Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study

Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study

Material Information

Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study
Portion of title:
Review of impact fee formula variables
Jones, F. Ron
Lachance, Laura C
Williams, Kristine
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (iv, 17 leaves). : ;


Subjects / Keywords:
Impact fees -- Mathematical models -- Florida -- Hillsborough County ( lcsh )
Roads -- Finance -- Mathematical models -- Florida -- Hillsborough County ( lcsh )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )


General Note:
Title from e-book cover (viewed Aug. 25, 2011).
General Note:
"CUTR project team: F. Ron Jones, project director; Laura C. Lachance, Kristine Williams"--P. ii.
General Note:
"Prepared for Hillsborough County."
General Note:
"September 1997."
Statement of Responsibility:
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.

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:
029019157 ( ALEPH )
747862129 ( OCLC )
C01-00232 ( USFLDC DOI )
c1.232 ( USFLDC Handle )

Postcard Information



This item has 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 cam 2200397Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 029019157
005 20110825175411.0
006 m o d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110825s1997 flu o s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00232
0 245
Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study.
n Phase 1, Review of impact fee formula variables
h [electronic resource] /
by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida.
3 246
Review of impact fee formula variables
[Tampa :
b University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1 online resource (iv, 17 leaves).
Title from e-book cover (viewed Aug. 25, 2011).
"CUTR project team: F. Ron Jones, project director; Laura C. Lachance, Kristine Williams"--P. ii.
"Prepared for Hillsborough County."
"September 1997."
Impact fees
z Florida
Hillsborough County
x Mathematical models.
Hillsborough County
Mathematical models.
1 700
Jones, F. Ron.
Lachance, Laura C.
Williams, Kristine.
Hillsborough County (Fla.)
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
i Print version:
t Hillsborough County transportation impact fee study. Phase 1, Review of impact fee formula variables.
[Tampa : University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research, 1997]
w (OCoLC)37877805
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.232


HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY Phase 1: Review of Impact Fee Formula Variables Prepared for Hillsborough County By Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida September 1997


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 Laura C Lachance Kristine Williams Gary L Brosch, Director ii


Table of Contents Introduction ...................................... . . ........ ......... ... I D escrip tion ofthe Impact Fee Formulas .......... .................... . ... ....... I Description of Formula Elements ................ . ............................. 2 Review oflmpact Fee Formula Variables .................... ................. .... 3 Analysis and Calculations .. ... .... . ............... .............. .. ...... . ... 4 l. Percentage of Trip Length on I nterstate Sys t em (%IT) ... ................. 4 2. Percentage of Trip Length on Local Roads (%LR) ......... ...... ........... 5 3. Construction Cost per Lane Mile (CC) ....... . .............. ............ 6 4. Right-of Way Cost as a Percent of Construction Cost (%ROW) ........ ...... . 8 5. Gas T ax Credit per Gallon (TAX) ...................... ........... ...... 9 6 Miles per Gallon of Gasoline (MPG) ............................ ........ 12 7. Present Value Factor (PVF) . ...... .................. ...... : ....... 12 8. Other Variables ............. ................ .... . ............. ... .. 13 Sample Calculation of Impac t Fees Using Updated Values . ........ ... ........... 13 Conclusio n ................ .............................. ... ... . .......... 16 Ul


Hillsborough County Transportation Impact Fee Sllldy List of Tables Table 1: Transportation and rught-of-Way Impact Fee Formulas .......... . .... ....... I Table 2: Impact Fee Formula Variables Reviewed ............... ................ ... 4 Table 3: Percentage of Urban and Rural Roadways by Zone . ... ...... ....... . .... 7 Table 4: Average Constru ction Costs of Zone ....................................... 8 Table 5: Federal, State, and County Gas Tax Available for Transportation Expenditures .... 9 Table 6: Values Used for Calculation of Current and Updated Impact Fees ............... 13 Table 7: Results oflmpact Fee Example for Zone I ................................. IS Table 8: Results of impact Fee Calculations for Average of All Zones .... ............. 15 Table 9: Comparison of Average Cost and Recovery for AU Zones ................... 16 IV


