HomeMy WebLinkAboutIntersection Improvement Funding Policy Discussion_11
Commission Memorandum
REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission
FROM: Rick Hixson, City Engineer
Craig Woolard, Director of Public Service SUBJECT: Intersection Improvement Funding
AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Policy Discussion
MEETING DATE: July 8, 2013
KEY ISSUES AND RECOMENDATAIONS: Adoption of the latest Street Impact Fee Study
prepared by Tischler Bise (TB) requires the City to fund intersection improvements using a
combination of impact fees and other funding sources. Staff has considered the technical and financial issues and prepared a recommendation for a new intersection funding policy consistent with broad Commission direction. This memorandum:
Provides background information on intersection funding and the technical issues
associate with calculating the growth and non-growth share (NGS)
Provides a recommendation for consistent calculation of the NGS of the costs
Provides options for NGS funding sources and the fiscal effects of each method
Provides a list of intersections which will require improvement in the near future
Intersections are a critical component of the City’s transportation infrastructure. Staff believes a funding policy that is simple and predictable and flexible enough to meet the needs of a rapidly growing community will facilitate development and improve the level of service for the
community as a whole. Furthermore, timely resolution of the intersection funding policy is
required because upgrades are currently needed at several intersections throughout the
community. As such, Staff recommends that the commission:
1) Establish a set percentage to be used to allocate the NGS of future intersection
improvement projects. Based on analysis of recent intersection projects, Staff
87
recommends that 60% of intersection upgrade cost be funded through impact fees and
that 40% of the cost be designated as the NGS.
2) Utilize the City’s general tax authority to designate 5.23 mills to fund transportation improvements.
Staff is requesting that the Commission review and discuss each recommendation and provide
direction on the allocation of intersection costs and preferred source of NGS funding. Staff will
prepare the appropriate administrative policies and budget/financial documents based on Commission guidance.
BACKGROUND: The City Commission recently adopted the updated Transportation Impact
Fee Study prepared by Tischler Bise (TB). The “Growth Share Determination. ” as it refers
intersection improvements was discussed on page 15 of the study. As part of that discussion TB recommended that “… the non-growth share of the cost of improvements (i.e. using revenue
other than impact fees) be determined by the current design capacity divided by the design
capacity of the intersection after improvements. In other words, when existing intersections are
improved, impact fees should only fund the increase in design capacity”. The adoption of the
update and the endorsement of this language regarding intersection funding constitute a significant change to the approach the City has used to fund intersections.
Prior to adoption of this update, intersection improvements (whether they were the classically
understood signals or stop signs or the newer and more sustainable roundabouts) were 100%
eligible for impact fee funding. This approach was based on the principle that the mechanism for assigning right-of-way prior to the need for the improvement produced an acceptable level of
service. Therefore the need for further improvement was brought about by growth.
Application of the new intersection funding approach means that only a portion of the cost of the
improvements are eligible for impact fee reimbursement and that in all cases there will be a non-growth share (NGS) which must be paid for from some other funding source. Although the
intersection funding concept expressed in the TB study is straightforward, calculating that share
in practice requires additional analysis.
Calculating the non-growth share is complicated because each leg of an intersection has its own level of service (LOS) or capacity. A simple application of “the current design capacity divided
by the design capacity of the intersection after improvements”, as stated in the TB study, does
not specify which leg or legs of the intersection to use in the capacity calculation. The
calculation will be different for every intersection depending on the pre-improvement condition
(i.e., was the intersection an uncontrolled, two-way stop, three-way stop, four-way stop or roundabout, etc.). It also depends on which leg of the intersection is used in the calculation. The
attached calculations illustrate the NGS calculation for 6 recent intersection projects. These
calculations used the leg with the worst LOS as the existing condition. The share eligible for
impact fee reimbursement at these intersections ranged from 46% to 73%, These examples
highlight the variability of values possible for the recommended capacity calculation.
88
Another complication arising from the TB policy recommendation stems from the use of the
word warrant. In the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), warrants are used
to ascertain the need for either stop signs or signals and do not apply to any other types of
improvements like turn restrictions, pork chops or additional turning lanes to name a few.
MUTCD Section 4C.01 “Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals” states
that:
Standard:
01 An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, and physical
characteristics of the location shall be performed to determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a particular location.
