Bellingham’s Experience with Transportation Impact Fees (TIF)
1995-2011
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington Chapter
City of Snohomish Library
October 11, 2011
Chris Comeau, AICP
Transportation Planner,
Bellingham Public Works
Slide 2
Bellingham, WA – “City of Subdued Excitement”
According to 2010 U.S. Census:
• Bellingham = 80,877 residents
• Urban Growth Area = 10,369
• Bellingham & UGA = 45% of Whatcom County’s 201,140 pop.
• Seat of County government
• 18 of Top 25 employers in County
• 3 universities (WWU, WCC, BTC)
• Major regional hospital
• Theaters & performing arts centers
• Too many “Top Ten” lists to name
Bellingham = Whatcom Region Employment Center
BP
Intalco
Conoco-Philips
SR Casino
Lummi Training Ctr.
Anvil &AlphaTech
Mt BakerPlywood
BellisFair
WCC
Fred Meyer
Fairhaven
WWU
GP
Bellingham CBD
St Joseph’s
Barkley Village
HanneganIndustrial Area
Wallmart, Costcoand MeridianCommercial District
Iowa St
Sunset Square
Lakeway Center
Sehome Village
Haskell
Lynden
Blaine
Ferndale
Sumas
Nooksack
Everson
Lummi Tribal Gov’t& NW Indian College
Grandview
Employment Centersin Whatcom County2003 Employment Data
Regional Center for Employment, Shopping, Entertainment, Education, Medical
TIF is only one of several transportation requirements- and expenses - for new development in Bellingham
REGULATORY MITIGATION
Multimodal Concurrency: Sidewalks, bike lanes, transit, or automobile
SEPA (Traffic Study):Traffic signals, signal timing, sidewalks, safety, or payment in-lieu of improvements
Street Frontage:Bike lane, curb, gutter, sidewalk, shared drives
Transportation Impact Fees:Multimodal system improvements attributable to the impacts of new growth
Development Review Elements
Brief History of TIF in Bellingham
• 1990: Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) adopted– RCW 82.02 authorizes local impact fees for traffic, parks, schools, fire
• 1995: Bellingham adopts first GMA-compliant Comprehensive Plan
• 1995: Bellingham adopts BMC 19.06 Transportation Impact Fees (TIF)– 10 TIF zones established, grew to 18 TIF zones by 2006
– Labor intensive, administratively inefficient, very inequitable, not based on reality
• 2006: Bellingham Comprehensive Plan update and re-adoption– Infill land use strategies and multimodal transportation emphasis
• 2006: David Evans & Associates hired to overhaul/revise BMC 19.06 TIF
• 2007: TIF zone system eliminated, replaced by city-wide TIF system– Modeled after Olympia TIF system upheld by WA Supreme Court in “Drebick v Olympia”
– TIF base rate changes annually based on investment in city-wide transportation network
– 5 years actual capital investment + Current year construction budget + programmed 6 year TIP
• 2011: Urban Village Vehicle Trip Reductions allow TIF Reduction for Developers– Based on ITE methodology in Trip Gen Manual, Trip Gen Handbook, trip gen research
– Designed to account for presence/influence of sidewalks, bike lanes, transit, CTR, and TDM
– Internal capture = less vehicle trips in mixed use high-density Urban Village Master Plans
– Implements infill land use strategy and multimodal transportation emphasis of Comp Plan
– Economic incentive/reward for development consistent with Comp Plan
– Up to 25% automatic trip reduction; additional 25% trip reduction possible for TDM measures
Bellingham’s former TIF Zone System
•Original 10 zones; grew to 18 by 2006 via annexation, rezone, land use change.
•Some zones large, some small
•Some zones with major capital projects; Some with few or no capital projects
•Staff, time, and data intensive;
•Very inequitable across zones
- Presumed that cost of capital projects in each zone should be borne only by new development in that zone, despite other traffic
Example: Zones 9 & 18, divided by 40th St
- SF House in Zone 9 paid $183/trip
- SF House in Zone 18 paid $4,403/trip!