Introduction On behalf of Hillsborough County, the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) is conducting a review of the transportation and right-of-way components of ''The Hillsborough County Consolidated Impact Assessment Program Ordinance" (Ordinance 96-29). Phase I of this project involved reviewing the current impact fee formula variables and determining what changes in the values are appropriate. D escription of the Impact Fee Formulas The transportation impact fee formula contains thre e parts: (I) calcu la tion of the impact based on trip generation and roadway construction costs, (2) a credit for gas taxes paid for the next 50 years, and (3) a percentage adjustment. The right-of-way 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 formulas are presented in the table below both in their current form and in a suggested restated form. The restatement reorders some of the variables into more l ogical groupings and changes some of the variable symbols for clarificatio n The restatement itself does not change the results of impact fee calcu l atio ns. Descriptions of each of the variab l e s follow the table Table 1 Transportation and Right-of-Way Impact Fee Formulas : t .:. } ; 1' . . ... ' ., ... .. . .. : . . .. _,:J:, .. .... ... J t suggtsted!'ites:tatenlent( ... ';-)'.\':'"::;:;!. :,:: ::> 't : y-,'), x,. > l-:'(_, ..-;; : .--. . :. . . ,. -:-:: . Irans nortation Impact Fee Formula Transportation lmpact Fee Formula : .. ' {(((#X TGR X TL X (l%11)/CLI2 X cc X (1%1LR)] {[(N X (TGR/2) X TL X ( 1 %IT) X ( I %LR))/CL X CC] mUtus gas tllX crtdlt minus gas tax credil [((# x TGRx TL x (1-%1T))/2117.16 x $0. 089 x 365 x 13.8]) [(N X (TGR/2) X TL X (1%1T))IMPG X TAX X 365 X PVF]} multiplied by multiplied by PC TCR Ri&ht-pf-Way Ftc Fo r mul a Rieht-oi-Way Impa ct Fee Formula multiply above by multiply above by %ROW' X 916641 %ROW xRCR' 'These variables are includ ed onl y in the right-of-way impact fee formula.


Description of Formula Elements The current symbol or value for each element described below is shown in the !eft-hand co!wnn Shown in parentheses are suggested changes in symbols that may help to identi f y some of the elements more clearly. The el e ment 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. #(N) TGR TL %IT CL = cc %1LR(%LR) = a. For residential use: Number of dwelling units b For all other land uses : The appropriate measure of size expressed in the Trip Ends Gen eration Report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers shall be determined by the County and used in the impact fee formula. Trip generation rate. This rate is determined using the Trip End s Generation Report by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This rate measures the average n u mber of trips that are generated by a land use in one day. The rate is divided by 2 to split the impoct of generated trips between trip producers and trip a/tractors Trip length. The trip length represents the average trip length (measured in miles) of the trips generated by a land use These trip lengths are defined in the impact fee ord inance. Percentage of trip length on the interstate/expressway system in Hillsborough County. Capacity per lane mile. The capacity per lane mile is a constant in the impact fee formula. As establi shed by the Florida Department of Transportation, an average daily lane capacity of a two-, four -, and six lane collector and arterial roadway opera ting at level of service "D" is 7 ,SOO trips per day. Cost to construct one lane mile. This is a weighted average, by zone, of urban and rural construction costs. Percentage of interstate/expressway and local roads. This term represents the percentage of total travel that is on local roads plus the percentage of interstate/expressway travel that represents through !rips not attributable to any development in Hillsborough County. 2


