Value Capture Webinar Series

Value Capture: Development Impact Fees and Other Fee-Based Development Charges—A Primer

August 04, 2021 at 1:00pm-3:00pm ET

Audio: https://connectdot.connectsolutions.com/p97gzi1muwdm/

Please stand by for real-time captions


Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the most common of transportation strategies to the conference call. All participants are in listen only mode, we will conduct a question-and-answer session with instructions given at that time. If you require assistance during the call, please press zero. I would like to turn this over to your host, Pepper Santalucia. Please go ahead.


Thank you very much. Hello, everyone. On behalf of the Federal Highway administration, I would like to welcome you to today's event. We'll be releasing new FHWA primer for impact these per the operator said, my name is Pepper Santalucia. I support the USDOT center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I'll be starting up today's webinar helping to address any technical problems. As you can see on the screen, we have a great set up with a presenters of you today to share their experience and expertise on the topic of developer impact fees. We will introduce you to them with more detail in just a minute or two. First, a quick orientation to the webinar room. The top left corner of the screen, you'll see a window or pod called on new information. If you experience any audio issues during the course of the webinar, we do encourage you to try dialing in by phone to attempt to dial in that way. The phone number and the code are listed there, in the information window. The lower-left corner, you'll see a window or pod called audience chat. That is where you can post questions or add comments during the course of the webinar. There is a closed captioning window or pod underneath the slides. Of course, the slides are front and center in the webinar room. With regard to the slide, they do have the option with entering the full-screen mode .if you look to the upper-right corner of that window, you should see a button that's a rectangle, dark rectangle, in the middle of it. If you hover over it, you'll see a message go full screen. Click on that and that will bring you in full-screen mode .so that's your escape button or another similar button that you'll have available to click in the upper-right corner to bring you out of full-screen mode. Just let you know, we will be fielding questions for each presenter at the end of their respective presentations. We will also have time for additional questions and answers towards the end of the webinar. We will, as the operator said, open the telephone nine for questions if you want to ask questions that way. We will make the speakers' slide decks available for download at the end of the webinar and we want to dollars that we are recording the session today so that others can listen to this webinar and watch it at a later time. The slides and the recordings will be posted to the FHWA website. Finally, if you are interested in applying for professional allotment credits, or hours for your participation in today's event, we will provide information at the end of the webinar on how to get that confirmation for your participation. Had the poll questions opened a little bit before we got started. Those of you who just joined, encourage you to take part in the poll so that we have a better sense of our audience today and their level of expertise and experience. While you're answering those questions, I like tensioners are moderate for today's event. Mr. Terry Regan. Terry is a principal technical advisor for innovative transportation, employment, at the USDOT center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He has over 30 years of experience working at the regional, state, and federal levels on issues involving transportation plans and finance. Terry, as we finish answering up the poll questions, what is your quick reaction to the poll results?


Thank you, Pepper. As Pepper mentioned, my name is Terry Regan. Nathaniel mentioned this in the comment, and we have a large contingent of local government. Over 30%. MPO will make up 12. A good 40% from MPOs and local governments and another 6% from transit. Those really are for this webinar, our target audience. It's great to see that many people. We also have contingent 20% from the state D.O.T., federal representatives as well as others. Unlike some of our other topics, there appears to be a higher level of knowledge for the developer or impact fees. That's good. We hope that you're going to learn a lot. For the jurisdiction implementing impact fees, I see that about 65% have not or are not applicable. Maybe you'll hear something during today's call that will spur you on. Now let me introduce our presenters today. First, we're going to have Julie Kim, the Petrie program director at the Stanford closure project center. The author of the developer impact fees, which are going to be able to download towards the end of this webinar. It will also be posted on the federal highway website. Second, we're going to hear from a planner from the city of Billingham, Washington. Chris is going to speak on his city's multi-model impact fees. Third, we will hear from Nectarios Pittos, the planning and developing director of Pasco County, Florida. And, as Pepper mentioned, we're going to have a question and answer period after each of the speakers has presented. If you have any questions during any of the presentations, please submit it in the chat pod so we can queue them up for the speaker. When possible, we're going to try to respond to those answers within the chat pod. In addition, we're going to ask the AT&T operator to open the telephone line for questions over the phone to reach the speaker. If we don't have time to address all the questions submitted, we're going to post the questions as well as the answers on the federal highway value capture website. Now let me turn to our first speaker. First, we're going to hear from us Julie Kim. Julie has over 40 years of expense and special expertise in the trepidation sector and the structure financing. She is the Petrie Stanford global project center and urban structure finance fellow at the New City's foundation. Prior to that, Julie was the director of the Pacific and structure grand Corporation and advised resident director for the transportation architecture. A recent focus for recent years has been on value capturing and generating local infrastructure funding forces. Julie is one of the value capture subject matter experts for our federal highway EDC-five this program and is currently preparing health I think he captured-related documents. With that then, our second presentation is going to be Mr. Chris Corneau. Chris, this is transportation planner for a city of 100,000 residents. 20 miles south of the U.S.-Canadian border. He has over 20 years of experience. He's helped the leaders in multimodal transportation planning and only 1 of 34 Gold Glove bicycle friendly communities in the U.S. Third presentation is going to be by Mr. Nectarios Pittos. He's the director for planning and development Department, which is responsible for the county's comprehensive plan implementation, zoning review and development review and transportation. That's going to guide the county's current and future physical group to meet the long-term vision. Nectarios has over 15 years of sector expense in urban planning and policy management in the Chicago and Tampa metropolitan regions. He has a Master of Science and urban planning and the University of Illinois. Also, a Bachelor of Arts and clinical signs from the UIC College of Liberal arts and science. And he's a certified planner with the ICP. So now let me turn it over to Julie who is going to give the presentation on the primer. Julie?


Thank you, Terry. I want to mention that the slide is present. I'm looking at the screen here. Okay. So, you're going to help move the slide, right, Terry?


Correct. Right.


Okay. Thank you, Terry. Much appreciated. This briefing provides an introduction for charges on developers. The goal of this portion of the webinar is to provide a proper context for interesting discussions followed by this briefing, where we'll walk you through examples presented. Next. Next slide. This briefing includes overviews of developing technicians with efficiency and equity concerns as well as the legal history and instructive needs. The elements of the structure and basic implementation step. I touched briefly on an example at the end to demonstrate basic conference coverage on this slide. Terry? For some reason the slide is not moving on my screen.


Julie, you just let us know what's lighter on to keep up.


