models - growth & infrastructure...

Models for Regional & Multi-Jurisdictional Transportation Impact Fees

Presented by:Don GanerJohn GhilarducciTodd Chase

Models• Intergovernmental Agreements Model▫ Clackamas County/City of Happy Valley, Oregon▫ Columbia County, Oregon▫ Clark County, Washington▫ Deschutes County, Oregon▫ Others

Klamath County, OregonLane County, Oregon

• Regional Guidelines Model▫ Oregon City/Metro, Oregon

• Voter-Approval Model▫ Washington County, Oregon

2

Key Issues Impacting Success• Technical

▫ Calculation methodology▫ Data availability

• Political▫ History▫ Trust/distrust▫ Turf

• Policy▫ Governance▫ Accounting▫ Prioritizing expenditures▫ Equity

3


4

Distinguishing Feature

Level of Collaboration

• High – partnership among jurisdictions; project completed jointly

• Medium – lead agency invites collaboration; joint effort/agreement

• Low – single agency completes project

5

Clackamas County/Happy Valley

ClackamasCounty

HappyValley

6

Clackamas County/Happy Valley• An interlocal agreement between Clackamas County

and the City of Happy Valley governs a joint area transportation SDC

• The joint area includes the entire City of Happy Valley and unincorporated areas adjacent to the City

• A methodology based on a list of transportation projects needed for this area was developed

• The City and County each adopted the joint area transportation SDC methodology by ordinance

7

Roles & Responsibilities

Planning / SDC Calculation

Permitting / SDC Collection

Accounting / SDC Sharing

Construction / Service

Provision

Clackamas County [uninc.] [uninc.] [uninc.] [uninc.]

Happy Valley

8

9

Columbia County

St. Helens

Scappoose

Columbia County• Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with participating

cities, defining responsibilities for:▫ Planning in urban growth area outside cities

boundaries (UGA) [Cities]▫ Service provision in UGA [Shared as Agreed]▫ Fee adoption and collection [County]

• County collects and banks cities’ (St. Helens, Scappoose) SDCs (impact fees) in urban growth areas

• SDC revenues available to service provider• “County” SDC applied in rural County only

10




Accounting / SDC

Distribution


Provision

Columbia County[rural]

[UGA]

[rural]

[UGA]

St. Helens

Scappoose

FCS GROUP

11

11

Clark County, Washington

12

Clark County, Washington• Clark County is one of the fastest growing

counties in the state and nation• Adequate public facilities must be provided

consistent with County Growth Management Plan

• TIF helps new development pay “fair share”• Last major update to County TIF was in the early

2000s (no longer deemed equitable)

13




Accounting / SDC

Distribution


Provision

Clark County[rural]

[UGA]

[rural]

[UGA]

[rural]

[UGA]

[rural]

[UGA]

Vancouver (including UGA)

14

Clark County TIF Program• $690 Million (2007 $) for TIF project list• TIF rate calculations use new method

▫ Regional projects allocated to entire county▫ Local projects allocated to local districts▫ 7 Urban TIF Districts (including Vancouver)▫ 2 New Rural TIF Districts

• TIF rates vary by District ▫ Vancouver rates & policies apply within UGA

• Exemptions and reductions can reduce or eliminate the calculated TIF rate

15

TIF Boundaries

16

Regional & Local Projects Map

(9 regional projects & 25 local projects)

17

TIF Calculation Examples

Regional Project TIF Calculation

18

Clark County TIF Rate Table

TIF Rates Per ADTTIF Rates by District (with Intersection Improvements)

Mt.

Vis

ta

Haze

l Del

l

Orc

hard

s-N

orth

Orc

hard

s-So

uth

Ever

gree

n*Ea

st C

ity*

Rura

l 1

Rura

l 2

Local Projects $228 $209 $257 $62 $239 $244 $172 $0

NE 99th Street $10 $40 $126 $83 $31 $16 $11 $3

NE 119th Street $29 $30 $116 $32 $13 $4 $16 $12

NE 179th Street $177 $41 $13 $43 $11 $8 $62 $1

NE 50th Avenue $92 $16 $18 $17 $1 $1 $9 $5

NE 72nd Avenue $36 $0 $32 $10 $4 $1 $13 $0

NE 137th / 142nd Avenue $4 $0 $23 $0 $12 $4 $16 $7

Salmon Creek Interchange $33 $23 $3 $0 $0 $0 $2 $13

Andresen/Padden Parkway $8 $51 $42 $113 $26 $10 $0 $0

Padden/SR-503 $1 $4 $10 $14 $9 $1 $2 $0

Intersection Improvements $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31 $31

Total - Updated 9/18/07 $649 $445 $672 $404 $377 $321 $334 $72

Total - From Worksessions $642 $443 $674 $403 $377 $321 $335 $71

* Assumes county adopts City of Vancouver's calculated TIF rate for this district.