17.16 (MPG) = $0.089 (TAX) = 365 13.8 (PVF) PC(TCR) %ROW = = = .91664 (RCR) = The suggested restatement of this element, which is discussed in the "Analyses and section, moves interstate/ expressway throug)l trips to the %IT calculation, which is !he moreappropriate location. The description then becomes: Percentage of trip length on local roods in Hillsborough County. Miles per gallon of gasoline. This is an estimate of the average fuel efficiency of all automobiles and light trucks owned in Hillsborough County measured by number of miles per gallon of gasoline. Gas tax credit per gallon This is the cents per gallon paid in gas taxes that go toward construction o f new capacity for growth. Number of days in one year Present-value factor. Percentage charged to impact fee (or transportation cost recovery factor). This is a percentage set by policy makers that represents the extent to which impacts on transportation cost s are covered by transportation impact foes The current factor is 84.3061 percent. Right-of-way percentage. This is the ratio of estimated rig.btof-way costs to estimated construction costs in a particular zone, plus an appropriate factor to fund the required engineering studies and administration of the section. Right -of-way cost recovery factor. This is a percentage set by policy makers that represents the extent to which impocts on right-of-way costs are covered by right-of-way impoctfees The current factor is 91.664 percent. The actual recovery of right-of-way costs is also a function of "PC" (or "TCR") and is equal to : 84.3061% x 91.664%, or 77 .278 percent. Review of Impact Fee Formula Variables Listed below 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 calculations involved in updating each of the values 3


T a ble2 I mp act F ee Formula Variabl es Rev i ewed cc Urban Lane Mile $664,062 Rural Lane M il e $404 ,1051 %ROW Zone I 37% Z on e 2 37'fi Zone 3 37% Zone 4 40'/o Zone 5 37% Zone 6 37% Zone 7 27% Zon e 8 37% Zone 9 18% Zone 1 0 39'Ai TAX 8 .9 MPG 17.1 6 Scrivener's etror of $404,015 correctc

total travel on local roads in 1995 for the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater urbanized area. That percentage (22.9%) was added to the non-local VMT projected by the model to get total VMT . Basing the 2015 estimate oflocal VMT on the 1995 percent oflocal VMT is likely to mak e the %IT slightly lower than it should be and, at the same time, make the %LR slightly higher than it should be because the percent of travel on local roads has been decreasing over time and the percent on the interstate/expressway system has been increasing. However, the overall impact is likely to be negligible since the decrease in the %IT variable acts as an offset to the increase in the %LR variable. The interstate/expressway trip length percentage is calculated by subtract ing through (no trip ends in Hillsborough County) interstate/expressway VMT from all interstate/expressway VMT and d i viding the result by total VMT minus total through VMT Through VMT is subtracted because it is not attributable to any development within Hillsborough County. Based on discussions with FDOT and its consultants, through VMT is estimated to be 1,000,000. The result of the calculation is the percent of the total miles driven in Hillsborough that are driven on the interstate/expressway system for an average trip that originates and/or ends in Hillsborough County. The calculation is: The above calculation assumes that all through VMT is on the interstate/expressway system. Although this is not strictly 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. 2. Percentage of Trip Length on Local Roads {%LR) The percentage of trip length on local streets takes into consideration the portion of an average trip that is traveled on local streets and subtracts it out 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 local streets (or interstates/expressways) Proceeds from the impact fees go toward non-local (and non-interstate/expressway) roadways. The value for this variable is based on the same data sources as the previous variable (%11). The local road trip length percentage is calculated by subtracting through (no trip ends in Hillsborough County) local street VMT (assumed to be zero) from all local street VMT and 5