Okay. Slide three, the overviews. Next slide, four, developing what is called by many different names, such as system charge, intersectional development charge, IEC, road impact fee, risk, traffic, or transportation fee, or TIF mobility fee. In all cases, these fees represent a one-time-front cash payment made by a developer in connection with local governments' approval of his or her project. The fee offsets some or all of the costs associated with facility needs located outside the project boundaries that benefit the project, including, for example, water, sewage, utilities, and emergency services. The view was originally used for capital expenditures only. More recently, it's used sometimes to include operations. Next slide. Compared to the formal system of negotiating actions, these are predictable and generate more revenues much faster. Although they can find a wider variety of services, there's a one-time payment and they represent less secure social revenues when compared to special assessments, as an example, and the other two are more prevalent these techniques that are last suited for presenting flexibility and financial options. When compared to user fees, indexes can also provide a reservation capacity, whether or not those are actually being used at capacity at any point in time. Then on a project by project basis, these are most affected with ties to local planning process as a form of social funding for local, capital employment programs. Finally, these fees are best used for a mental investments that leverage existing capacity. For example, in the field of violence were marginal practices can be applied, such that new developments can find these in existing access capacities, thus enabling local governments to include the sum of their prior investments. Next slide. Slide six. For efficiency and equity concerns the next slide, slide seven. First, we got efficiency. Evaluating funding initiatives basically entails three basic considerations. First, that of sufficiency issues. Whether funding can cover all of these costs. The second is personality issues. Whether the cost can be allocated to those that need it the most based on user-pay as well, sometimes referred to as equity. Finally, marginal pricing, where the improvements can be provided with the most possible on an increment will cost basis. Next slide, slide eight. on sufficiency, impact fee revenues are often not enough to cover improvements needed. When legislated, tied to the local planning process. However, they can be used to guide future land-use patterns. Personalities can increase better compared to other techniques because they're legally prohibited from charging more than the proportional share of the project impact on these needs. However, these are often having the effect of raising property values by more than multiple fees, resulting in existing -- Nearby properties for profit at the expense of new developments. The basic premise is for basic payments of increment low marginal costs using existing areas to accommodate the incremental growth. Under such marginal pricing, Greenfield areas implemented in these are more costly than the ones in development areas close to existing capacity. In this regard, indexes can also help minimize undesirable urban sprawl or leapfrog in urban element patterns. Next slide, slide nine. Evaluating social or vertical equity concerns is based on the affordability to ability to pay principal. Concerns can occur with regards to equity in two respects. First, the increase in property prices causes gentrification. That's pricing out low income households. The second is related to a flat-fee, progressive-fee, structure of a coming of a difference in pay. Next slide, slide 10. DIFs generally raise prices of existing properties and makes them less affordable overall, especially for lower-income households. Developers markets, developers often pass on the fees to buyers and renters, exacerbating the situation even further. As a remedy, local jurisdictions can set up fee waivers for other financial incentives to address the political equity concerns. This structure can be fixed with more layered approaches in the fee designed by varying fees by, for example, location, land use, density, building types and/or size. You can also want to keep in mind, however, the important trio between more equitable fee structures and administrative challenges that come with the layered-fee program. Next slide. now for legal and legislative conservations. Next slide and slide 12. Developer infections, in general, since 1920, have been used to establish the legal presidents. This divides more detailed discussion on this. There are three basic things for's legal fees purse this. First, Nolan established that in order to get the fee, there needs to be a direct relationship with the project proposed and the ones proposed often referred to as the essential nexus task. The second is the Dolan ruling in 1994. It established that it must be roughly proportional to the impact created by the project, often referred to as the abrupt personality test. The past these two tests for the commission, what is called nexus, or the TB study, to establish a legal and competitive basis for the fee. To put it in historical context, Nolan and Dolan were, in part, triggered by the user fees by local governments to make up for the severe restrictions put on property tax increases that began in the mid-1970s. Finally, the third landmark that came about more recently in 2013 to further clarify the ruling for Nolan and Dolan. Next slide, slide 12. In essence, the ruling clarified that, from Koontz, when the program is legislated into a local audience that applies across all development projects, the burden of proof lies upon the legitimacy of the fees and the developers. When the fees are challenged by a developer under an adjudicated situation for a project, however, the burden of proof resides with the local agencies, especially in the absence of local impacts and ordinances. Next slide, slide 14. The Nolan ruling in 1987 triggered many states that adopted statutes at the state level. Some 30 states have had installations that affect the ability of local agencies to levy impact fees. In most states, impact policies have evolved through decades of case laws since 1920. Specific court-based efforts by local jurisdictions to generate funds they needed to provide public services to support new development projects. Impact fee legislative experience has a highly diverse area state to state. For example, California and Florida, two states with higher fees, have had very different experiences. California was an early adopter of state reservations which was amended in 1987 and is largely based on previous case laws. Whereas Florida did not pass this legislation until 2006, relying on existing state funds on growth management. In Texas, the investigation was initially very detailed and descriptive when adopted in 1987. But then ended it significantly in 2003 to add much more flexibility. Some states, such as Illinois and New Jersey, focus on transportation impact fees. Whereas others, such as New Mexico and Indiana, focus on affordable housing. Finally, Arkansas adopted a legislation in 2003 but limited the use of the impact fees as municipal level only. And for water and waste-water municipal it is only with water, excluding their use, property level, altogether. next slide. Slide 15. At the local level, there could be numerous standards and guidelines available to support developing the legally impact fee programs. In general, local ordinance is to provide greater use of the impact fees, including whether to use it for extensively instructive categories such as transportation or for capital expenditures only, excluding the operations made at these expenses. This table provides a few select examples. In California, for example, San Francisco has had a long history and its local ordinance long preceded the state's act. For San Francisco, impact fees have been an important source of local revenues, with almost $150 million, a quarter billion dollars, fiscally, in 2016. In comparison, other large cities in California such as L.A. and Oakland just began to recognize the importance of impact fees only recently. However, their uses are still limited for capital costs only and affordable housing only with annual revenue establish below $120 million. Portland, Oregon, from early on, focuses on the transportation sector as one of the first to use impact fees for the major intersections. Also followed by improvements and other system-my transformation improvements. In Florida, state legislation has been ambiguous about the local authority. They capitalized on this ambiguity and established the authority over those municipalities from the land developer and code established at that level. Finally, in Ohio, a destination for each city was shown here in this slide. Establishes the communicating criteria. Next slide. Now for nexus studies, slide 17. Nexus studies substantiate that the types and amounts of the impact fees charged on new developments are legally defensible nexus tests required by the dormant rulings. In these studies, typically there are different land uses such as family housing, commercial or industrial uses. And for different infrastructure categories, such as transportation, water, sewage, open space, fire safety and affordable housing. Next study, designing to provide maximum legally defensible seasonings. Public agencies, however, often choose to set their fees towards the ceilings in an effort to ease concerns about needed elements. The ultimate decision on these levels are often driven by public agencies' funding priorities based on their info structure needs and potential effects of these fees based on the state market. In general, most public agencies are constrained and their assessment offers non-robust ones to advance the impacts that the fees may have on new development. Next slide. Stay with this slide. The weight in which public agency exceptions can include the proportionality and affordability concerns discussed earlier the whole mobile table health agencies are consistent with their overall land-use and goals, broadly, designing the fee structure entails four basic components shown here, defining service areas defining the level of service and developing fee schedules with the appropriate timing of these fees. Next slide, slide 19. In defining the service area, even though it may be easiest to design it in a mixture, a single area for this planned affection is also to rely on geographic-specific impact fees in order to account for these variations and the cost for the public intake. Keeping in mind the trade-off I mentioned earlier between equitable and multilayer structures versus administrative complexities. Service areas, for example, can be designed based on extensive infrastructures whether in greenfield or in field. Public transit facilities, where this is generally generated. Overall ability for funding costs such as areas of streams from increments of special assessment or with supplemental federal state funding sources. Establishing levels of services for new development is one of the most critical elements for the new public needs. Although it's a little practice to adopt the same service standards across an entire jurisdiction, this may not be the case. Past, present, and future development have these constraints, combined with the local land-use policies to provide a rational date for establishing variable service standards. Next slide, slide 20. Once the service area is defined, a set of individuals can be established for each service area based on the service standards pertinent to that area. Typically, these are scheduled or status by different leading categories. We need these categories for public standards developed by the land-use and vertical structures. For example, for roads, impact fees are typically based on the number of one's generated for dwelling per 1000 square foot of space for the center. Finally, timing of each unit, specifically, points towards the assessment, which can become an important part of fee structuring because of a significant collapse. Sometimes it's only several years between when a project is proposed and when it actually takes place. This is an example of what occurs at the beginning, concurrent with the construction planning and concurrent with the final inspection and issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Alternatively, they can occur at different times. For example, collecting the final inspection stage from developers' perspectives. They prefer early key assessment but typically the actual team takes as long as possible to minimize their out-of-pocket carrying costs from public sales. Next slide. Now implementation. Next slide. The basic elements of them limiting a foreign entity program can generally be created among others, establishing clear impact fees and objectives. Initially, it would set the lead amount. Incorporating these fees in the local plans for the improvement plans and conducting public hearings and other related procedures for preparing steps towards administrative records and drafting impact-fee resolutions and ultimately adopted a few programs. Also, the adoption of other important steps that need to be maintained on a regular basis. You can increase your standard accounting fees or other programs for audits in connection with administration. Finally, dealing with the challenges and refunds as they arise. Next slide, slide 23. As mentioned, impact fees are often multilayered. Depending on each space, there may also be many other charges because of developers that are outside impact-fee regulations. In California, for example, as shown in this slide, there are other developer charges such as special fees which are connection fees and permit processing fees but are not subject to impact-fee regulation. One of the key implementations has been the difficulty of estimating the total fees with expert fees that are associated with any given project due to the lack of fee transparency and standardization. From public agency's perspective Emme this can prevent tracking and assessing the reasonableness, from the developers' perspective, it can provide difficulties in accurately predicting total project cost needed to assess project fees needed in the development stage. Also, many developers are not going to take the risk of starting a project without knowing the full cost implications if they decide to take the project elsewhere. Next slide. Slide 24. Key aspects of fee transparency are availability and accessibility schedules. Next study has annual reports of accounting for fees that are already being implemented. Some jurisdictions have found ways to increase transparency by hosting, for example, all nexus studies on their website to incentivize fee adoptions and make it clear encumbrance of, the information, a single, regularly-updated fee schedule linked to interactive fee maps. Finally, fee booklets with step-by-step guidance on how to estimate whether the fees have different types of developing project. In any case, a lack of fee transparency often reflects the lack of local resources and internal coordination. A recent survey, for example, indicates that, impact fees, often set with no oversight of coordination between different departments and are responsible for administrative differences, for the dip public it in the already disorganized process. The next successful impact the program also depends on the analytical rigor in nexus and development studies that can lead to the adoption of fee levels, which is also often a function of internal resources available. The revenue internal capacity issues, some best resource localities have been able to devise solutions through a joint procurement strategy where one consulting firm is hired to conduct separate the combined nexus studies for federal jurisdictions, thus providing significant cost savings. Next slide. I'd like to conclude my breaking with a case example of a city that came into the resources. Next slide. City of East Palo Alto, although located in the heart of California, historically this is socio-economic challenges typical of advanced resources, such as lower-level education, a high level of poverty and employment and active supply of affordable housing. Consistent with the overall regional growth strategy, the city focused on the new downtown area for their growth and provided new or upgraded infrastructure to support the road. Many upgrades included prevents outside the field and the city decided to use impact fees as the primary method for funding the improvements. Before the new need for development, the city did not have expanded legislations in the Texas structure. Impact fees were negotiated on a case-by-case basis, making them more vulnerable for legal challenges that are more intense to administer. The city then decided to edit minister and qualify the legally moving impact the program to better support the project development. The city also qualified other development charges. This table shows the overall developers chosen in the box for the storm drainage. Supplemented with other development of charges, in California, with results obtaining affordable housing for storage and water. Next slide. For transportation, the city commission has a separate transportation nexus study. Transportation impact fees estimated based on generation by different land users. In this case, townhouses, multi-family housing, office, retail and industrial. To take the mystery out of the impact fee, walking through the basic steps. You typically start with EIT, traffic and engineer, basic data and estimated total trip generation by land-use based on broad projection provided in local planning documents. In this case, the city's general plans with these baseline numbers that are then subjected based on local conditions to Palo Alto, including adjustments and costs for unique local travel patterns, internal trips, land order chips and transit mode. The final generation rate for total number of new trips generated impact are shown in green. Next slide the next step is to link the improvement fees directly to the new ones generated. This can be increased by estimating the purported improvements crucial for the new development based on presenting new trip generation. In the case of Palo Alto, the total generation of improvements have been attributable to the trips. The government came to about $25.3 million, as shown in yellow. This has been used to estimate the capital cost-based on $7000 per trip, as shown in purple. Next. Based on the union capital cost per trip, and maximum defensible fees are estimated, as shown in yellow on the stable, all of which were adopted by the city, shown in green, with one exception. The adopted fee was adopted down from maximum of $30 per thousand square feet to several increases shown in orange. The city decided to make this adjustment in part based on their assessment of the prevailing indices levels in neighboring communities. communities, shown in the last column. The city felt that the national retail was too high of a ceiling to be able to track retail developed for the new downtown infield area. In addition to these standards for the schedule, the city Council also allowed fee reduction if an active measure was taken to reduce the fee restrictions for that mode of transportation and advancement program and for affordable and senior housing development. Next slide. I would like to conclude my presentation with two main takeaways. It's harder to justify improvements outside the development project boundaries. Impact fees are designed specifically to offset improvement for new developments that help trigger local growth. Instead of doing on a project by project basis, impact fees can be limited most effectively by calling them into local ordinance and implement them directly into the local planning process. This not only serves as a budgetary funding process for local limitation programs but also helps in achieving long-term goals and land-use planning goals and objectives. This concludes my presentation.


