1 / 24

RTC Board Meeting Regional Road Impact Fee Program September 21, 2012

RTC Board Meeting Regional Road Impact Fee Program September 21, 2012. Scope of Work. Land use assumptions Methodology Geographic service a rea and benefit d istricts Development p otential Economic analysis Credit program Options for transit o riented d evelopment.

micol
Download Presentation

RTC Board Meeting Regional Road Impact Fee Program September 21, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RTC Board Meeting Regional Road Impact Fee Program September 21, 2012

  2. Scope of Work • Land use assumptions • Methodology • Geographic service area and benefit districts • Development potential • Economic analysis • Credit program • Options for transit oriented development

  3. Executive Summary • Overall General Comments • Program has generated substantial revenue $81 Million – RTC Impact Fee projects with collected fees $185 Million – Developer CCFEA projects $266 Million - Total Capacity Improvements through RRIF • Changes in collections • Collections: $9 million (2005) / $750,000 (2010) • Credits issues: $24.5 million (2006) / $626,000 (2010) • Economic downturn has had significant impact on the program • Reduced development = Reduces collections • Produced changed expectations • Impact of adopting less than 100% of maximum supportable fee • Credit program • Shift away from regional priorities

  4. RRIF Program Accomplishments Regional Road Impact Fee Capacity Improvements $ 81 Million RTC Impact Fee projects with collected fees $185 Million Developer CCFEA projects $266 Million Total

  5. Methodological Recommendations • Refine factors used to derive vehicle miles of travel • Trip rates • Adjustment factors • % of new trips • Trip lengths • Trip length weighting • Re-evaluate factors included in cost/fee development • Historical versus projected costs • Consider adoption of automatic inflation adjustments in the RRIF schedules

  6. CIP Recommendations • Consider prioritizing 10-year CIP • 125 planned improvements (4th Edition) • Current CIP is not prioritized by year or importance • As a result road improvements are market (developer) driven • Collectors could be eliminated from the Regional Road Network for impact fee purposes and be designated as project-level improvements • Potential impact to RRIF Program would be explored in the next update • New development could be required to build first two lanes as project-specific improvements

  7. Summary of Policy Recommendations • Land use projections used in the 4th Edition of the RRIF program were prepared prior to the recession and 2010 Census • TischlerBise recommends more conservative land use and travel demand assumptions for the next update of regional road impact fees • Simplify land uses in fee structure (32 existing land uses) • Consolidate nonresidential land uses • Consider movement to progressive residential fee structure • Reevaluate geographic areas for RRIF program • A possible alternative would be the delineation of two service areas (tiered impact fee program) • Centers and corridors concept could be the starting point for delineating an urban area more suitable for multi-modal improvements • Should way credits are calculated be revised?

  8. Existing RRIF Credit Program • Used to pay impact fees in lieu of cash • Represent dollar value of developer built projects • Actual cost/impact fee rate = credits • Measured in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) • Life span of 20 Years • Can be traded on the open market • Must be used in the Benefit District they were earned • May be limited to 50% use on projects outside the Original Development of Record

  9. Future Credit Program Modify Future Credit Program • Eliminate the use of credits outside the development of record • Value credits in dollars in lieu of VMT’s • Issue credits based on a prioritized CIP, ie, less credits for improvements projected in the outer years • Issue credits based on the impact fees due or on the value of improvements listed in the CIP

  10. Buy-Back Program:The Policy Issues September 21, 2012

  11. Statutory Requirements NRS 278B.240: “If an owner is required … as a condition of the approval of the development, to construct or dedicate … off-site facilities for which impact fees … are imposed, the off-site facilities must be credited…”

  12. Turning Developer Improvements into Credits…? $5,000,000 CIP road built by a developer To determine # of credits: $5 M divided by Current “cost/ VMT” ($216.22/VMT) = 2,312.46 VMT’s

  13. Then What? Creditholders: • Build road Capacity, per CIP and CCFEA • Redeem credits instead of paying Impact Fees • Transfer or sell credits to others to redeem • at Market Price • within 20 years

  14. Then What? Washoe County RTC: • Accepts Impact Fee payments or Credits from New Growth • Relieved of obligation to build the CIP roads the creditholders have built

  15. Discussion Point #1 The price of a “Bought-Back” Credit is Driven by Available Funds & Demand Not: • $ cost / VMT at credit issuance; or • $ cost / VMT per impact fee calculations

  16. Discussion Point #2 Cost of No Buy-Back = Foregone Impact Fee Revenue < Increased impact fees from a Buy-Back Cost of a Buy-Back

  17. Discussion Point #3 Relationship of the CIP to the Credit Issue • Roads built for Credit were on the CIP, creating capacity RTC doesn’t need to fund • With Buy-Back, CIP needs remain

  18. Discussion Point #4 What are the unknowns? • Will Assumptions Hold? • How many creditholders will participate? • Impact on Credits that are not “Bought Back” • Is there Legal Exposure? • What are Staff and other Administrative Costs?

  19. Implementation Buy-Back Program: Who’s Eligible? • Original Creditholder? • Third-Party Creditholders? • Those Expiring Sooner? • Later?

  20. Implementation • Buy-Back: Next Steps • Revise Current Program to avoid more “excess credits” • Determine: • Buy-Back Participation • Funding Source • Confirm ROI Projections • Execute Buy-Back

  21. Implementation If No Buy-Back: Next Steps • Revise Current Program to avoid more “excess credits” • Implement remaining Recommendations

  22. Buy-Back Program:Financial Analysis September 21, 2012

  23. Financial AnalysisAssumptions • Analysis based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT’s) • Growth Rate for new development – Washoe County Consensus Forecast (WCCF) at 1.4% annually • Percent of Growth paying Impact Fees • 15% cash vs 85% credits (based on 2011 collections) • No issuance of future credits • Willingness of current credit holders to sell • Discount Rate to assess present dollar value

  24. Preliminary Results

More Related