Hillsborough County Transpt?f/ation Impact Fee S tudy dividing the result by total VMT minus total through VMT. Through VMT is subtracted because it is not attributable to any development within Hill sborough County. Through local street VMT is assumed to be zero since it is very unlikely that trips that do not start or stop in the County would travel on any local streets. The result of the calculation is the percent of the total miles driven in Hillsborough that are driven on local streets for an average trip that originates and/or ends in Hillsborough County. The calculation is: As noted previously, the above calculation assumes that all through VMT is on the interstate/expressway system. Although this is not strictly 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. Constructwn Cost per Lane Mile (CC) The updated county-wide average construction cost figures shown in Table 2 were provided by the Hillsborough County En gineering Department. These figures, along with the percentages of urban and rural roadways supplied by the Hillsborough County Planning and Growth Management Department, were used to calculate unique construction costs per lane mile for each ofthe ten zones in the unincorporated area of Hillsborough County An urban roadway is defined as a roadway with curbs and gutters (closed drainage system); a rural roadway has s wa les or ditches (open drainage system). The county-wide average construction cost estimates per lane mile for urban roadway and rural roadway are based on road projects that either were in construction in 1992 or have started construction since 1992, i.e., a five-year history is used. The calculations were based on the design 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 County Management and Budget Department, was added to the construction 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 6


urban uses were on one side of the road and rural uses on the other side, the road was assumed to be of urban des ign. The reduction in the value of "%Urban" from "Current" to "Updated" in several of the zones is the result of an earlier change in the land-use plan that reduced the percentage of land designated for urban uses. Using the average construction costs from Table 2 and the percentages from Tabl e 3, the weighted average construction costs shown in Table 4 were calculated. The current statute lists the construction cost for a rural lane mile as $404,015. According to the County, th:it was a scrivener's error and should have been $404,105 which is the figure used in the calculations in this report. Tabl e 3 Percentage of Urban a n d Rural R oadways by Zone I 89 II 35 65 2 62 38 36 64 3 0 100 I 99 4 85 t5 73 27 5 18 82 II 89 6 0 100 0 100 7 100 0 46 54 8 100 0 100 0 9 82 1 8 86 14 10 100 0 81 In addition to determining new values for construction costs, CUTR was asked to review the methodology for calculating the cost to be charged for roadway widenings. Issues have been raised regarding whether impact fees should pay for the reconstruction of the existing lanes of road when the roadway is widened. In most cases, when a two-lane road is widened to a four-or six lane road the existing two lanes must be reconstructed. The cost of reconstruction currently is contained within the construction-cost-per-lane-mile that is used in the 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 additional capacity that it 7


necessitates. There is some support for the latter argument i n the literature, but the preva il ing practice is to include all costs tha t are incurred in providing new capacity including the cost of reconstruction. CUTR believes that the stronger argument is that the roadway reconstruction at issue is a d i rect result of new growth and that the cost of meeting that growth in a pruden t and cost-effective manner includes the cost of reconstruction. However, because public attendance was so sparse at the meeting held in April 1997 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 the prevailing practice of including all relevant costs in the impact fee calculations. Table4 Average Construction Costs by Zone 2 $565,278 $976 ,141 3 $942,251 4 $625,068 $1,011,968 5 $450,897 $951,934 6 $404,105 $941,283 7 S664,o62 S985,824 8 $1,038,112 9 $617,270 $1,024 ,556 4. Right-of-Way Cost as a Percent of Construction Cost (%ROW) The right-of-way percentage is the ratio of right-of -way cost, including engineering and administration expenses, to roadway construction cost. The current and updated right-of -way percentages for each zone are shown in Table 2. 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 8


5. Gas Tax Credit per Gallon (TAX) This is the amount of federal, state and county gas taxes per gallon that goes toward increased roadway capacity necessitated by ne w growth. The total amounts available for transportation expenditures are shown in Table 5. These amounts are la t er adjusted to determine the amounts that are available for the construction of the additional roadway capa city needed for new growth. Table 5 Federal, State, and County Gas Tax Available for Transportation Expenditures 9.0 18.3 Current Minus 7 .7% for Administration. and Collection -.7 Minus Deficit Reduction State F uel Sales Tax 8.8 Current: Minus 7 7% for Administration and Collection -.4 Minus 12.2% for Collection and General Fund SCBTSTax U pdated: Minus 7.3% to Genernl Revenue Fund Loca l Option: to Cities, 60% goes to County 37.4% to Cities, 62 .6% 3 .8 Updated: Minus 51.8% of 62. 6% for Maintenance and 9