Thank you, Julie, for that presentation. This is Terry again. I'm going to be facilitating the question and answer for Julie's presentation. I see that we've got three questions queued up. So why do we address those? Also note that we're going to have a longer question-answer period at the end of the presentation. We like to open the phone lines now to see if there are any questions by those on the phone.


A question that would indicate [ Inaudible Question] once again, if you like to ask a question, please press star one to unmute.


While we wait, Nathaniel has a question related to slide 10. How does it relate to development within the residential developments? Julie, any thoughts on that?


Slide 10?


I believe that was what he asked the question four.


I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question please?


He asked how does this relate to transit developments that are residential?


Is he meaning slide 10?


He is saying, the slide in which gentrification, if I don't recall wrongly. He was asking this when you're talking about education.


Essentially, on the gentrification, you know, one of the things that you can do is, of course, for the lower-income households, you essentially provide a reduction or deferment for exemption from the lower-impact fees. But then you can also use other, you know, basic, basic strategies, such as providing a density bonus and providing affordable housing in combination with impact fees. And, by virtue of having additional revenues with impact fees and others, it can actually then enable, you know, implementing things like other regulatory incentives.


Thanks. Now Trevor has a very related question. He asked, how do remedies for gentrification work? Are there examples or outcomes? If either Chris or Nectarios want to answer, feel free to. How do remedies for education work? Do you have any examples or outcomes?


As I mentioned in my briefing, many cities provide waivers and other kinds of deferments and deductions. I think, in this common case example, there were fee deductions in your city housing development. And then, another thing, deductions can have a progressive-fee structure. So, depending on the income level and affordability, the actual fees include change. So that has a developmental effect on the prices, for public cost, as sold by developers.


Okay. Great. Joe has a question that's a little bit long. So, we often hear in the transportation of the structure of improvements, enhancing economic development, housing development and commercial develop meant and they should see an increase in areas where dips are used for transportations. Has anyone reviewed or correlated effectiveness of dips when used for infrastructure versus housing and commercial develop meant? This comparison was what you made in heaven, Indiana, versus Maryland or New Jersey. I believe that was on slide 19.


Slide 19? Slide 19, the service area.


Julia, it was with the given statue.


Okay. Slide 14. Can you repeat the question again?


Sure. Joe asked, we have often heard of announcement of housing and commercial development with different areas where there is dips in use or transportation. Has anyone reviewed or correlated these dips with use or ever structure versus housing or commercial development? What made the question was the comparison to what you had between Indiana versus Maryland or New Jersey.


Okay. I think there has to be a chance for me to talk about projects. It's the impact developments fee case. It's the develop meant project, the developers that paid impact fees so that we can actually provide the structure projects. The impact fees have provided funding for transportation projects. So, in terms of commercial and residential, I'm not sure if the question is whether there is substantial development for what they're having. Different impact projects. Is that the question?


