factor). This is a (orTCR) percentage set by policy makers that rep res en t s the extent to which impacts on transportation costs (exclud i ng right-of-way costs) are cove r ed by transportation impact fees The current factor is 84.3061 percent. %ROW Right-of way percen t age. This is the ratio of estimated right-of-way costs to estimated construction cos t s in a particular zone plus an appropriate factor to fun d the required engineering studie s and administration. 0.91664 Right-of-way cost recovery factor. This is a percentage set by po licy makers that (orRCR) represents the exten t to which impacts on rightof-way costs are covered by right-of-way impact fees The current factor is 91.664 percent. The actual recovery of right-of -way costs is also a function of"PC" (o r "TCR") and is equal to: 84.3061% x 91.664%, or 77.278 p e rcen t. C OST. Combined construction and right of-way costs. %NT Pe r centage of trips gen e rated by a land use t hat are new primary or diverted tri p s rather than trips ca pt ured from t raffic. 27