•Transportation mobility is NOT limited to artificial ‘zones’;
•New development generates new trips across the entire transportation network See Example
4:00 AM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
6:00 AM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
8:00 AM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
10:00 AM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
12:00 PM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
2:00 PM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
4:00 PM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
6:00 PM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
8:00 PM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
10:00 PM
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
12:00 AM
City of Bellingham24-Hour Population Model
Weekday, School Year
Chris Behee, GIS AnalystPlanning & Community Development 2010
Bellingham’s Current Citywide TIF System
• New city-wide TIF system Jan 1, 2007
•Over time, all traffic (new + old residents and visitors) uses and impacts all of the city-wide transportation network;
•City-wide TIF system is more equitable and more predictable for developers
•One TIF base rate instead of 18
•Based on actual capital investment of local funds (receipts) plus programmed local funds in annual 6-Year TIP
Bellingham TIF Base Rates 2004-2011 (2004-2006 = Zone Averages)
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
$989
$882
$764
$1,217
$1,875
$1,695
$1,932 $1,927
How Does Bellingham TIF Compare to TIF in Other Places
in Western WA?
•2010 Study of 62 cities and 4 counties in Western WA that charge TIF
•2010 Average TIF = $2,870 per trip
•2010 Median TIF = $2,385 per trip
•2010 Bellingham TIF = $1,932 per trip
•Bellingham TIF is in bottom 1/3 of all jurisdictions in Western WA
•Locally in Whatcom County, Bellingham invests more in transportation infrastructure, but charges less TIF per trip than both Ferndale ($2,044) and Lynden ($1,997)
Bellingham TIF Revenue 2004-2011 (As of October 3, 2011)
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
$889,224 $907,063
$592,093
$872,615
$656,620 $637,812
$779,463
$461,674
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
20042005
20062007
20082009
20102011
TIF Revenue 2004-2011 (As of Oct 3, 2011) Budgeted Revenue
TIF Revenue vs TIF Budget Expectations 2004 - 2011 (As of October 3, 2011)
Chart 3. Citywide Percent of Actual Transportation Investments (2005 - 2010) Compared to Collected TIF Revenue (2005 – 20101)
[12010 TIF Revenue Collected Through October 21, 2010]
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
17.8%
8.2%
11.9%
10.6%
14.2%
18.1%
82.2%
91.8%
88.1%
89.4%
85.8%
81.9%
Local Funds Construction Cost TIF Revenue Collected
Who Should Pay the Costs of Growth?Somebody, somewhere has to pay for transportation infrastructure
TIF Adjustments for Local Realities:Integration of Land Use & Transportation Policy;
Economic Development; and Politics
Slide 27
Bellingham’s Land Use Goals = Urban Villages & Infill
Several “Urban Village” areas
adopted in Land Use Element
(Red text = Subarea Plan Adopted)
Well- connected by high-
frequency (15 min) transit
Tier 1: Existing
Downtown, Barkley, Fairhaven
Tier 2: Redevelopment Required
Waterfront, Old Town, Sunset,
Lakeway, Northwest, Samish,
Fountain District
Tier 3: Rezone & Redevelopment
Bellis Fair, Cordata, Birchwood
Slide 28
Bellingham’s Multimodal Transportation Mode Shift Goals
TG-28: Set target goals to increase the mode share of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit trips and reduce automobile trips as a percentage of total trips, as listed below.
Mode 20041 20102 20152 20222
Auto 87% 84% 80% 75%Transit 2% 3% 4% 6%Bike 3% 4% 5% 6%Ped 8% 9% 11% 13%
Notes: 1. 2004 raw data from FTA/Social Data Study2. City/WTA recommendations based on 2004 raw data from FTA/Social Data Study
Walking11% Bicycling
5%
Public Transit
3%
Private Auto81%
2004 Mode Share Measurements
Walking13%
Bicycling6%
Public Transit
6%
Private Auto75%
2022 Mode Share Goals
City of Bellingham - Sustainable Connections Urban Village Trip/TIF Reduction
(Research: Feb - Sept 2010; Public Process: Oct-Dec 2010; Adoption: Feb 2011)
Transportation Mode Shift Incentive – reduction in Transportation Impact Fees for location factors and performance measures that are proven to reduce on-site trip generation, such as Urban Village location on Whatcom Transportation Authority Go Lines.
Project Goals:
1.) Incentivize infill development in Urban Villages surrounded by population centers where multimodal transportation infrastructure, transit service, and TDM performance measures can be proven to reduce vehicle trip generation, which justifies lower TIF charges.