I think it was, we can always explore more once we're doing the question-answer period at the end. Let me move on to the next question. Joe wants to know, shouldn't DIP funds be accounted for by project? Why would-melodies account for DIF funds in a general fund account?


As I mentioned, there are legal ramifications here. In the past, a lot of cities rather imposed the project by project basis. You know, it's very applicable and then there are quite a bit of legal challenges that apply to incorporating it in tow, as a part of an overall local planning process. You can sort of put it in to a part of the general fund and, sometimes, a few cases are actually seen with examples of impact fees used to find funds for developments constantly. I believe you can actually provide more secure funding sources and, in some cases, for impact fees on an annual level because you have a fee schedule to actually provide the fund implementing as well.


Great. Thank you. Field, anyone on the phone who wants to ask a question?


We have no questions on the phone at the moment. As reminder, if you like to queue up, you can do so.


All right, time for us to move on, I think. Now we're going to hear from several people who have real-world experience developing and incrementing projects utilizing developer utility fees. First, we're going to hear from Chris Corneau from the city of Willingham, Washington. Chris, please proceed.


Want to make sure you can hear me.


Yes, we can.


I'm going to take that as a yes. Okay. Good morning, everybody. The morning out here on the West Coast anyway. As mentioned, I work in Bellingham, Washington. Is 20 miles south of the U.S.-Canadian border, way up in the northwest corner of Washington state. here are my slides. Here we go. Nothing is happening. There we go. Okay. So, what are transportation impact fees? How do they work? Basically, it's growth helping to pay for the cost to serve growth with transportation system implemented. That's a very important concept. Is codified in Washington state law. You have to identify what your statistical implements are through the conference of plan. Then you have to engage in a specific study to determine what developments proportional shares will get as we go. Here, in Bellingham, we've been assessing impact fees since 1995 with the reduction of our first growth management act, conference of plan. Bellingham pass the growth management plan in 1990. At first, we had a zone system that included 18 zones with variable rates. It was administered we burdensome and was actually incredibly inequitable. I won't get in to that. Again, really, really easy to administer when we updated our conference of plan. We use that as an opportunity to update our impact fee system as well. We went to a city-wide system which had just been upheld by the Washington state Supreme Court in 2006 in a case of the developer versus the city. Typically, our annual trip rates are based on the investment of local funds. These used to be actual receipts of capital improvement. Then projects we had adopted in our six-year tenure. In Washington state, we have these four very specific regulations regarding transportation planning. Concurrency, which requires adoption of level of service standards. We are here, in Bellingham, have multimodal multilevel areas of service standards. I'm not going to get into that. I just want to make sure we understand that's what we have here. You've got traffic studies, which are based in state environmental reduction ask at this point. Street improvements for every developer, abiding a public street. Then transportation impact fees, as modified, codified at a state law. This just shows where we were at as we got in to converting our vehicle-based transportation impact fee system to a multi-model person trip-based system. We were charging these various rates based on our capital plans. This, of course, is just a glimpse at what housing costs were, comparatively here. This is just a reference point. When we tried to service to the public, we wanted them to understand that we were taking all sorts of things into account. I can tell you, certainly, everyone else in the country, this has changed. we also wanted to make sure everybody understood how we compared two other places in Western Washington. Julie mentioned a lot of cities are very interested in what surrounding jurisdictions are charging. That's certainly true. There was good reason for me to create this chart here. I was hearing about people coming to get their permits at the permit center and yelling at staff about how much they had to pay and making claims that were simply not true because there is no data available. So, I put this together to show everybody where does Bellingham compared to all of the other cities in Washington state? As this shows, we were well below the Washington state average. In fact, we're down in the lower-third of this chart. In fact, other jurisdictions surrounding us charge more than we did. Fast forwarding to 2018, as we were getting ready to implement our multi-model system, we did this again. In fact, I do this every two year. But it showed that, over time, as the Washington state average increased, Bellingham was lagging behind because our fees have been static and went changing and we went keeping up with the cost of things. For anybody who's interested, if you click on this TIF comparison chart highlighted, it takes you to our webpage and you'll get the most recent version of this chart. This chart here just shows that, in graphic form, you know, in red, the Washington state average versus Bellingham's, which remained relatively static throughout this time period. You can see the other upwards one's changing. In addition to that, 2010, we had created an economic incentive program. Our conference of plan is very specific in calling for Intel development being promoted and supported and primarily in urban villages that are characterized with complete sidewalks, completed bikeways, and served with high-frequency transit. In Bellingham, city of 100,000 people, high frequency means 15-minute headways. But we did was we created this program and what it does is it the worst of element happening in these areas, which helps us achieve our conference of goal of accommodating 30% of our future growth in these compact, mixed-use, urban centers supported by multimodal transportation. Since it was created, it has saved developers over $1.2 million, ask closer to $1.3 million now. About $120,000 a year. It really has helped achieve the goal. Again, in 2018, we wanted to show not only for our base rate was compared to surrounding jurisdictions but how the urban village reduction compared. You can see here, these three green bars, showing how effective this has been to attract element in these urban centers. Then, importantly, over the course of time, you know, it's very beneficial to demonstrate to the public and to elected officials just how much your TIF revenue means in terms of what you're spending on transportation at the same time. The average over this 13-year period was about 15 1/2% which is not very much. Of course, you can see each year we're spending all this money in the red bars here. But we're collecting in TIF revenue is shown in blue as a percentage. Of course, the overall philosophical question is who should pay the cost of this growth? Clearly, new development creates impacts to the transportation system. But there's also background traffic in the public does benefit from new transportation projects. So, it's a little bit of both. But then, from a local standpoint, and like we talked about in terms of other jurisdictions and what they are charging, the local jurisdiction needs to decide how much is appropriate for our situation. That's when we get in to one of the conferences of plan rules and what are the local needs? Here, in Bellingham, we have had a complete strength approach for very long time. In fact, it's a complete-network approach with modal networks established for all major modes. We're very clearly trying to promote the safety for vulnerable users over single-occupant vehicles. Ultimately though, we recognize the importance of vehicles our economy and we're trying to balance all the mobility needs throughout our city. Like I said, we've created mobile networks. We've got a pedestrian master plan. We got a bicycle master plan. We recently obtained the status as a bicycle-from the community, which is a pretty great thing for us. But these plans are expensive. There's a lot of need in terms of project needs. We're very fortunate to have an 80-mile Greenway Trail system in Bellingham. We kind of consider that a secondary transportation network. Then, in our conference of plan, multimodal transportation chapter, it specifically calls out that we need to not only assess new development but include bicycle and pedestrian and create multimodal transportation impact fees. That's what we've been doing. Furthermore, we're requiring Washington state to show our work. If we're saying we always have transportation system needs, they then require us to show how we intend to pay for all of that. You can see here, highlighted in the orange bar across the screen, what are the citation was on an annual area for TIF revenue. This continues over the next 20-year planning period. Graphically, it is important to show how this relates to other funding sources that we have. In green here, on this chart, you can see the TIF revenue .in red, our local sales tax levy for transportation, which is far more important and far more lucrative when it comes to funding our local transportation needs. Of course, grants are an important source. They're highly variable though, which is why you see this spiking going on with the yellow and the gray in terms of the funding available. Now our multimodal transportation impact fees system is modeled largely after the city of Portland, Oregon's. I'm not going to play this video, which is about four minutes long, but for those who are going to get this is a download, if you click on this blue highlighted transportation system develop meant charge video, you can see this. It's an excellent explanation of how multimodal transportation impact fees systems are created and used to fund the things that we're seeing in our cities. So, we did our rate study in 2016. Here it is. I want to give credit to Darren Pierce, we hired them as our transportation consultants. They did an excellent job. Multilevel TIF highlighted for our city webpage. Importantly, as I mentioned, we are trying to move beyond just vehicle trips from the Institute of transportation and area of trip generations. In 2010 and '11 when I credit the urban village TIF reduction program, that was done -- There's an article highlighting that. I can make it available to people. But we created that in a legally defensible way to go beyond what ITE had to say about it. Importantly, in our impact fee rate study here, we specifically included many of the projects in our pedestrian and bicycle master plan as independent projects, in addition to what shown in our conference of plan for the capacity for adding projects. That list becomes multimodal. As I mentioned, we're promoting a complete networks program here. This is all based on interest, which we're going to talk about next. Person interest, we're meeting anyway a person chooses to get around by any of the four major modes, driving, walking, driving, and writing a transit. Carpooling or ridesharing is also a very important mode to be recognized. We keep track of this each year with U.S. Census data. This rate study did a great job in allocating physical space and relating that in terms of its development's proportion and shares from a nexus standpoint. You will hear the word nexus a lot from Julie's presentation. It's critical when you're looking at the legal aspects of trading one is impact-fee ordinances. These are the steps for a living multimodal TIFs. In the rate study, is not how we do for each project. We've got a set fee. Importantly though, and as I mentioned, we've identified transportation and system in improvements based on what our principles of plan is. Then mechanically the number of person trips created, look at the TIF-eligible project list and remove ineligible projects. There are some, as was mentioned in Julia's presentation. There are places that don't include maintenance. We certainly don't. State law does not allow TIFs to be repaired for maintenance. It's for new infrastructure. We also accounted for any external funding with grants not shown in our principles of LAN, what our expectations are. That determines total project costs. Here it is for us, $160 million over the planning period. When you get on my person trip, it turns into $3763. That is not what we were recommending at the time. It is the legal maximum from a nexus standpoint. But want to make sure everybody and stands is not what we were proposing. At the same time, we looked, again, at our urban TIF reduction program. We saw an opportunity to increase the reductions in our most TIF-mature urban villages. That's an urban village on the south of the city. That's because they're much more developed from a structure standpoint. Both have high frequency transit, and both have sidewalk and bicycle networks available. So then, we took this to the public process, and we had public open houses. We worked with the building industry Association, Chamber of Commerce. We took this to the transportation commission and the city Council. What we established is, even though this is what the legal maximum was, the $3763, is not what we were recommending at the time. We looked at, okay, what are some alternatives for phasing in over three years to get to the legal maximum. That might be too much too soon. What about over six years? This is what we landed on in terms of our recommendation. So, what happened is the city Council agreed with us. We adopted our rate system with a six or seven-year. here's the seven-year. We began incrementing in 2019. Each year it increases slightly. Over time, we get to the maximum 325. This is just an example showing what it costs. Typical land-use. Single-family homes. You got multi-family apartments to we found in the more urban areas. You've got offices. You got retail shopping and, again, that's just an example. Then, furthermore, we tried to show everybody what this would look like again. Other places, the Washington state averages in surrounding jurisdictions. And, over time, what had happened is the Washington average had been increasing. We were still lagging behind though. As I mentioned before, this would get us very close to what the average is going to be. This is what you can see on this slide. By 2025, we think we'll only be 6% below will be calculated for the average in 2020. Now who knows what the average is going to be by the time we get to 2025. But for comparative purposes, this is what we have available. What we're trying to do is make ours more relative to other impact fees in Western Washington and cover our transportation system needs at the same time. So that's it from me. I'll be happy to try and answer questions you now or later in the general session.