This is done by eliminating the amounts budgeted for maintenance and resurfacing, interstate/expressway construction, transit, existing deficiencies, etc. In the case of the Hillsborough County budget (the .CJP), maintenance and resurfacing is not included in the road construction budget, and, therefore, in Table 5 the County gas tax that goes toward maintenance and resurfacing is removed. The differences between the "Current Value" and the "Updated Value" in Table 5 are due to statutory changes in gas taxes, changes in actual administrative costs, and changes in the actual proportions spent on maintenance versus construction. 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 general fund for deficit reduction. The remainder is distributed to the states for transportation expenditures. In the current formula, 7. 7 percent of the federal tax is deducted for administrat ion 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 to the amount collected. The state receives about 80 percent of the actual net collections after deduction for the deficit reduction (i.e 80% of (I 8.3 4.3)), and, therefore, 20 percent is subtracted from total collections to get the amount available. The state of Florida collects 8.8 per gallon through the fuel sales tax However, according to the Florida Department ofRevenue only 87.8 percent of the tax is available for use by the Florida Department ofTransportation (FOOT) sjnce 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 (SCETS) 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 Transportation Trust Fund. In Hillsborough County a total of II of tax for local use is levied on gasoline. This II is made up of the following: However not all of the II is available to be used for roadway construction in the County The 7th cent and the 9th cent are dedicated by the County to maintenance and resurfacing and th e 8th cent goes to the cities in the 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 10


tJ:ansportation impact fee, when nearly 100 percent of the local option gas tax went toward construction ) Of the total6 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, 1996 An insignificant amount (0.02 percent) of the Constitutional Fuel Tax ("Sib and 6th cent") goes to the State Board of Administation, and it has no noticeable affect on the amount of county gas tax available. As shown in Table 5, the total federal and state gas tax available for tJ:ansportation expenditures is currently 23.3. The available county gas tax is 3.8. Because impact fees are not used to pay for road maintenance or correction of existing (as of adoption of the ordinance in 1985) capacity deficiencies the portion of the gas tax that pays for those activities is not included in the gas tax credit. (Not e that i f all the l o c al gas tax were used for operations instead of construction, as is the case i s some counties, new development woul d receive zero credit for local gas taxes.) A lso exc luded from the credit is VMT operated on the interstate system because, in a sense, the gas taxes paid as a result of that VMT go toward interstate projects for which impact fees are not assessed. VMT operated on expressways also is excluded, but the reason for Ibis exclusion is less clear because gas taxes are not spent on toll roads and, therefore are available for capacity improvements on other state and county roads. CUTR recommends that Ibis issue be addressed in P h ase II. To remove the above components from the gas tax credi t the FOOT five-year work program for 1997-2001 and the Hillsborough County six-year capital improvement program (CIP ) for 19972002 were reviewed to determine the percent of total funding available for new capacity that i s spent on non-interstate/expressway new capacity needed to accommodate new growth. (The current ordinance incorr ectly includes interstate new capacity, while eliminating 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 are not included in the County CIP, and, therefore the perc e ntage calculated for the County is the percent o f total construction rather than the percent of total expenditures, as shown below For federal and stale gas tax: 11


For county gas tax: These percentages, which show how much of each tax is available for road construction to meet the capacity needs of new growth, are multiplied times the applicable taxes to obtain the amount of gas tax that should be credited to new growth, as shown below 6. Miles per Gallon of Gasoline (MPG) This variab l e is intended to represent the average fuel efficiency achieved by automobiles and smal l trucks during the VMT that are attributable to new develop men t in Hillsborough County. It is used in the impact formula to calculate the number of gallons of gas co ns umed as a result of new development The updated value for this variable was derived from information contained in the document National Transportation Statistics 1996 by the Bureau of Transportat i on Statistics of the U.S. Department of Transportation, which gives a national average of21 48 miles per gallon. There is no published source of mpg for Hillsborough County alo ne, but the national average should be a reasonable estimate. 7. Present Value Factor (PVF) The purpose of this variable is to convert the on<>year gas tax credit to a mult i-year credit The impact fee ordinance specifies that impact fees shou l d be credited for 50 yeais 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 f or 50 years at 7 percent According to the County, the 8 percent is a scrivener s error and the rate should be 7 percent, which is the figure used in the calculations in this report. 12


