Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis
City of Janesville
Jon Cameron, Senior Municipal Advisor - EhlersJeff Mazanec, P.E. Senior Consultant – raSmith
September 28, 2020
Overview
• Transportation Utility Overview and Authority to Create
• Differentiating Between a Fee and a Tax
• Why Consider?
✓ Borrowing and sustainability
✓ Fairness
• Study Results
✓ Feasibility study scenarios
✓ Understanding of user rates
✓ Estimated tax rates for debt under specific scenarios
✓ Preliminary breakdown of transportation user charges and taxes by scenario for average single-family home
• Next Steps
Transportation Utility OverviewEquates the municipalities transportation network to a utility similar to a
water, sewer or stormwater utility
User rates collected to fund the operations of the transportation system including:
• Operations costs
• Capital
Generally based on TRIP Generation (measure of system usage)
Institute of Transportation Engineer’s TRIP Generation Manual
What is a TRIP = any time a car enters or leaves a driveway
Different land use types have different TRIP generation rates
No direct Statute to establish a Transportation Utility in Wisconsin
Creation of a Transportation Utility linked to Home Rule Authority, whereby municipalities have the authority to act:
• For the good order of the City
• For a municipality’s commercial benefit
• For the health, safety and welfare of the municipality
• Have the ability to carry out its power by appropriation, or by other necessary and convenient means
Formally the means which municipalities relied upon to create stormwater utilities… This has not YET been tested in Wisconsin
Authority to Create a Transportation Utility
WI League of Municipalities June 2020 Opinion on Transportation Utility Creation:
1. Place fees collected in a separate fund, used only for street maintenance transportation projects.
2. Collect fees in same manner as other utility charges.
3. Ensure formula for calculating fees is as accurate as possible.
4. Any credit policy should avoid exempting tax-exempt properties. (gives appearance of a tax).
5. To the extent possible, have a process for allowing properties that demonstrate reduced use of street system to qualify for lower fee.
Differentiating Between a Fee & a Tax
Municipalities are only allowed to increase their levy by the increase in net new construction
• Increases to annual debt payments allowed under levy limits
In 2014 the City Council approved increasing street rehabilitation program from 6 miles to 12 miles annually
• Program currently funded with a combination of transportation aids, wheel tax, general fund, storm water utility and borrowing
City has seen an 8% annual increase (on average) in street rehabilitation costs in recent years (study assumes a 5% increase to costs in 2021 and beyond)
Cost increases influence the City’s annual borrowing obligation assuming other funding sources remain constant
Why Consider a Transportation Utility? – Levy Limits & Sustainability
Why Consider a Transportation Utility? - Fairness
12/23/2020 7
Transportation Utility Feasibility Scenarios
12/23/2020 8
Program
Funding Level Wheel Other Transportation
Supported by Debt Tax Appropriations
Scenario 1 Variable Yes Constant
Scenario 2 0% Yes Constant
Scenario 3 25% Yes Constant
Scenario 4 50% Yes Constant
Scenario 5 0% No Constant
Scenario 6 25% No Constant
Scenario 7 50% No Constant
All transportation utility user rate calculation scenarios assume a two-part user rate:
• Fixed charge per customer: all scenarios allocate 10% of the revenue requirement to the fixed charge
• Trip charge: all scenarios allocate 90% of the revenue requirement to the trip charge to generate a rate per trip which is then applied to different land use categories
Transportation User Rate Methodology
Estimated Tax Rates for Future Street Rehabilitation Debt Under Different Scenarios
12/23/2020 10
Summary of Preliminary Total Charges & Taxes by Scenario for Average Single-Family Home (2021 & 2030)
12/23/2020 11
Total Transportation Charges & Taxes 2021 2030
Scenario 1 (Base, No Utility) 40.00$ 194.86$
Scenario 2 104.26$ 156.29$
Scenario 3 77.47$ 172.37$
Scenario 4 50.68$ 190.75$
Scenario 5 80.77$ 132.80$
Scenario 6 53.99$ 148.89$
Scenario 7 27.19$ 167.26$
Summary of Preliminary Total Charges & Taxes by Scenario for Average Single-Family Home (2021-2030)
12/23/2020 12
Estimate of Future Principal & Interest by Borrowing Scenario
12/23/2020 13
• Decide on a budget and user rate scenario
• Public education and outreach campaign
• Prepare and adopt a formalized Transportation Utility Budget
• Refine trip generation database
• Incorporate trip generation database into utility billing system
• Develop a transportation utility ordinance and potential credit policy
Steps for Creation of Transportation Utility:
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Study For
The City of Janesville
September, 2020
Prepared by: Ehlers raSmith Boardman Clark
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Study Table of Contents
Schedule Page
Transportation Utility Creation Study Report 1
Table 1: Summary of Trip Generation 7
Table 2: Summary of User Rate Scenarios 8
Table 3: Summary of Revenue Requirements by Scenario 9
Table 4: User Rate Calculation by Scenario 13