Great, Chris. Thank you very much. Once again, this is Terry Reed. We're going to spend about three or four minutes answering some questions we have lined up in the chat room. If you have more for us, feel free to type them in. The first question is from Chuck. He asked, to encourage Intel, did you reduce the amount for Intel versus PIP and calling for growth? And, the former, how did you make up the funding?


No, we do not penalize other development. What we did in creating the production program for TIF, was I very specifically spent time going down the TIF general manual and created a system whereby I could show that, because of the presence of sidewalks and bikeways, as well as highway transit, it resulted in less vehicle trips being generated. That was a mandate for charging less transportation impact fees. At that time, our system was still vehicle based. But that's how we made it legally defensible. we could literally show that it would produce less vehicle trips, therefore, less TIF. It was an incentive in the truest sense. If you're producing less vehicle trips, get charge less TIF. With multimodal transportation impact fee system, the same thing holds true. Only now we have the project list that intrudes bicycle and pedestrian projects to create legal nexus when we charge the moment. All development is charged evenly. But it's based on how many person trips are actually being generated and in the urban villages there's still the reductions that apply because, overall, they're creating this trip's total.


Great point I believe that you can answer the question that I'm about to pose from Dena. He says, following up on Chuck's question, did Bellingham do it for Dallas? Did they come from the TIF reduction that encouraged infield that develop meant?


Again, that's a matter of opinion. I would say, I can easily suggest, yes, it has. We've had had well over 100 infield projects with over 1200 residential units that have benefited from the TIF production program. Hundreds of thousands of square feet of office and retail space as well as some institutional uses. So, as I mentioned, it's reduced TIF by about $1.3 million for developers who took the risk of developing in an urban village area. In recognition of everything we're doing, I also want to mention, you know, the city is heavily investing in multimodal transportation infrastructure all the time, which is enhancing these urban villages over time as well.


David wants to know, any expense for application for mold-specific impact fees such as a dollar per pedestrian chip or a dollar per vehicle trip?


No, we don't break it down that way. Again, what we do, on the reverse of that, is kind of take the trips and merge them at the beginning of the equation to what we call person trips. A person trip is simply somebody moving from. A to point B in any mode.


Great. The last question we will field during this part before we move on to the next presentation, Mark wants to know how much the impact fees are used on projects and how much on staff?


You cannot use transportation impact fee revenue on anything but infrastructure. That includes staff wages. It has to go to the actual capital portion of the project. And as I showed, you know, percentagewise, the revenue that we collect here pales in comparison to what we actually spend for capital infrastructure. The money gets spent almost instantly, it just gets vaporized. If we were charging the true cost, what costs to build capital into structure, it would be far more.


Great. Two notes. One, Carol put into the chat pod the link to the Portland transportation system developed charges video that he mentioned. So, feel free to click on that when you get a chance. Then, just a shout out from Nathaniel. He loves your presentation.


Thank you very much, Nathaniel.


So now we're going to turn to our final presentation. Then we're going to hear from Victoria. The director of planning and develop it department for Pascoe County and Florida. Take it away.


Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Pascoe County, Florida. Can you hear me? Can you guys hear me?


Yes, please, go ahead.


