SLIDE 1
1
Com m unity Building w ith T t ti P j t Transportation Projects
Making Connections Conference
Boise November 13, 2008 Community, Mobility, and Environment Charles Hales, Senior Vice President HDR Engineering
If you’d like a copy… charles.hales@hdrinc.com @
Community, Mobility, and Environment
SLIDE 2 2
Community, Mobility, and Environment
What’s working…ballot measures Voters are saying “Yes” more often… What’s working…ballot measures Voters are saying “Yes” more often…
Passed:
- Albuquerque — Ongoing funding for RailRunner, other services via regional
revenue district – two measures, both approved
- California (statewide) — Intercity high-speed rail project, via bond funding
H l l R id il t f d
- Honolulu — Rapid rail system referendum.
- Imperial County, CA – local sales tax for road projects
- Los Angeles — Extensions to MetroRail rapid rail and light rail system and
Metrolink regional passenger rail, via expanded sales tax funding
- Sacramento — Streetcar project, funded by sales tax in West Sacramento
- Sonoma-Marin Counties, CA — SMART regional passenger rail project,
funded by sales tax
- Santa Barbara County, CA – local sales tax for road projects
Community, Mobility, and Environment Santa Barbara County, CA local sales tax for road projects
- Seattle — Extensions to Link light rail system, new Streetcar line, new sales
tax funding
- Stanislaus County, CA – local sales tax for road projects
- Ada County Highway District, ID – registration fee increase for roads
- Ada County Highway District, ID – registration fee increase for roads
SLIDE 3 3 Failed:
Light rail project funded by sales tax
What’s working…ballot measures Voters are saying “Yes” more often… What’s working…ballot measures Voters are saying “Yes” more often…
- Kansas City — Light rail project, funded by sales tax
- St. Louis — Ongoing funding and extensions to MetroLink light rail and
transit system, new sales tax funding
- San Jose — Extension to BART rail system, via expanded sales tax funding
- Monterey County, CA – local sales tax for road projects
Community, Mobility, and Environment
Enabling Land Use Policy Development Opportunities Transit Investment + +
What’s working…development leverage What’s working…development leverage
Densification Densification (TOD) (TOD)
Community, Mobility, and Environment
Agglomeration Agglomeration Economies Economies
SLIDE 4 4
Geographic Framework for Evaluation of Development Potential Geographic Framework for Evaluation of Development Potential
3 Zones Zone A 3 Levels of Proximity 1 Preferred Alignment Zone A Zone B Community, Mobility, and Environment Zone C
Net New Cincinnati Residential Units Compared to Baseline Development Projections Net New Cincinnati Residential Units Compared to Baseline Development Projections
4,000 Alternative - All Market Zones Baseline - All Market Zones 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 al Residential Property Units
Community, Mobility, and Environment
1,000 1,500 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 Tota
SLIDE 5 5
Net New Commercial Units Compared to Baseline Development Projections Net New Commercial Units Compared to Baseline Development Projections
3,400 3,450 s Alternative - All Market Zones Baseline - All Market Zones 3,100 3,150 3,200 3,250 3,300 3,350
- tal Commercial Property Unit
Community, Mobility, and Environment
3,000 3,050 3,100 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042 To
Parking Parking
Total area of ki i j t parking in project area (Main/Walnut to Elm/Race Via Central Parkway): 4,235,935 square feet
Community, Mobility, and Environment
, , q
97 acres
SLIDE 6 6
Economic Assessment Outcomes Economic Assessment Outcomes
Additional Residences - 1,200 - 3400 in ten years Additional Property Taxes Available - $34,000,000 S di f id t h $10 f
Community, Mobility, and Environment
Spending power of new residents – each $10 of spending yields $17,000,000 in retail activity each year