Table 5: User Rate Summary by Scenario 16
Table 6: Total Transportation Charges for Single‐Family Residential Customer 17
Table 7: Summary of Charges and Taxes for Single‐Family Residential Customer by Scenario 21
Table 8: Base Borrowing Scenario 1 22
Table 9: Allocation of Debt Service Base Borrowing Scenario 1 23
Table 10: Borrowing Scenarios 3 & 6 24
Table 11: Allocation of Debt Service Scenarios 3 & 6 25
Table 12: Borrowing Scenarios 4 & 7 26
Table 13: Allocation of Debt Service Scenarios 4 & 7 27
Table 14: Financing Plan Tax Impact No Transportation Utility 28
Table 15: Financing Plan Tax Impact Scenarios 3 & 6 29
Table 16: Financing Plan Tax Impact Scenarios 4 & 7 30 June 16, 2020 League of WI Municipalities Opinion on Transportation Utility Fees 31
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis September, 2020 Janesville, WI Page 1
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Study
Introduction The City of Janesville hired the project team of Ehlers, raSmith and Boardman Clark in spring, 2020 to
prepare a Feasibility Analysis for the possible creation of a Transportation Utility. In 2014 the Janesville
City Council approved increasing the street rehabilitation program from six miles to 12 miles annually.
The program includes chip sealing, repaving and reconstruction activities. The program is currently
funded through a combination of general transportation aids, General Obligation Note issuance, the
City’s stormwater utility, the general property tax levy and the City’s Wheel Tax.
The City has experienced approximately 8% annual inflationary cost increases to the street rehabilitation
program in recent years. This has led to increased reliance on the issuance of General Obligation debt to
fund a larger portion of the street rehabilitation program annually due to State imposed levy limits. As a
result of this, the City is considering the creation of a Transportation Utility to help fund a portion of the
City’s street rehabilitation budget.
This study is a feasibility study in that it is intended to provide the Common Council with enough
information to consider if it wants to move forward with the creation of a transportation utility. The
study is intended to educate the Council on what a transportation utility is, including their history in the
United States and Wisconsin, what preliminary user rates would look like for City users under several
possible creation scenarios, the legality of creating a transportation utility in Wisconsin, and next steps
the City will need to consider if the Council desires to create a transportation utility in the City of
Janesville.
Transportation Utility Explanation and History A transportation utility is a funding mechanism for a municipality’s’ transportation system that
essentially equates the transportation system to a utility similar to the City’s water, sewer or
stormwater utilities. User rates are calculated for properties within the municipality based on a
property’s use of the transportation system. The method to measure system usage can vary by
municipality, but the generally accepted practice is trip generation as published by the Institute for
Transportation Engineers (ITE).
Trip generation is a method for measuring traffic volume based upon trip ends generated by different
land use types. The ITE publishes a Trip Generation Manual that measures traffic generation by land use
type for 1,000’s of potential land uses. The trip generation method and manual is widely accepted by
those municipalities that have transportation utilities as a reliable method for determining daily traffic
generation by land use type. This method measures a property’s use of the transportation system much
the same way a water meter measures a utility customer’s water consumption.
The concept of a transportation utility is relatively new in the United States and very new to Wisconsin. According to a 2019 Master’s Thesis completed by Andrew Eveland (Clintonville Road Maintenance and
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis September, 2020 Janesville, WI Page 2
Transportation Utility Fee, A Master Thesis. Andrew Robert Eveland. November, 2019. Page, 16), the first transportation utility in the United States was created in Fort Collins, Colorado in 1984 followed by LaGrange, Oregon. The use of transportation utilities has been more prevalent in in the western portion of the United States to date. In the early 2000’s in Wisconsin, the City of Oconomowoc and the Village of North Fond du Lac both
attempted to create transportation utilities. Recently we are aware of the City of Neenah and the Town
of Buchanan as having created transportation utilities in Wisconsin but are not aware of any other
municipalities that have created transportation utilities to date.
Legal Authority Issues Transportation Utilities do not have direct enabling legislation in Wisconsin. In June 2020 the League of
Wisconsin Municipalities published a legal opinion on the creation of transportation utilities. In that
opinion they concluded that municipalities can rely on their broad Home Rule authority under State
Statutes or the Wisconsin Constitution to create such utilities. A copy of the opinion is included with this
report as a reference.