2.) Create yet another “tool in the toolbox” for further implementation of the integrated multimodal transportation-land use planning emphasis in the 2006 Bellingham Comprehensive Plan.
Project Framework
Public Works staff specifically worked within the following framework:
1.) TIF reduction must be legally defensible;
2.) Consistent with ITE Trip Generation Methodology;
(ITE Trip Generation is a prominent guidepost)
3.) Survey of trip reduction practices of other Washington and U.S. cities (Best Practices Within Transportation Industry);
4.) Consistent with GMA and Bellingham Comprehensive Plan; and
5.) Proposed Urban Village TIF Reduction is Limited to 50%.
City of Bellingham - Sustainable Connections Urban Village Trip/TIF Reduction
Thousands of Bellingham Residents Currently LiveWithin Walking Distance of Urban Villages
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Residents Currently (2010)Living Within 1/4-mile
(5-min) Walk of Urban Villages
*Waterfront not eligible for TIF reduction until planning process is complete
BMC 19.06 Urban Village Vehicle Trip Reduction Credits
TABLE 2 - URBAN VILLAG E V EHICLE T RIP REDUCTION CREDITS CREDIT
Menu of Location Factors and Performance Measures to Reduce Vehicle Trips
Note: Reductions below are additive and may not exceed a total of 50%
1.) MIXED USE URBAN VILLAGE LOCATION 15%
(Based on /TE Internal Trip Capture - Mixed Use Urban Environment)
2.) WTA TRANSIT PROXIMITY (Only one transit proxim ity reduction below may be used)
Development fronts on a high-frequency WTA GO Line 10%
Development within 1/4-mile ofWTA GO Line 7%
Development fronts on standard WTA Route (30 - 60 min) 5%
Development within 1/4-mile5 of standard WTA Route (30 - 60 min) 2%
3.) EMPLOYER MANDATORY COMMITMENT TO COMMUTE TRIP RE.DUCTION (CTR)
CTR/TOM commitment combining economic incentives with transportation services 10%
4.) VOLUNTARY ANNUA L WTA TRANSIT PASS PROVISION (Non-CTR)
2-year transit pass provided for residential units = 1 % per unit pass 1%
2-year transit pass provided for employees = 1 % per employee pass 1%
5.) VOLUNTARY CAR SHARE PARTICIPATION OR PROVISION (Non-CTR)
Car Share Vehide(s) Parked On Residential or Employment Site = 2% per vehicle 2%
Car Share membership fee provided for residential units = 2% per unit 2%
Car Share membership fee provided for employees = 2% per employee 2%
Downtown Urban Village Profile2010 Population & Jobs Mix 2010 Characteristics
Gross Acres 189
°"'"'loped Acres 102
Existing Building Sq Ft 3,796,763
Existing FAR 0.85
Housing Units 867
Estimated Population 1,641
2032 Population & Jobs Mix Est. Pop. Within 1/4 Mile
8,228 of Urban Village
Total Jobs (2008) 7,383
Total Employers (2008) 802
Net New Growth 2010-2032 Housing Units 720
Estimated Population 1,283
Estimated Jobs 112
Population Bulldout Totals for 2032 ~ ..J Jobs Housing Units 1,587
Estimated Population 2,924
Estimated Jobs 7,495
2008 Jobs By Industry Sector
1,500
1,000
500
"' D Q
If
·~ l:J •<
Comn e rcial
1,-
1,3511 1.16'
719
. Retail Industrial He.altflcare, Public Ad min,
Enten-aillme·nt :C. EducatiOfl & !>V<S Other
.
.
WTA Transit Proximity Provision
• Vehicle trip reduction credit for development in close proximity to transit is based on distance from -and frequency of - the transit service available, as follows:
• 10% for fronting on a WTA high-frequency transit corridor;
• 7% within ¼-mile of a WTA high-frequency transit corridor;
• 5% for fronting on a standard service (30-60 minute) WTA transit corridor; and
• 2% within ¼-mile of a standard service (30-60 minute) WTA transit corridor.
• Note (1): Only one transit proximity credit above may be applied to lower TIF charges.
• Note (2): May not be used in addition to CTR provision.
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) [Large Employers Only]Washington State’s Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94) and CTR Requirements (RCW 70.94.527)
• Washington State’s Clean Air Act (RCW 70.94) requires cities to adopt Commute Trip Reduction plans (RCW 70.94.527) - mandatory requirements for all employers with 100+ employees to reduce employee single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips 10% below the standard vehicle trip generation baseline.