19

TIF Rates by District (with Intersection Improvements)

TIF Rates Per ADT

Mt.

Vis

ta

Haze

l Del

l

Orc

hard

s-N

orth

Orc

hard

s-So

uth

Ever

gree

n*

East

City

*

Rura

l 1

Rura

l 2

New Rates $649 $445 $672 404$ 377$ 321$ 334$ 72$

Current Rates 337$ 180$ 182$ 182$ 204$ 219$ 0 0

* Assumes county adopts City of Vancouver's calculated TIF rate for this district.

Clark County TIF Schedule

20

Deschutes County

21

Bend

Redmond

Deschutes County• Pre-existing interlocal agreements authorize

cities of Redmond and Bend to permit development in urban growth areas

• Cities calculate, set, and collect SDCs in UGAs• New “County” SDC applied in rural County only

22




Accounting / SDC

Distribution


Provision

Deschutes County[rural]

[UGA]

[rural]

[UGA]

[rural]

[UGA]

[rural]

[UGA]

Bend

Redmond

23

Other Models (in progress)

• Klamath County▫ Interlocal agreement

authorizes County to permit development in entire Klamath Falls UGB

▫ County and City of Klamath Falls collaborate to establish charge to apply in UGB

▫ Coordinating committee will prioritize spending

▫ No rural fee

• Lane County▫ Interlocal agreements

authorize cities of Eugene and Springfield to permit development in urban growth boundaries

▫ Cities calculate, set, and collect SDCs in UGBs

▫ “County” SDC needed for rural County and for County facilities in cities

24


25

Oregon City

26

Oregon City• Metro publishes “Promoting Vibrant Communities with

System Development Charges”• Metro funds consideration of report recommendations

into Oregon City Transportation SDC Study• Oregon City integrates select recommendations into

SDC methodology:▫ Full cost recovery▫ Buy-in component

▫ Location-based differential▫ Green design

27




Accounting / SDC Sharing


Provision

Oregon City

Metro

28


29

Washington CountyBanksNorth PlainsHillsboroForest GroveCorneliusBeavertonGastonTigardKing CityDurhamTualatinSherwoodWilsonville

30

Washington County• In 2008, voters approved an updated county-wide Transportation

Development Tax (TDT)• The TDT is collected by all cities and by the county in unincorporated areas• Projects on which TDTs can be used are included in an updateable County

transportation project list• Each project identifies the growth-required, TDT-eligible percentage of

costs• Cities bank TDTs collected within each city and can use them for any

project included in the list• TDT rates collect less than 28% of eligible costs• Cities can adopt supplemental transportation SDCs to collect all or a portion

of the 72% not included in the TDT

31


Planning / TDT Calculation

Permitting / TDT Collection

Accounting / TDT Sharing


Provision

Washington County

Cities

32

32

These models are all technically valid, but there are some advantages and disadvantages that need to be considered

33

Intergovernmental Agreements Model

Advantages DisadvantagesProvides mechanism for addressing unique needs in targeted urbanizing areas Promotes cost equity Fosters policy coordination Governance lead/support roles can be adjusted depending on unique political environment

Political support can change over time as elected officials changeAgreements can be rescinded Enforcement and accounting issues may arise Potential turf battles can arise

34

Regional Guidelines Model

Advantages DisadvantagesProvides regional perspective on growth management Intended to accomplish regional transportation & land use policies Offers guidance to smaller jurisdictions that may otherwise have limited perspective

Regional government may lack legal authority Regional policies may have limited technical basisRegional coordination may be perceived as another layer of government in the formulation of rates

35

Voter-Approval Model

Advantages DisadvantagesVoters approve and support Uniform rate; all jurisdictions collectDoes not require interlocal agreementsNo opting out or inCity flexibility on supplemental rates

Cities may collect more or less than they needDifficult to update; requires voter approval to change methodologyRisks and costs associated with voter approval

36

models - growth & infrastructure...

Documents