02 The investigation of the need for a traffic control signal shall include an analysis of
factors related to the existing operation and safety at the study location and the potential
to improve these conditions, and the applicable factors contained in the following traffic signal warrants:
Warrant 1, Eight-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Warrant 3, Peak Hour Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume Warrant 5, School Crossing
Warrant 6, Coordinated Signal System
Warrant 7, Crash Experience
Warrant 8, Roadway Network Warrant 9, Intersection Near a Grade Crossing
03 The satisfaction of a traffic signal warrant or warrants shall not in itself require the
installation of a traffic control signal.
In other words, the term signal warrant applies strictly to whether or not a traffic signal is justified at a particular location.
Only three of the eight warrants are triggered by vehicular volume, the other five warrants have
their basis in pedestrian volumes, school crossings, network considerations and crash experience.
Using TB’s recommendation, an intersection meeting one or more of the non-vehicle volume related warrants may not be eligible for any impact fee reimbursement because the design
capacity of the intersection before and after signalization could be exactly the same.
To summarize, strict application of the TB intersection funding recommendation has the
following effects on how intersection improvements will be paid for:
• All intersection improvement projects will have a NGS for which impact fees may not be
used.
• In some cases that share may be 100%.
89
• In most cases the NGS is likely to be between 25% and 75%, depending on the findings
of the Traffic Impact Study, Warrant analysis and antecedent conditions at the intersection. CALCULATION OF THE NON-GROWTH SHARE
There are two basic methods to establish the NGS of a required intersection improvement. In the case-by-case method, data supplied by the developer (or in some cases by the city) would be used to establish the before and after capacity values and calculate the NGS. The advantages of
this method is that data specific to the intersection in question would be used. However, due to
the complex nature of intersections project, the case-by-case method will undoubtedly result in
time consuming disputes over the appropriate NGS percentage. In addition, establishing the NGS using this method will complicate planning and budgeting since the NGS for each intersection will not be known until public approval process.
The other possible method of calculating the NGS is establishing a set percentage for all
intersections as a matter of policy. Based on the analysis of the six most recent intersection projects previously discussed, the NGS percentage of intersection costs ranged from 27%-54% (or 46%-75% of the costs are impact fee eligible). This method has the disadvantage of
potentially being less accurate for any given intersection. However, setting a fixed NGS
percentage has the distinct advantages of being predictable, equitable, timely and simple to
implement and understand. NON-GROWTH SHARE FUNDING OPTIONS: Several options exist for funding the NGS of the intersection improvements. The following
paragraphs provide a summary each funding source and a brief discussion of the fiscal
implications associated with each mechanism. Urban Funds: If the intersection is on a street designated by the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT)
as an urban route (such as Main Street and Broadway), urban funds may be available. The City
receives approximately $800,000.00 per year in urban funds which are used to construct major improvements to the urban routes in the City. The City currently plans to use urban funds to reconstruct College Street from Main Street to South 19th Avenue and then reconstruct Kagy
Boulevard from Willson/South 3rd to South 19th. The cost of these projects is such (e.g., $7M for
College Street) that the annual urban fund allowance must be accumulated for a number of years
to pay for these projects. It should be noted that only one Urban Fund Project may be pursued at a time.
Most signalization projects cost from $500,000.00 to $750,000.00. Assuming the NGS averages
40% (a reasonable estimate based on analysis of recent intersection projects), use of the annual
urban fund allowance to fund intersections would significantly delay construction of needed urban route projects.
90
Two other drawbacks to using urban funds are the associated administrative burden (all projects
funded with urban funds are assessed a 13% overhead charge) and timeliness (all projects to be
funded must be approved by both the Transportation Coordinating Committee as well as the
MDT Transportation Commission, both of whom only meet quarterly).
Special Improvement District (SID): An SID could be created to fund the NGS. The exact boundaries of the district would be subject
to determination by the Commission and could extend from just the area near the intersection to
the entire city. An SID must be created to fund specific improvements that add value to the properties being assessed, and could not be created to fund intersection improvements in general.
The use of SID funds would not be limited to MDT urban routes, but could be used anywhere.
State law governs the creation and use of SID’s and these laws contain provisions for public
hearings and for public protest of their creation. This often complicates the creation of SID’s.
SID’s are effective when there is strong public support with specific goals and costs.
In most cases a proposed development triggers the need for a traffic study, warrant analysis and
need for intersection improvements. The creation of an SID is a lengthy process (6 months or
more is not uncommon) with an uncertain outcome. The time frames and need for predictability
for most development projects are at odds with the SID process. A program where new SID’s are created with each development proposal may not be embraced by the public.