8. Other Variables The values for the Transportation Cost Recovery Factor" (TCR) and the Right-of -Wa y Cost Recovery Fact or (RCR) formula elements are policy-driven They represent the exte n t to which policy makers desire to discount or reduce full-cost impact fees. Sample Calculation oflmpact Fees Using Updat e d Valu es The following i s a sample calculation of the transportation impact fee that compares the results obtained using the current values of the formula s variables and the results obtained usi ng the upda ted values presented in this document Th e example used is a single-family residence in Tabl e 6 Values Used for Calculation of Current and Updated Impact Fees . ........ ': .. t\ ... ... "!, ""'. . ... : ............. ;<'.,. . ......... "''> liJ.U .. "':. >:: ...,. C<>v : '._' ,,,'f:_ , "' N I TGR 9.551 TL 9.4 %IT 22.9% o/oLR 15.0% CL .7,500 cc $635,4672 MPG 17.16 TAX $0.089 PVF 13.8 TCR 84.3061% %ROW 37"A> RCR 91.664% 'Scrivener's error of 1 0.62 corrected. F rom Table 4. <.,:: 'f':!"v ' .. ,., ... ; .......... .:t if( Vah(e'' )< ,\ ..;,' "'>' ,.,:< <>-'::'n ... : ..... """'. ,.;K I 9.551 9.4 2.5.0% 23.3% 7,500 $975,1732 21.48 $0.063 1 3 8' 84. 3061% 86% 91.664% 'Scrivener's error resulting in 12.23 corrected. 13


. Zone 1 of Hillsborough County (Northwest area). The values for each of the variables are shown in Table 6. According to the County, the TGR of 10. 62 shown in the ordinance is a scrivener's error and the correct rate is 9 .55, which is the figure used in the calculations in this report. Using the suggested restatement of the impact fee formula shown in Table I, the calcu l ations of the impact fees for the above example are shown below and the results are presented in Table 7. For current values: For updated values: Note in Table 7 that the County s impact fee formula gives 137 percent credit for gas taxes using current values and 186 percent using updated values Presumably, the County's intent was not to give credit for more than I 00 percent of gas taxes, and it may wish to restructure the formula accordingly. 14


T able 7 Results oflmpa ct Fee. E x a m ple for Zone 1 Transporta tion Impact s 2,492 $ 3,357 Minus: Gas Tax Credit 904 497 Times: Reduction Factor (TCR) .8 4 306 1 Tra nsportatio n Fee 5 1,339 S2, 411 Right-ofWay Impac t $ 922 $2,887 Minus : Gas Tax Credit' 3 3 4 428 T imes: Reduction Factor (TCR x RCR)1 .7127 8 ,77278 Rigbt-of Way Fee $454 s 1,901 T otal Fee $1,793 u m 'Transportation figure time s %ROW (37% for c urrent an d 86% for upd a ted). 'TCRx RCR= .843061 x 91664= .7727 8 The results of doing the above calcu l ations for a singl e-family residence for all ten z on e s and taking an average are shown in Tabl e 8. Table 8 R e s u l t s oflmpact F e e C a l c ulati o ns for Average o f All Zones Transportation Impact $2,333 $3,39 7 Minus: Gas Tax Cred i t 9024 497 Times: Redu cti o n Factor (TCR) .843061 T ransportati on Fee $ 1,121 $ 2,444 Right-ofWay Impact' $ 826 $2,921 Minus: Gas Tax Credi t 1 334 428 Times: Redu ction Factor (TCR x RCR)' ,77278 .nm Rigbtof Way Fee s 351 s 1,800 Total Fe e $1.472 T r ansporta t ion figure times % ROW (37% for current and 86% for updated) "J'C R X RCR = .84306 1 X .9 1 664 = .77278 15


