Item E1

Impact Fee Advisory Committee – Oct. 15, 2019

Item E1 — original pdf

Backup

Thumbnail of the first page of the PDF — Page 1 of None page

Austin Transportation DepartmentStreet Impact FeesImpact Fee Advisory Committee: 10-15-20192Overview•Recap Recent Activity on SIF•Impact Fee Maximum Fee Calculation Examples•Service Units Explanation•Mitigation Comparison Examples•Policy Considerations (Discussion)•Schedule•Questions3SIF Activity Recap4Past Meetings and Actions•June 13th–Mobility Committee•Discussed project schedule and questions on LUA and RCP•Early July –RCP Posted on website•August 7th–Briefing to Austin Chamber•August 8th–Council to adopt LUA / RCP Public Hearing•Held open to action on August 22nd•August 21st–Mobility Committee •Additional questions on LUA and RCP•August 22nd–Council adopted LUA and RCP part of Report5Maximum Impact Fee Development6Impact Fee CalculationHow are Impact Fees Calculated?•Land Use and Population Projections (converted to Service Units)•Develop 10-Year Impact Fee CIP (RCP)•Remove costs associated with existing development and growth at 10+ years•Calculate Pre-Credit Max Assessable Impact Fee•Credit Calculation UnitsService New($) CIP theofCost eRecoverabl Unit ServicePer FeeImpact =Draft CompleteIn Process7Impact Fee Results•Study Determines Maximum Fee•Council Determines Effective Rate•End result looks like a table as follows:Service AreaDRAFTMax Impact Fee(vehicle-mile)Study DeterminesEffective Rate Impact Fee(vehicle-mile)Council DeterminesG$2,354$X,XXXI$1,333$Y,YYYDRAFT –note that “maximum fee” does not imply the assessed or collected rates proposed, only legal maximum allowed by state law.Maximum Fees do not include financing costs currently.8Accounting for Transit Proximity•Transit Proximity Adjusted Demand•50% reduction in demand applied to areas within ¼ mile of high capacity transit or 1/8 mile from 15-min routes (proportion of each service area)Service Area G Transit Demand Adjustment:•11% near transit * (50% Demand Reduction) = 5.5%•71,047 veh-mi demand reduced to 67,143 veh-miService Area I Transit Demand Adjustment:•43% near transit * (50% Demand Reduction) = 21.5%•31,043 veh-mi demand reduced to 24,336 veh-mi9DRAFT Service Area G RCPCOST OF TOTAL CIP -$192.7 MCOMPONENTS OF TOTAL CIP:COST TO MEET EXISTING DEMANDS –$34.6 M 10-YEAR COST -$158.1 MDRAFT –note that these costs do not including financing costs or Ad Valorem Tax Credit10Service Area G Draft CalculationDRAFT –note that “maximum fee” does not imply the assessed or collected rates proposed, only legal maximum allowed by state law. Maximum Fees do not include financing costs currently.G1TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE STREET IMPACT FEE RCP (FROM STREET IMPACT FEE RCPSERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B)70,0882TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND(FROM STREET IMPACT FEE RCPSERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B)12,1053NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED(LINE 1 - LINE 2)57,9834TOTAL COST OF THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE RCP WITHIN SERVICE AREA(FROM TABLES 4A TO 4P) $ 185,358,053 5COST OF NET CAPACITY SUPPLIED(LINE 3 / LINE 1) * (LINE 4) $ 153,344,595 6COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AND USAGE(LINE 4 - LINE 5) $ 32,013,458 7TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS UNADJUSTED(FROM TABLE 7 AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS)71,0478% REDUCTION IN VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND FOR TRANSIT PROXIMITY11%9TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS TRANSIT ADJUSTED(FROM TABLE 7 AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS)67,14310PERCENT OF CAPACITY ADDEDATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 9 / LINE 3)115.7%11IF LINE 9 > LINE 3, REDUCE LINE 10 TO 100%,OTHERWISE NO CHANGE100.0%12COST OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEE RCP ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 5 * LINE 