Okay, good. Okay. Thank you, everyone. I'll be talking about fees in Florida and, in particular, the Pascoe County experience. For today, I'll talk to you about why we moved to mobility fees from the typical transportation-impact fees. Howard promoted smart growth, I'll walk you through how ability fees work here in Pascoe County as well as some of the functions that are built into the mobility fee planning framework. Also, I'll end up the presentation with an example in terms of recent efforts. Which going to give you all a bit of some context, Pascoe County is located in Florida. We're on the west coast. The little red County on the map that you see on your screen is where we're located. The northern region of the Tampa Bay area. So, we are the third County in the Tri-County area with Ellis County and Oak Grove County to the southwest. Next slide. So why do we move to mobility fees? This is from the typical transportation impact fees. In 2011, sort of the back end of some areas, perhaps the height of the great recession, Pascoe County had the highest percent of commuters in the Tampa Bay region. An employment rate of about 12% but we they also had the highest impact fees in the region at the time. We were also expensing fairly unsustainable growth patterns in terms of sprawl. This was causing a lot of stress, as you can imagine, on the local budgets, as well as what the great recession was asking of governments at the time. We were also a jurisdiction that was in a monocultural tax phase, meaning, we were highly dependent on residential property taxes. And so, the transportation mitigation was very complex at the time. It encourages sprawl, which is only exacerbating the situation, as more and more residential poured in and dependency grew and congestion grew at the same time then we were able to keep up with that, any system that had been established in 1985. That was when the transportation impact fee structure had originally been set up in Pascoe County and remained unchanged all that time. Right before the recession, however, there was a large effort to prevent the Pascoe County conference of plan with this update done in Florida every seven years. The conference of plan was undergoing the evaluation appraisal report. We have to basically tell the state what changes we are going to make within the comprehensive plans. And so new future land-use categories, what is that defined? The town centers around future venues for one as well as the employment center for future landings and in the Palm Springs future landings, there was discussion about how to create a downtown environment that can be sort of retrofitted within the county as a mitigating factor for all the sprawl that was taking place. Then the employment center, as I mentioned previously, there was quite a bit of unsustainable growth. We had the highest percent of commuters in the Tampa Bay region heading south to Pinellas and one way to mitigate that was to establish appointment-generating land-use with them Pascoe County so that people didn't have to travel to other areas nearby. That would just the local and regional transportation area. We also adopted a transitional area to help facilitate the establishment of the town centers for additional land-use. We created a rural protection area in 2006. Later on, in 2007-2008, there was a new ND area planned. This is more locally known as the villages of pastors, which were a series of villages that were built in the eastern part of the county that had compact development at their heart. At the same time, the state of Florida established the ULI one, the Tampa Bay regional area or back then, the Tampa Bay transportation agency. So that influenced the county's desire to think about transit in a more regional perspective. Then there was the new alignment towards that were commissioned back in 2008 and 2011 I believe. That helped the county understand its focus in terms of market areas and made recommendations to make things more predictable, less time-consuming in terms of transportation and mitigation systems. The focus for the reports and what they recommended was to look at wanting to see the development in traditional neighborhoods as a means to facilitate a chain from the transportation impact fee to a mobility fee. So the mobility fee planning foundation bested in the urban land Institute's' advisory reports from 2016, as just mentioned .then, also in the strategic plan, it happens in five have your increments here in Pascoe County, and the Pascoe County business plan, which was to be focused and to take leadership, make results that are measurable, establish an operations focus, plan strategically and build up our workforce. These three documents provided the foundation for the county to engage when embarking upon an ability fee development. So, the county wanted to make a change and follow the plans that were made before them in the recession. Also, during their session. This was by updating the impact-fee system. We wanted to make that change in order to promote growth. So back in sector 11, Pascoe County was one of the first Kennedys in Florida, perhaps in the state, to adopt mobility fees. Our ordinance, at that time, became a model ordinance that other counties and municipalities in Florida looked at and took their cues from to inform their transportation nexus ease. The county opted to promote smart growth in three tiers by establishing urban service and concentration areas. A suburban area and a rural area. A very simple concept in terms of how to direct growth of the economy. The intent was to promote economic of element by reducing trips on the roads. If you read between the lines, that means bringing in employment-generating venues into the county so that people can work in the area that they live in. If you do that, you're going to reduce commute times by attracting businesses locally through incentives. Some incentives become a key piece of the puzzle. So, a number of policies have to be adopted in order to tip the mobility fee framework set up in Pascoe. The first policy was to concentrate growth as much as possible in the urban-service area. The bottom of the slide, I have two maps. One on the left, public service area, illustrates where the urban service area is moving with the county. On the west side of the coast, where you have the most populous, 250,000 people along the coast. Then the South market is the West-market area along the coast. Then the portion that extends along the southern boundary of the county is known as the submarket area. Then a very large area is combined there in the greater landmass than what the silly of Philadelphia is. I believe it's bigger than Texas combined with them. These are very large areas where we're going to concentrate growth. The county also said, we're going to establish in mobility fee based on cost. We're going to subsidize it with a bye nominal fee for preferred uses and locations using gas tax money, sales tax money and about 1/3 of our tax income and financing funds. Tax income and financing district from the county is coming wide. Then we had a number of economic of element policies that were encouraging the creation of jobs and the attraction of innovation qualified and targeted at the industry for the DI, which is a specific type of industry sectors for the state of Florida and what they seek to attract in to the state. Then the county's work to bring them home, essentially, with their jurisdictions. Then, finally, the county wanted to incentivize land-use is based on design and preferred uses. So, I'll walk through these acronyms in just a minute. But for and incentivizing TOD, TND, and other manufacturable areas. The map on the right side of the slide illustrates the different market areas that are within the county. So, there are five market areas. West and South market area, which you can see on the urban service areas, but also, in the center, which is sort of a medium-blue-green color central or suburban. Then the dark green color at the north end of the county is the rural North market area. Thanks for pointing that out. Far east end of the county is the East market area. Definitely makes for rural and suburban as well. So, the focus of some of the design perspectives for these fees, most on will become mixed-use production measures, or MUTRM. What MUTRM is you think about transportation development in its light form. It's a walkable development pattern that consists of a mixture of land uses and compact of element areas. The idea is, of course, that you can put residential, commercial, office, even some forms of light industrial in close proximity to one another. You won't have to get into your car to drive to work or to go shopping. That is the mixed-use production measures concept. Then we opted to incentivize traditional neighborhood design, which is, of course, walkable as well. But there's more of a form focus, a PT-style development when you're trying to influence not just a horizontal layout but also the vertical layout. There is a recognition that there has been more cost associated with that. So, the ability-fee structure attempts to incentivize that. Then, also, there's the transit-oriented div element design concept with mobility fee's framework is trying to incentivize them. That's the county specifically where it's mostly about bus transit systems in the Tampa Bay region which doesn't have much in the form of rail as some other parts of the country or parts of the state. All of this is based on trip generation. The more mixed-use you can create him the more transit that can be used to lower the trip generation. the idea is that higher impacts pay more. And so, you try to incentivize internal captures for trip generation. So, you use good planning and designing to make that happen. Then, on the images, you'll see some of the different types of development that has come about on the last. There's an area of a new development called striking range, the highest-selling development in the Tampa Bay region. I think it's 30th in the country by some estimates. In the middle is from and of element called North point, which is used for these principles for TND. On the far right is a transit plan for the transit station that has been discussed recently. In order to come up with incentives for the different types of designs, consultants were hired to analyze different forms of development. Here you can see Greenfield, the Greenfield POD. As actually a green field but also called Greenfield. In the early 2010s, a series of studies also proved how internal captures work and identify the lower impacts for the transportation networks as a result. You could obtain higher property values with lower manageable costs to increase greater revenues in case it would create desirable walk-through impacts for communities. The design met mean means the incentivize Asian of what the county considered and designed. So how do these mobility fees work? Earlier I had mentioned that there were three tiers, urban, suburban, and rural. Based on these tiers, there's a fee that is paid that is higher in a rural area and lower in the urban areas. In order to assess such fees, you have to establish assessment districts. This map basically illustrates the different types of assessment districts that exist in Haskell County. You'll notice that there are three or four different colors on the map, the shape of brown. The West market and the South market area are sort of divided. Even though there's the one urban service area, the West market area is much older, and it requires quite a bit of redevelop it along the coast. It was developed mostly in the 1960s and '70s and '80s, whereas the South market area is a place of current hot developments. So, redevelopment depends on -- Or takes on a new emphasis, in this scheme. The assessment districts are basically associated with collecting fees in the urban -- With the most not the fees there, in order to have growth located within the urban areas. Then there is a medium fee associated with a suburban, which is the orange color that you see in the middle of the county. Then the rural fees are established sort of in the beige or pinkish color on the north end. Subsidies are based on location in the form of north to south, geography of the county. They're also based on location because of their design. If you look closely at the map, you'll see that there are certain communities that have the MUTRM TND or TOD designation. Those are their own assessment districts in and of themselves. So, for example, some of the elements in the South market area, they would pay the urban fee, mobility fee, but they would get discounted because they're a MUTRM, mixed-use measurable community. There would be a further discount on top of the discount that they're getting for locating this within the urban service area. The urban district that is. Then the collection of the fees is occurring horizontally or East-West across the county. The distribution of the fees, however, in terms of funding, network upgrades and maintenance, occurs North to South. As you can see on this map, a little more clearly, you'll notice that much of the county's main road infrastructure is a north-south orientation. That sort of makes sense in terms of how the county developed and its orientation towards the city of Tampa, which is to the south in Hillsboro County and with a large relation area there. There's not a lot of East-West travel that's taking place. It's just 054 slash 56 and south end, 052, kind of on the north end, where that has most of the arterial, East-West traffic, particularly East-West traffic. So, the benefit districts are attempting to equitably distribute the mobility from the networks. You're collecting a lot of fees in the urban service area, it makes sense because that's what the growth occurs, and we need to maintain it there. By encouraging growth into the urban areas though, your discouraging growth into the rural areas, yet they still add in the structure that they can maintain there. So, the north-south orientation of the benefit district is easier to satisfy that benefit from the dual national nexus test that we've been hearing about in other presentations. Before I move on from this slide, there are six municipalities shown on the map point vast majority of the counties have incorporated the sickness abilities. San Antonio and all these cities have their own transportation impact fee regime. They can opt into the county's mobility fee system if they wanted to and collect mobility fees in the framework of the county's mobility fee system and then use it for their own purposes. But, today, none of the cities have opted in. Dave maintained their own office systems. So, the fee structure has tier-mobility fee rates. As you mentioned, lower fees are in the urban service and concentration areas as opposed to these suburban market areas, tending to incentivize the developer to see on the right, a rendering from the West market area with a develop and plan for U.S.