What’s working… Local Transit Funding Tools What’s working… Local Transit Funding Tools
- Local option sales or gas tax
- Tax increment financing
- Assessment districts
- Sale or joint development of public property
- Sale or joint development of public property
- City general obligation bonds
- Parking revenues (meters, garages, fines)
- Surcharge on auto registrations
- Ticket or event surcharges
- Rental car taxes
Community, Mobility, and Environment
- Local or regional transit taxes
- University fees (if a participant)
- State capital contributions (lottery or general)
SLIDE 7 7
Case study: Sacramento
Community, Mobility, and Environment
$7.0 $7.0 $4.5 $2.0 $50.0 $60.0 $70.0
Capital Plan Capital Plan
$69.1 million projected cost
TIF – Sacramento TIF – West Sacramento Sales Tax – West Sacramento Sponsorships
$6.0 $23.2 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $ Millions
Parking Revenues Sacramento Benefits Assessment District: State Contribution
Community, Mobility, and Environment
$19.4 $0.0 $10.0
Benefits Assessment District: Private Property Assessment
SLIDE 8 8
$0.40 $0.31 $0.20 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0
Operations Plan Operations Plan
$3.55 million projected cost
Advertising Discontinued Bus Service Hotel A t $1.19 $0.46 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5
$ Millions
Sales Tax
Parking Revenues
Assessment
Community, Mobility, and Environment
$1.00 $0.0 $0.5 Farebox
Benefits Assessment District Benefits Assessment District
0.0% – 0.3% 0.3% – 06% 0.6% – 0.9% 0.9% – 1.2% 1 2% 1 5% KEY
Total Assessment Rate
1.2% – 1.5% > 1.5%
Community, Mobility, and Environment
SLIDE 9 9
State ownership in district:
Benefits Assessment District Benefits Assessment District
State of California Contribution
$7.0 $4.5 $2.0 $60.0 $70.0
Land area: 31 percent Precise property value
unknown
State has recently participated in several assessment districts, including I-5 Subregional Mitigation Plan
$6.0 $23.2 $7.0 $20.0 $30.0 $40.0 $50.0
Community, Mobility, and Environment
I 5 Subregional Mitigation Plan Assessment district statues require public contribution Lump sum of $6.0 million assumed
$19.4 $0.0 $10.0
Case study: Seattle
Community, Mobility, and Environment
SLIDE 10 10
Streetcar
Case study: Seattle
Route
Community, Mobility, and Environment
Seattle Funding Summary Seattle Funding Summary
Source F d l $ 14 9 M Federal $ 14.9 M State $ 3.0 M Local Improvement District $ 25.7 M Surplus Property Proceeds $ 8.5 M Total Funding $ 52.1 M
Community, Mobility, and Environment
g $
SLIDE 11
11
What’s working…Public/Private Partnerships What’s working…Public/Private Partnerships
Community, Mobility, and Environment Community, Mobility, and Environment
SLIDE 12
12
Community, Mobility, and Environment Community, Mobility, and Environment
SLIDE 13
13
Overall Deal Structure Overall Deal Structure
Regional partnership Public/public/public/private partnership - leverage real estate, regional interest No new revenue sources
Community, Mobility, and Environment
Locally directed and controlled
Project Budget
Community, Mobility, and Environment
SLIDE 14
14
Fast-track Construction
Community, Mobility, and Environment Community, Mobility, and Environment
SLIDE 15 15
What’s working… What’s working…
An idea to borrow from Oregon… Tri-Met Regional payroll tax
- Enacted by the Legislature
- .64% of payroll, paid by employers
- Revenue: $167m per year
- 50% of Tri-Met’s operating revenues
Community, Mobility, and Environment
- No complaints, no disinvestment, broad business
and public support for transit
What’s working… What’s working…
Tax revenues, if leaders will lead Ballot measures, given good proposals, strong coalitions, and effectively marketing Development-related revenue and locally controlled funds, bootstrapping projects New mechanisms, like VMT charges
Community, Mobility, and Environment
Public/private and public/public partnerships TANSTAAFL!
SLIDE 16
16
Community, Mobility, and Environment