11) $ 153,344,595 13TOTAL COST OF THE INTERSECTION IMPACT FEE RCPWITHIN SERVICE AREA(FROM TABLES 4A TO 4P) $ 7,324,750 14PERCENT OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ADDEDATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(FROM TABLE 6 AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS)65%15COST OF INTERSECTION IMPACT FEE RCP ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 13 * LINE 14) $ 4,787,630 16COST OF TOTAL STREET IMPACT FEE RCPATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 12 + LINE 15) $ 158,132,225 17EXISTING ESCROW FUND BALANCE $ 49,535 18COST OF THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE RCP ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW GROWTH LESS DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (LINE 16 - LINE 17) $ 158,082,690 19PRE-CREDIT, PRE-FINANCING MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICE UNIT(LINE 18 / LINE 9) $ 2,354 20FINANCING COSTS(FROM APPENDIX C)21INTEREST EARNINGS(FROM APPENDIX C)22CREDIT FOR AD VALOREM TAXES(FROM APPENDIX C)23RECOVERABLE COST OF STREET IMPACT FEE RCP AND FINANCING(LINE 18 + LINE 20 - LINE 21 - LINE 22)24MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT(LINE 23 / LINE 9)SERVICE AREA:11DRAFT Service Area I RCPCOST OF TOTAL CIP -$124.9 MCOMPONENTS OF TOTAL CIP:COST TO MEET EXISTING DEMANDS –$88.0 M 10-YEAR COST -$36.9 MDRAFT –note that these costs do not including financing costs or Ad Valorem Tax Credit12Service Area I Draft CalculationDRAFT –note that “maximum fee” does not imply the assessed or collected rates proposed, only legal maximum allowed by state law. Maximum Fees do not include financing costs currently.I1TOTAL VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED BY THE STREET IMPACT FEE RCP (FROM STREET IMPACT FEE RCPSERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B)35,2732TOTAL VEH-MI OF EXISTING DEMAND(FROM STREET IMPACT FEE RCPSERVICE UNITS OF SUPPLY, APPENDIX B)24,0153NET AMOUNT OF VEH-MI OF CAPACITY ADDED(LINE 1 - LINE 2)11,2584TOTAL COST OF THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE RCP WITHIN SERVICE AREA(FROM TABLES 4A TO 4P) $ 107,955,500 5COST OF NET CAPACITY SUPPLIED(LINE 3 / LINE 1) * (LINE 4) $ 34,455,902 6COST TO MEET EXISTING NEEDS AND USAGE(LINE 4 - LINE 5) $ 73,499,598 7TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS UNADJUSTED(FROM TABLE 7 AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS)31,0438% REDUCTION IN VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND FOR TRANSIT PROXIMITY43%9TOTAL VEH-MI OF NEW DEMAND OVER TEN YEARS TRANSIT ADJUSTED(FROM TABLE 7 AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS)24,33610PERCENT OF CAPACITY ADDEDATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 9 / LINE 3)216.1%11IF LINE 9 > LINE 3, REDUCE LINE 10 TO 100%,OTHERWISE NO CHANGE100.0%12COST OF ROADWAY IMPACT FEE RCP ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 5 * LINE 11) $ 34,455,902 13TOTAL COST OF THE INTERSECTION IMPACT FEE RCPWITHIN SERVICE AREA(FROM TABLES 4A TO 4P) $ 16,965,000 14PERCENT OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ADDEDATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(FROM TABLE 6 AND LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS)14%15COST OF INTERSECTION IMPACT FEE RCP ATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 13 * LINE 14) $ 2,398,501 16COST OF TOTAL STREET IMPACT FEE RCPATTRIBUTABLE TO GROWTH(LINE 12 + LINE 15) $ 36,854,403 17EXISTING ESCROW FUND BALANCE $ 4,425,879 18COST OF THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE RCP ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW GROWTH LESS DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (LINE 16 - LINE 17) $ 32,428,524 19PRE-CREDIT, PRE-FINANCING MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICE UNIT(LINE 18 / LINE 9) $ 1,333 20FINANCING COSTS(FROM APPENDIX C)21INTEREST EARNINGS(FROM APPENDIX C)22CREDIT FOR AD VALOREM TAXES(FROM APPENDIX C)23RECOVERABLE COST OF STREET IMPACT FEE RCP AND FINANCING(LINE 