Payback District:
A payback district could be created to reimburse the NGS in some cases. Payback districts
require the improvements to be paid upfront by the developer, with the City facilitating reimbursement (payback) as future development occurs in the district. The exact boundaries of
the districts would be subject to determination by the Commission and could extend from just the
area near the intersection to the entire city. The creation and purpose of a payback district is
solely the discretion of the Commission and a payback district could be created for a single
intersection or a general program of intersection improvements. The use of payback funds would not be limited to MDT urban routes.
As with SID’s, in most cases a proposed development triggers the need for a traffic study,
warrant analysis and need for intersection improvements. Payback districts are a tried and true
process when vacant and undeveloped lands are included in the district. One drawback to using payback districts for a broad intersection funding program is that if the surrounding area is fully
developed (e.g., the area around Broadway and Main Street) there may be limited future
development to make the payback.
General Obligation Bond: The NGS of intersection projects could be funded through a transportation general obligation
(G.O.) bond. If timed to coincide with the expiration of the current levy for the 1995 G.O. bond
(November 2013), taxpayers would see no change in taxes from current levels. The current levy
is estimated at 5.23 mils which generates approximately $444,000.00 per year. At current interest
rates, the City could service approximately $6 million G.O. debt with an annual payment of $440,000. Bond funds could be used to upgrade intersections or finance other transportation
capital projects. A specific list of projects, with cost estimates, could be prepared and balloted.
91
G.O. bonds funds are flexible because they could be used on intersections throughout the
network. Bonds funds are also predictable in that the purpose and use of the funds would be
specified beforehand. G.O. bonds will require voter approval and there are administrative fees
and interest costs attendant to the sale of bonds.
Street Maintenance Assessment, Street Reconstruction Funds: The NGS could be funded by using street maintenance or street reconstruction funds. If timed to
coincide with retirement of the current G.O. bond, increasing the street assessment by 5.23 mils
(the equivalent of the G.O. Bond levy) would result in little to no change in the tax level of the typical residential taxpayer. Because the GO Bond levy is charged based on taxable value and
the street maintenance assessment is based on lot square footage, there would not be straight
“swap” of the GO Bond costs vs. street maintenance costs to each individual property owner.
Use of this funding mechanism has the advantage of flexibility in that their revenue could be used on intersections on any part of the network. Funds could also be used for other street
improvement projects. Street assessment funding provides predictability to the community in that
the overall purpose and use of the funds could be specified beforehand and discussed each year
during the budget process.
Without increasing the assessment levels to pay for the NGS of intersections, other necessary
street maintenance and reconstruction projects would have to be reduced in scope or delayed.
General Tax Authority:
The City could use its general tax authority to dedicate funding for the NGS of intersection improvements. If timed to coincide with retirement of the current G.O. bond, increasing the
street assessment by 5.23 mils (the equivalent of the G.O. Bond levy) would provide
approximately $440,000 annually to fund intersection improvements and result in little to no
change in the overall tax level. This funding mechanism is flexible in that funds could be used
on intersections throughout the network and on street improvement projects such as completing section of the collector and arterial network.
Dedicating mills to fund intersection and street improvements has the advantage of avoiding
bond sale and annual interest costs. The Commission could discuss priorities and authorize
funding each year during the budget process. Intersections would compete each year with other general tax obligations using this approach.
Developer Contribution:
Developers can finance the NGS of required intersection improvements. Prior to adoption of
impact fees, developers contributed directly to the installation of many intersections in Bozeman (for example, Fowler Avenue and Huffine Lane and Kagy Boulevard and South 19th Avenue).
This method of financing intersection improvements has been highly contentious and unpopular.
Rather than planning for the improvement in advance, the developer funding approach often
results in a deficient LOS until a development that “breaks the camel’s back” is added and the developer must pay for the entire upgrade. This funding mechanism places the entire cost of the
upgrade on the developer.