The use of Home Rule authority is what a number of municipalities relied upon in the 1990’s to create
stormwater utilities prior to legislation being drafted to allow for their creation. The use of Home Rule
authority, while broad in nature, does not mean that a municipality would not face a challenge for the
validity of creating a transportation utility. In fact, it is reasonable to suggest that the City may face a
legal challenge on the overall validity of creating a transportation utility.
The League of Municipalities’ opinion includes a number of items that municipalities need to consider so
that the transportation utility is construed as a user fee and not a tax, and furthermore defensible
against a possible legal challenge. These include:
1. Transportation utility fees need to be reasonably based on the costs of the services provided.
(i.e. fees must be cost based)
2. Fee should be related to a property owner’s use of the street system.
3. Avoid using the fee to pay for snow plowing or street sweeping.
4. Place fees collected in a separate enterprise fund, used only for street rehabilitation costs.
5. Collect the fees in the same manner as other utility charges.
6. Any credit policy adopted should avoid exempting tax‐exempt properties so as to not be
construed as a tax.
7. To the extent possible, have a process for allowing properties that demonstrate reduced use of
system to qualify for a lower fee.
Study Methodology and Results City staff wanted to calculate potential transportation user rates under seven different scenarios as
described below. All user rate scenarios were based on the concept of trip generation, and the number
of daily trips that are estimated to be generated within the City. For this exercise raSmith relied upon
City property assessment data and other City parcel data to identify property type and then assign trips
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis September, 2020 Janesville, WI Page 3
based upon the weekday average trip rate for each parcel type as identified in the ITE Trip Generation
Manual. All residential parcels have a uniform number of 9.44 trips per day assigned to them per the ITE
Trip Generation Manual. Non‐residential parcels have trips assigned based upon land use classification,
related trip generation rates and a scale factor (e.g. building size, site size, etc.). For the purpose of this
feasibility analysis, not all non‐residential parcels within the City were able to be sampled for the
purpose of measuring total daily trip generation. The majority of parcels were sampled with inferences
developed from the large sample size for the remaining non‐sampled parcels to approximate a total
number of trips per day as is shown in Table 1. The total number of non‐residential trips assigned will
need to be refined if the City moves forward to create a Transportation Utility.
The seven scenarios that City staff desired to have user rates developed for are summarized in Table 2
and shown below.
The scenarios generally revolve around the use of debt to help fund the street rehabilitation program,
and whether the City continues to impose the wheel tax. Scenario 1 is a base level scenario assuming
the City does not create a Transportation Utility and continues to fund street rehabilitation projects as
they historically have done. Scenarios 2 and 5 assume the City will not issue debt to support the street
rehabilitation program, but rather increase the level of funding from the Transportation Utility.
Scenarios 3 and 6 assume that the City will fund 25% of the street rehabilitation program with General
Obligation debt, while scenarios 4 and 7 assume that 50% of the program would be funded with debt,
with the rest supported through the Transportation Utility and the City’s other existing funding
mechanisms. Scenarios 5‐7 assume that the City would discontinue the wheel tax, requiring a higher
revenue requirement from the Transportation Utility to bridge the gap lost from the wheel tax revenues.
Table 3 shows these scenarios in greater detail estimated from 2021‐2030. The amount of revenue
required by the Transportation Utility is highlighted in yellow for each scenario.
The user rate calculations for each scenario are shown in Table 4. For each scenario the total revenue
requirement by year is allocated to fixed customer charge and a rate per trip. For all scenarios it is
assumed that 10% of the revenue requirement is allocated to the fixed charge and 90% of the revenue
requirement is allocated to the trip rate. The costs allocated to the fixed customer charge are divided by
the number of customers to arrive at an annual rate per customer. The costs allocated to the trip rate
are divided by the total estimated number of daily trips shown on Table 1 for a rate per trip. The rate
per trip can then be applied to each land use type to calculate the annual utility charge. The annual rate
Program
Funding Level Wheel Other Transportation
Supported by Debt Tax Appropriations
Scenario 1 Variable Yes Constant
Scenario 2 0% Yes Constant
Scenario 3 25% Yes Constant
Scenario 4 50% Yes Constant
Scenario 5 0% No Constant
Scenario 6 25% No Constant
Scenario 7 50% No Constant
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis September, 2020 Janesville, WI Page 4
per trip by scenario is summarized on Table 5. Table 6 shows the calculation by scenario of the total
transportation charges (transportation utility, wheel tax where applicable, and taxes for future
transportation debt issuances where applicable) to an average single‐family home in the City. The
application of the wheel tax assumes two vehicles per household. Table 7 shows the summary total
transportation charges and taxes by
Street Rehabilitation Debt Analysis As part of this feasibility analysis, debt scenarios were prepared to examine the estimated amount of
debt issuance that would be needed by scenario for street rehabilitation. In addition, the analysis could
then estimate the annual principal and interest payments for those debt issuances and develop an
estimate of the total tax rate for debt associated with street rehabilitation work. User rate Scenarios 2
and 5 listed above assume the transportation utility will fund all street rehabilitation costs less other
revenue sources, therefore no new debt would need to be issued for street rehabilitation work.