-19. It's the golf Coast Highway in our county. Higher fees in the suburban and rural market areas with the logic of this being that for this chip playing it requires a higher level of service standard, which means higher fees. We have more of the structure for impacting when you have leverage. The West-market area, going to be shortages because you can ride your bicycle to places or not travel far from the neighborhood into a commercial area or an employment area. On the right is a map of the Northeast or rural areas in Pascoe County. The street network is very sparse. Mainly agricultural development there. And so, a trip out there is going to travel much further distances and affect more infrastructure just looking into the local supermarket, wherever they need to go. I mentioned a little earlier that we have preferred rates for land-use, design and for redevelop it. Some of the land-uses that we have that are incentivizing it 100% our office land uses, all sorts of industrial venues, lodging and hotel land uses. These are mainly to pursue a couple of objectives. Often, an industrial, in order to bring employment locally into the county, lodging has a tourism case associated with it. Not only do hotels bring good jobs, but they bring in tourists that and spend their money locally. Then depending on the industry sector, hotels often piggyback -- One develop and takes place -- In terms of industrial. For example, in Pasco County, there's an aviation training center where airline pilot come into the county and learn how to fly new airplanes. If you get a 737 license or another concept, the aviation center is always full. A lot of the hotels are full of pilots costly coming and flying into Pasco County and waiting for their turn to be trained. You can see the synergy they have displayed. In terms of the design I had discussed earlier, projects that achieve the designation of mixed-use production measures or MUTRM, receive a 25% discount on their mobility fee assessment. So, if they're located, let's say, the urban service area, they will have to pay the urban service standard fee. If they become a Koontz project, they get a 25% discount on top of it. Something more traditional neighborhood designs get a 50% discount in this period. If they meet the design period for the oriented department, 75% discounts. All of this is going to influence the planning and thus the impact on the transportation network .then, in terms of redevelop it in the West market area, which is the map on the slide, the county, the water county commissioners, have opted to incentivize mobility fees at 100% for the West market area went it is a redevelopment project. That's to encourage redevelop it to go in to support this Alder section of the county. also incentivizes land that's vacant and being developed at 100%. And also incentivizes affordable housing, not just for the West market area but throughout the entire county here. In terms of the mobility fee table, I'll walk through them in just a second and show you what the development plan is. These are based on trip generation from the I.D. manual. The established mechanisms for most similar uses. Obviously, you can't list out every single possible use that's out there. But the mobility fee table's attempt to establish the most simple use, sometimes you have a use that's not quite -- You don't quite know how this how you want to designate the mobility fee charts. But the trip generation, similar to some other type of use, I've seen some things even get compared to bowling alleys, for example. It's kind of interesting at times. But you're basing the trip generation on impact. So, if one use had a trip generation impact that is similar to the use that you were talking about, it's considered a most similar use in that sense. It comes with its own definition of land uses. It has a built-in give ability to dispute the marketing capability fee rates and allows applicants or developers to do independent trip generation studies in order to align their use with the most similar use. Finally, the mobility fee table assessed capital costs for roads, transit, bicycle activities and the strategic mobile system. I will talk a little bit about that in just a second. Also, it establishes an mistreat of fees for the program. So, there are 13 tables, actually, there are 39 tables, as you consider all the different special planning areas in the county. 13 main tables though. You can kind of see the permutations that need to happen for these urban standards and urban version that discounts fees at 35%. Then there's an urban area for these counsel fees at 57% and so on and so forth with different tiers instructors. The difference is in the West market development area with 100% fee reductions. So, reading the tables, I would expect you to go through all of this, but at the top, there are the different categories where the fees are being derived from. As an example of what the table looks like, this blue column sits on the far-right end is the column that's most important. That's the net mobility fee. That's what's really interesting about the mobility fee system here in Pasco, is a give you the true cost of what each portion of the transportation system actually costs. Then it tells you how much the local jurisdiction is willing to incentivize this particular land-use code and what you have to then pay is a net mobility fee. So, as you can see on the left, you'll have different types of land-use categories organized according to lodging or various types of similar situations for finance retail, etc. and there are breakdowns of different types of use in each of these categories that affects the rates. Next slide. So, I mentioned briefly, strategic, intermodal system. The strategic intermodal system, I have essentially floored up state highways, basically. U.S. 19, for example, Interstate 75 the Suncoast Parkway, which is a Florida Turnpike Road. Portions of U.S. 41, state Highway 456, all of these are either Florida Turnpike or Florida D.O.T. jurisdictional roadways. And the use of the funding of strategic intermodal facilities requires the D.O.T. consultation as well as the regional transit systems. These are categories of AFIS. Now I'm going to walk through a little bit of the assumptions that play in the background of mobility fees. Some of the key assumptions you have to take into account for mobility fees are the growth rates and personal amount of travel. This is measuring basically the effects of capacity on your roadhouse, capacity as you network and are capable of caring, how much there is a new development, reducing the capacity and what's left once you have to build in order to compensate for this shortage. The key document to help track all that is the long-range transportation plan. The document also identifies the most recent appellation production. In order to understand how the person will travel and be affected according to the recent proof. When we look at all of that, there is a level of service consideration that needs to be made. In Pasco County's case, there's more tolerance for congestion in the urban service area, which is where we were making growth take place, or encouraging growth to take place, rather. You have to consider the expansion of transit operations and what kind of tax increment residue you can direct towards those operations. Then, last tolerance for congestion in the suburban and rural areas. These all have higher fees. Because we're trying to direct more development into the urban area, the suburban and rural areas should be less congested because they're more spaced out. Then, finally, measured levels of service areas arrive rather than a roadblock areas. We're not measuring our LOS for a particular facility. You're measuring it for a geographic network. Some of the funding assumptions that go into this include looking at the local sales tax commitment via public referendums, for the County of Pasco. This portion for Pasco then goes directly towards funding transportation improvements. As a portion of the gas tax that's used for capital. While most is used for operation and maintenance for info structures, some of that is used for capacity cases. As well as the establishment of the 90-growth rate in terms of property developed for financial planning purposes. Importantly, in such a framework, there is no increase in property management fees. I won't spend too much time on the cost assumptions. Generally, though, this is what you have to take a look at when you're considering what costs will go into the mobility fee framework from the interest age rules in the transit capital costs for facilities. I'm going to really quickly breezed through a recent effort. We're currently working to update an ordinance with fees that have remained mostly unchanged since 2011. 10 years into the system, finally created a big update. two previous updates have already occurred. Generally, mobility fee framework here in Pasco County generates about $30 million per year. This is a fee -- The amount of fees we collect is sufficient to support the expansion of road systems that we have. Being in Florida, we have the benefit of not having this use on our roads. That is very helpful. Recently, the Florida legislature passed House Bill fee 37, which required updates to be done every four years. No more than 50% of an increase in a fee can occur within a four-year period. If you're going to increase the fees, you have to increase them within a particular range if you're going to do these increases in two years or than the particular range, you will increase over the four years in equal and all steps. One other update that we did was that we indexed the fee against increases -- Against cost increases -- That have D.O.T. estimates for info structure. So, every year we know that transportation demonstration fees are assessed. And so when we noted that our mobility fee has to be able to keep up with those rising costs him a it was updated this year to have the mobility fees increase 3% annually to establish rotations for users of the mobility-fee system, which will be the developers and residents of the county. In the previous example of what an updated analysis might look like, here's this chart. Basically, it's broken down into different tier structures, urban, suburban, and rural. Then it defines standards, ULI seven, TOD fees, how this kind of permit hates as we test different land-use codes against different fee projection inclusions. Then we also compare it with neighboring jurisdictions to see how competitive our mobility fee is. So, in the proposed 25 fees, for example, the rural area of Pasco County, $1000 mobility fee assessment, this is for single-family detached in the 2000 square feet. This is $13,000. For the city of Tampa, $2000.13, because they're a highly urban environment. You make these comparisons to make sure that you can retain a competitive edge against your neighboring jurisdictions. And then, you know, where do we present this to the public? What are we present in my now to the public? It's the story of expressing lower growth rate than we expected in 2018. But the quantity of need hit as much as we thought it would. Nevertheless, however, because of the structure costs have been rising and we're collecting less because the growth rate is lower, we still need to increase our fees, which is generally the story for these fancy calculations. Importantly, the mobility fee is based on the capacity and ratio, which is a telling list. It's kind of a level of service of measurement for the overall mobility fee. The flipside of that in terms of how much revenue the mobility fee system is generating on the 25-year horizon. What we're anticipating is the $3.1 trillion budget for 35 years. We balanced that budget to within 1.4%. We have about $44 million of excess, which is not much of an excess hurt the city Florida requires that you collect fees -- Enough fees -- To pay your way forward. You should not be making profit, in other words. So, if you're interested in more information about our mobility fees comment on our website. Go to that link and access a lot of the documents. 2018 mobility fee update, as soon as the 2021 mobility fee is done, you will find them on the same page there. Thank you. That's my presentation. They're great. Thank you. We've got a couple of questions lined up in the chat room. If you have more, please fill them in. This relates for all of the presenters. Nathaniel says, he has known impact fees in general. Is this something that exists in every city, state, and region? Julie, do you want to address that?