• Commute Trip Reduction Proposal: Public Works is proposing a 10% CTR vehicle trip reduction credit for employers located in Urban Villages with 100+ employees, required to comply with RCW 70.94.527 (CTR law).
• Employer required to sign a CTR contract with the City with a specific time commitment (2-3 years) to reach the 10% SOV reduction goal, demonstration of good-faith efforts to comply, and the consequence of having to reimburse the City for TIF-equivalent funds minus the cost of CTR measures implemented within the contractual time period.
Voluntary WTA Bus Pass Provision [All Non-CTR Employers and Residential Projects]
• 1% reduction of overall site vehicle trip generation for each Urban Village residential unit or employee provided with 2-years worth of free WTA transit passes.
• A contract would be required with the City to ensure compliance with verification of bus pass purchases provided by WTA. Failure to comply would be a breach of contract requiring full TIF payment, minus the cost of any purchased bus passes.
• Letter of Endorsement from WTA included in City Council agenda
Voluntary Car Share Accommodation Provision[All Non-CTR Employers and Residential Projects]
• 2% reduction of overall site vehicle trip generation for each Urban Village residential unit or employee provided with 2-years worth of free car share organization membership11 and/or
• 2% for each car share vehicle parked on an Urban Village residential or employment site.
• A contract would be required with the City to ensure compliance with verification of memberships provided by the car share organization. Failure to comply would be a breach of contract requiring full TIF payment, minus the cost of any purchased bus passes.
Chart 2. Percent of Actual and Planned Transportation Investments (2000 - 2016) Compared to Projected TIF Revenue (2010 – 2032) in Urban Villages
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%
Fairhaven
Fountain
N. Samish Way
City Center
Old Town
Barkley
7.9%
82.7%
77.0%
80.0%
75.6%
18.9%
92.1%
17.3%
23.0%
20.0%
24.4%
81.1%
TIF Funds (2010 - 2032) City Funds (2000 - 2016)
JO 29 28 27 26 25 24 23
2-Years 22 Worth of 21
WTA 20 Bus 19
Passes 18 or Car 17 Share 16
Members 15 at$500 14 each 13
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 J 2
Urban Village Trip/TIF Reduction Location Factors and Performance Measures, and Financial Gain Price Points
Projects Generating 2 or Fewer Vehicle Trips Do Not Gain Any Financial Benefit From Pll'chaslng WTA Bus PalllllS, but Are Entitled to Ille Following Minimum Vehicle Trip Reductions:
15% Trip Reduction for Urban Village Location 2%to 10% Trip Reduction for Proxinityto WTA Transit Routes
Total Project Vehicle Trips Generated
ALL new development/redevelopment in CBD, Old Town, Samish, Fountain, Fairhaven, and Barkley gets 15% trip reduction for Urban Village location and 2%- 10% trip reduction for transit proximity
$500 purchase for WTA bus pass not financially viable for projects generating less than 26 vehicle trips
1% trip reduction for $500 purchase for Car Share membership is financially beneficial for projects generating over 13 vehicle trips
1 % trip reduction for $500 purchase for WT A bus pass is financially beneficial for prjoects generating more than 26 vehicle !lips
10% trip reduction for CTR employers with at least 100 employees
Who Should Pay the Costs of Growth?Q. New development and businesses or the City tax-payers? A. Probably BOTH because transportation benefits accrue to both
What’s Next?
• In all of our work, there is always room for improvement …..
• Research to support trip reduction credits for: TDM applications for small business employers & “employment centers”
o (WA CTR is only for large business employers > 100 employees)
o Cost of bus passes don’t make financial sense for small trip generators
Installation of bicycle racks
Parking reductions
• Better educational efforts by planners and engineers regarding trip generation and the role of transportation impact fees for the public, developers, and politicians.
• Thank you ITE!
….. but wait ….. there’s more!
For more information about Bellingham’s multimodal transportation planning
and/or transportation impact feesvisit the City of Bellingham web site at:
www.cob.org/services/neighborhoods/community-planning/transportation/index.aspx
or contact:
Chris Comeau, AICP, Transportation PlannerCity of Bellingham Public Works Department(360) 778-7946; or [email protected]