Using the data from Table 8 Table 9 compares the CoWity' s total transportation and right-Qf-way costs for a single.. family residence with the amounts recovered under the current impact fee formula and under the update As noted above, the formula's structure is such that it gives niore than I 00 percent credit for gas taxes under both the current formula and the update. If the credit were limited to I 00 percent (i.e., given for the transportation impact but not given again for the right of-way impact), the CoWity' s unrecovered costs shown in Table 9 would be reduced by 77.278 percent (the ROW reduction factor) of the right-of-way gas tax credit (i.e., 0.77278 of $334 or 0. 77278 of $428). Table 9 Compar ison of Ave r age Cost a n d Recovery for All Zones Cost of Impacts $6,318 $6, 318 Minu.r: Actual Gas Tax Revenue 497 Cost to County $5,821 $ 5,821 Minus: Impact Fee Assessment $L47Z County's Unrecovered Cost $4,349 s 1,576 Minus: Excess G11s Tax Credit $ 258 (if limit to 100%) County's Unrecovered Cost $4.091 Conc l usion Hillsborough CoWity'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 calcu111tions involved. A comprehensive analysis of the impact fee formula and procedures will be undertaken 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 r eport 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 deve l opment to the County. 16


Two of the majodssues that arose during CUTR's evaluation of the values used in the fonnula 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 of the gas tax, 100 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 is 137 percent of the gas taxes actually paid appears to be attributable to the structure of the formula rather than an intent on the Cowtty's part to give more than 100 percent credit for actual gas taxes paid. As suggested in Table 9, this results in an excess credit of$258 for the average single-family house in Hillsborough Cowtty, or an impact fee of$1,472 instead of$1,730. Another issue that affeets the gas tax credit is that the miles-per-gallon variable is limited to cars and light trucks and does not include all other vehic le s 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 fonnula, 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 37 percent times the construction cost). There obviously is a substantial difference between the cost of property in a highly developed urban area and the cost of property i n an wtdeveloped rural area, and, as long as there also is a substantial and proportional cost difference between urban and rural construction costs, using a percentage of construction cost to estimate right-of-way cost is a reasonable methodology. However, for a variety of reasons (e.g., a nwnber of new identical requirements for urban an d rural roadways) the construction costs for urban and rural roadways have become very similar, while urban and rural property values remain very dissimilar. This means that maintaining the previous proportions between right-of-way costs and construction costs will result in rural right of-way cost being overstated in the update and urban right-of-way cost being wtderstated. The solution to this is to develop in Phase II a new means of calculating right-of-way cost. In the meantime, it should be recognized that impact fees calculated using the updated data in this report will be somewhat lower for the more urban zones than they otherwise would be and somewhat higher for the more rural zones than they otherwise would be. 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-of-way impacts and the resulting fees A means of inc luding this "opportunity" cost should be developed in Phase II. 17


Download Options

Choose Size
Choose file type
Cite this item close


Cras ut cursus ante, a fringilla nunc. Mauris lorem nunc, cursus sit amet enim ac, vehicula vestibulum mi. Mauris viverra nisl vel enim faucibus porta. Praesent sit amet ornare diam, non finibus nulla.


Cras efficitur magna et sapien varius, luctus ullamcorper dolor convallis. Orci varius natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Fusce sit amet justo ut erat laoreet congue sed a ante.


Phasellus ornare in augue eu imperdiet. Donec malesuada sapien ante, at vehicula orci tempor molestie. Proin vitae urna elit. Pellentesque vitae nisi et diam euismod malesuada aliquet non erat.


Nunc fringilla dolor ut dictum placerat. Proin ac neque rutrum, consectetur ligula id, laoreet ligula. Nulla lorem massa, consectetur vitae consequat in, lobortis at dolor. Nunc sed leo odio.