Impact fees primarily occur at the local level. Municipalities and county level in different states allow different things. Not everyone is allowed an impact fee at the county level. In some cases, their interjurisdictional fees as well, like several in California, Sacramento County, with interjurisdictional impact fees where you actually see an impact across several jurisdictions. Did that answer your question?


Great. I think it did. We have another question. From what you shared, the ULI report sounded more like a market-sending questionnaire. Was that something along the lines of that?


The ULI report was an urban land Institute that came into Pasco County and assessed the planning period items that were prevalent back in 2008. Then they came back and did a reassessment of progress that was made between 2008 and 2011. So, it was very much a report card, if you will, of how well the county was doing with its planning. So it wasn't, you know, like a market assessment so much as it was a critique on planning. Though they did include in there that, you know, better planning would result in better economic development for the county.


Okay, great. A couple of things to note. One, you can download all of today's presentations in their in the file-share pod. So, feel free to download those. Also, just wanted to mention Chris Corneau put into the chat pod and said, I should have mentioned the Washington state law allows 80% reduction of tips for low-income housing project and we will know how to incorporate that into their TIF area. -- Their ordinance. Let's see. Joseph has a question. On the last screen with the projected revenues of $3 trillion with a T?


Yes. Mobility fee structures have a 25-year horizon in Pasco County. So yeah, I'm sorry, not chilling, my numbers are off now. $3.1 billion. I'm sorry. Yes, $3.1 billion.


Billion is still a big number.


Yes. Should be $1 billion. Becky, Joseph, for calling that out for us.


We would now like to open the phone lines to see if there are any questions by those on the telephones?


Sure. As a reminder, if you like to ask a question on the phone line, you may unmute on your telephone keypad now.


While we wait to see if anyone's on the phone, anyone has a question, roadway capacity adding improvements tend to be expensive and continue to escalate. Any insights into the longevity of impact fees? Should that be updated every year, every three years?


Typically, I believe, on an annual basis. To give an example, in San Diego, to get to San Diego, they would allow a cost escalation factor every year based upon construction cost indices. Every year, once they set the baseline, they actually increase with whatever the cost index is within the year. In this case, there are about 70 impact fees for-maladies and counties that have become a major source for a long time.


I'll chime in for Melanie here. As I showed, our impact-fee-based rates do increase every year based on what counties have adopted. But in terms of updating the actual TIF program, that typically happens along with our comprehensive plan update. Because what we're trying to do is update our transportation system needs and determine what the elements share a portion of that overall cost. Usually when we update our call plan, it's immediately followed by an update to the TIF system.


I can jump in on our experience. It's important to update every three to five years, which is the pattern that we've been following. Because if you look at the fees being connected, they're going to fall behind on the costs. That will happen in our case this year, where some of our fees had the increase of more than 13%. That's because they had been unchanged from 2011 and rising costs put the mobility fee framework in a deficit. We had to course correct. I think updating helps to keep the impact fees more effective and influences their longevity, for sure.


Great, thanks. Just to note, once again, all of the slides are available in the file-share. It's one document that contains all three presentations. Let's see. I think Chris has put in the link for Bellingham for Intermodal transportation planning. That report on annual mobility. And then we have one last question. David's question seems to tie in with basically why there's a call for increments annually, as showed in Thay's presentation. It's also we should focus on the actual trends or data though. Any responses to Nathaniel's assertion?


Are you talking about actual trends, revenue collected? As I mentioned, the case of San Diego, a coast-escalated impact fee for every year. As I mentioned, the cost of construction costs that increase.


All right. Did we have any colors on the line, on the phone?


No questions on the lines.


All right. I think we've responded to all the questions in the chat pod. With that, I'm going to turn it over to Pepper, who will give you information on getting credit as well as the evaluation. Pepper?


Thank you, Terry. I just want to confirm, for Tonya, that the Pasco County slides are included in those first files available, the file share window, all three slides are built into that PDF. And, at this point, we would like to remind the audience that this is just one of a series of capture webinars for value being offered. We have another one later this month on special assessments. They're number. This is P.A. We will be ready for release at that time. Two more after that to be released later, in the fall. So, with that, Holland pulling up an evaluation tool, we encourage you to give us your feedback on today's webinar. Use that when planning out your webinars. And, as I mentioned in the chat window just now, if you are looking for participation cover mission, your participation in today's webinar, you can send your request via email to TBARTA. The email address is shown in the window on the upper-left corner now. It's available in the evaluation instructions. Once again, the primer, written by Julie too, for these slides in the file share window. So, with that, we would like to thank today's presenters for participating today. Also, for the audience, asking great questions and being very engaged. We would also like to acknowledge the ongoing support for the Highway administration's conference. With that, that is all for today's event. Thank you and we come back for August 25th. Thanks again.


That concludes our conference for today. Thank you for your purchase patient today. You may now disconnect.


[ Music]


[ Event concluded] This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately.

>>