92
FISCAL EFFECTS: Staff has reviewed the Transportation Master Plan, Transportation Impact
Fee Capital Improvement Plan, received community input and the evaluated the status of the City’s current transportation network. Ten intersection improvements with a total construction
cost of approximately $6.45 million have been identified over the next 5 years. These
intersections include:
Highland Boulevard and Ellis Street $500,000.00 (estimated) Highland Boulevard and Kagy Boulevard $750,000.00 (estimated)
Church Street and Kagy Boulevard $750,000.00 (estimated)
Cottonwood Road and Durston Avenue $500,000.00 (estimated)
College Street and S. 8th Avenue $750,000.00 (estimated)
Baxter Lane and Davis Lane $500,000.00 (estimated) Haggerty Lane and Main Street $700,000.00 (estimated)
Babcock Street and Fowler Lane $500,000.00 (estimated)
Bridger Drive and Story Mill Road $750,000.00 (estimated)
Main and Broadway $750,000.00 (estimated) Using the proposed 60% impact fee/40% NGS funding formula, a total of $2.58 million in NGS
funding will be needed over the next 5 years to complete the currently indentified intersection
upgrade needs. Dedicating 5.23 mills (~$440,000/year) to intersection funding will allow the
City to complete approximately 2 intersections per year, depending upon actual project costs. Increased development activity may also create the need for additional intersection upgrades in the future. .
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Commission.
Attachments: Impact Fee Eligibility Comparison of 6 Intersections Urban Routes Map.
93
Impact Fee Eligibility Comparison of 6 Intersections
Please note that I have greatly simplified the capacity analysis of these intersections in order to illustrate
the effect of the Tischler Bise recommendation on page 15 of the study. I am confident that the
following calculations are accurate for the purposes of illustration. If their recommendation for
intersection reimbursement is adopted I believe a good deal of work will have to be done to define
exactly which element of intersection capacity is being used for the reimbursement calculation. That
discussion will be very technical and lengthy and hence is well outside of these examples.
College & 11th
The existing condition was 4-way stop control. The traffic was very evenly distributed across all 4 legs of
the intersection making this a very straightforward example. This was a City installed improvement.
Design 2008.
The worst Level of Service (LOS) was Eastbound (EB) afternoon (PM) peak hour.
Existing capacity 470 vehicles per hour (vph)
Installed improvement Roundabout
Improved Capacity 1086 vph
Non-Growth Share per Tischler Bise(TB) 470/1086=0.43
TB Impact Fee eligible 0.57
Cost Breakdown
Professional Services
• Pre-Design: $8,212.00
• Preliminary Design: $62,594.65
• Final Design: $32,847.00
• Reimbursable Expenses: not to exceed $8,378.00
• Construction Phase Services: not to exceed $94,187.00
• Total not to exceed: $206,218.65
Right of Way
$154,050.00 (this includes a $53,670 credit for consideration of MSU use of Center Island)
Construction
• Bid Price: $652,747.35 (see attached bid tab for itemized unit prices/costs)
• Change Order 1: ($1,200)
• Change Order 2: pending, but estimated around $15,000
94
Total project cost: $1,026,816.00
Kagy & 11th
Existing Condition was 2 way stop control. In this case the LOS on the major leg (Kagy) was A, the LOS on
the minor leg was F. In this case a signal was warranted and installed. The project reimbursed for this
installation was Town & Country Grocery. Design 2009.
The worst condition was the PM peak hour southbound left turn.
Existing capacity 64 vph
Improved capacity 241 vph
TB Non-growth share 61/241= 0.27
TB Impact Fee eligible 0.73
Rouse & Griffin
Existing Condition was 2 way stop control. LOS on the major leg (Rouse) was A. This intersections design
was more complicated than usual due to non-cruciform geometry. The project reimbursed for this
installation was Legends Subdivision. Design 2005.
Existing capacity 140 vph
Improved capacity 321 vph
TB Non-growth share 140/321=0.44
TB Impact Fee eligible 0.56
Oak & Rouse
Existing Condition was 2 way stop control. Oak Street east of Rouse has the character of a driveway
rather than a street. Again, the LOS on the major leg starts out at A. The project reimbursed for the
improvement was Northside PUD.
Existing capacity 92 vph
Improved capacity 200 vph
TB Non-growth share 92/200=0.46
TB Impact fee eligible 0.54
95
Durston & North 15th
In this case North 15th Avenue did not exist north of Durston and was being built as part of the Walton
Homestead Subdivision. All of the existing traffic was on Durston and the LOS was A. LOS in this case is
based on engineering design of the intersection. The development reimbursed for this improvement
was Walton Homestead. Design 2002.
Design capacity without signal for worst case movement 217 vph
Design capacity with signal for worst case movement 469 vph
TB non growth share 217/469= 0.46
TB impact fee eligible share 0.54
Oak & 15th
Existing Condition was 2 way stop control. Development reimbursed for this improvement was PT Land
Development. Design 2007.
Existing capacity 164 vph
Improved capacity 301 vph
TB Non-growth share 164/301=0.54
TB Impact Fee eligible 0.46
96
97