18 + LINE 20 - LINE 21 - LINE 22)24MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT(LINE 23 / LINE 9)SERVICE AREA:13Service Units14Service Unit▪Chapter 395 “Service unit” definition▪Standardized measure of consumption attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with generally accepted engineering or planning standards and based on historical data and trends applicable to the political subdivision in which the individual unit of development is located during the previous 10 years▪Roadway utilizes vehicle miles -One vehicle to travel one mile15Service Unit –Two Components1.Trip Generation•ITE Trip Generation Manual –10thEdition2.Trip Length•National Household Travel Survey •Travel Demand Modeling•Inside/Outside the Loop Differs•Service Area G is “Outside Loop”•Service Area I is “Inside Loop”Note: These are the sources of information that are used in development of the LUVMET Table handout.16Service Unit –FormulaService Unit = Trip Rate * (1-Pass-by) * Max Trip LengthWhere•Trip Rate –Max PM Peak Hour Trip Rate•Pass-by Discount (% of Trips)•Max Trip Length = Smaller of Trip Length * 50% or 6 miles17Service Unit -ExamplesTrips0.99 Vehicles(PM Peak)(ITETrip Generation)X Trip Length2.90 MilesVehicle-Miles2.87 Vehicle-MilesTrips3.81 Vehicles(PM Peak)(ITETrip Generation)Reduction for Pass-by Trips34% (ITETrip Generation Handbook)2.51Vehicles (PM Peak)X Trip Length2.91 MilesVehicle-Miles7.30 Vehicle-MilesRETAIL STORETrips0.99 Vehicles(PM Peak)(ITETrip Generation)X Trip Length4.30 MilesVehicle-Miles4.26 Vehicle-MilesTrips3.81 Vehicles(PM Peak)(ITETrip Generation)Reduction for Pass-by Trips34% (ITETrip Generation Handbook)2.51Vehicles (PM Peak)X Trip Length3.18 MilesVehicle-Miles7.98 Vehicle-MilesInside “the Loop” (SA I)Outside “the Loop” (SA G)Per Dwelling UnitPer 1,000 SF Gross Leasable Area (GLA)18Service Unit -Examples19Service Units –Draft Application•Outside Loop Example: $2,354/vehicle-mile (Service Area G)•Single Family –$2,354 * 4.26 = $10,028.04•15,000 SF shopping center: 15 * $2,354 * 7.98 = $281,773.80•Inside Loop Example: $1,333/vehicle-mile (Service Area I)•Single Family –$1,333 * 2.87 = $3,825.71•15,000 SF shopping center: 15 * $1,333 * 7.30 = $145,963.50•Rate collected is based on Council decision (Policy).DRAFT –note that “maximum fee” does not imply the assessed or collected rates proposed, only legal maximum allowed by state law. Maximum Fees do not include financing costs currently.20DRAFT Maximum Rate Sample ComparisonsLAND USEService Area G Draft (Outside Loop)Service Area I Draft (Inside Loop)SingleFamily Home$10,028$3,826Apartment Unit$5,673$2,1593,000ft2restaurant$83,614$47,188DRAFT –note that “maximum fee” does not imply the assessed or collected rates proposed, only legal maximum allowed by state law. Maximum Fees do not include financing costs currently.21Service Units –Other Factors1.Travel Demand Management2.Internal Capture•These are recommended to be considered in policy as discounts.22Mitigation Comparison Examples23Sample Developments:Collection Rate OptionsDEVELOPMENTUNITSMulti-Family298 unitsResidential: 298 ApartmentsOffice55,000 square feetOffice: 55,000 ft2Office24Collection Rate Comparison to DRAFT Maximum Assessable FeePrevious Austin DevelopmentPrevious AustinTIA ContributionService Area G Draft (Outside Loop)Service Area I Draft (Inside Loop)298 Apartments*$86,288$1,690,596$643,38255,000ft2Office$317,388$503,639$313,055* Assumes ITE Code 220 for Apartments (Highest Trip Gen)DRAFT –note that “maximum fee” does not imply the assessed or collected rates proposed, only legal maximum allowed by state law. Maximum Fees do not include financing costs currently.25Policy Considerations (Discussion)26Schedule27Schedule•RCP Adopted by Council August 22nd•Revisions can be made and presented during next phase•Next IFAC Meetings•Mid/Late November (Pre-Thanksgiving)•80% Draft Report•Review Policies for Ordinance•December•Draft Final Report•Public Engagement Opportunities•January / February•Draft Ordinance Review28Questions