The base level scenario 1 shown on Table 8 assumes no transportation utility is created and the City
continues its existing funding practices. The estimated annual principal and interest payments are
shown on Tables 9. Table 10 shows the estimated debt sizing for user rate scenarios 3 and 6, which
assume that the City would need to debt finance 25% of the annual street rehabilitation costs, with the
transportation utility and other funding sources paying the remaining costs. The estimated principal and
interest payments for these scenarios are shown on Table 11. Table 12 is the debt sizing for Scenarios 4
and 7 which assume that debt financing would be needed for 50% of the annual street rehabilitation
costs, and the estimated debt service payments for these scenarios are shown on Table 13.
Tables 14‐16 show the City’s tax levy for debt and associated tax rate on an equalized basis for future
transportation related borrowings by scenario. The total annual principal and interest payments for each
debt scenario (base, scenarios 3 and 6, and scenarios 4 and 7) are then summarized in each respective
table along with the associated total tax rate for the estimated 2021‐2030 street rehabilitation debt. The
total estimated tax rate for future street rehabilitation projects, and total estimated principal and
interest by scenario are summarized graphically below.
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis September, 2020 Janesville, WI Page 5
Summary of Key Findings A summary of the key findings of the analysis are described below:
1. The user rates by scenario vary greatly depending on the supplemental level of debt funding in
the street rehabilitation program and whether the City discontinues the wheel tax.
2. The highest cost to the single‐family home by 2030 is Scenario 1, which assumes the City does
not create a transportation utility and continues collecting the wheel tax.
a. Conversely, Scenario 5 assumes no supplemental level of debt funding in the street
rehabilitation program but discontinues the wheel tax. This results in a higher user rate
than Scenario 2, but the lowest overall cost to the homeowner compared to all other
scenarios.
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis September, 2020 Janesville, WI Page 6
3. These scenarios will have different outcomes for non‐residential property owners depending on
their level of trip generation.
4. Scenario 1 (as‐is) debt scenario assuming no transportation utility is created produces the
highest total principal and interest payments and overall tax rate for debt. The scenario
conceivably leaves the City with less borrowing ability for other non‐street rehabilitation
projects as the City has a policy to not allow annual principal and interest payments for debt
supported by the tax levy to exceed 20% of the total tax levy. This scenario also produces the
highest overall tax rate for debt.
Next Steps This feasibility study attempts to provide the Common Council with enough information to consider if it
wants to move forward with the creation of a transportation utility. Assuming the Council wishes to
proceed with the creation of a transportation utility we identify the following steps to be taken:
1. The Council to decide on a budget and user rate scenario that it would like to proceed with.
2. Develop a potential public education outreach campaign on the transportation utility and
engage in public outreach as needed on the utility.
3. The City would need to establish a formalized transportation utility budget to define total
revenues and detailed expenses on an annual basis.
4. The trip generation database will need to be refined such that all properties have been reviewed
and trip generation rates are assigned to each parcel.
5. The trip generation database will then need to be incorporated into the City’s utility billing
database so that the applicable user rates can be assigned to each parcel based on their
individual trip generation rates.
6. A Transportation Utility Ordinance will need to be created specifying the governance structure
of the utility, the frequency and method for billing and method for settling any disputes on
charges and/or any applicable credit policy.
Table 1Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis - Trip Generation SummaryCity of Janesville, WI
Land Use Category1No.
Properties
Percentage
(Properties)
No. Daily
Trips
Percentage
(Trips)
Port & Terminal 11 0.04% 307 0.04%
Industrial 511 2.07% 45,806 6.11%
Residential2
21,903 88.91% 237,539 31.67%
Lodging 13 0.05% 4,689 0.63%
Recreational 153 0.62% 9,640 1.29%
Institutional 125 0.51% 22,868 3.05%
Medical 22 0.09% 3,585 0.48%
Office 326 1.32% 44,890 5.99%
Retail 175 0.71% 260,264 34.70%
Services 253 1.03% 120,412 16.05%
Admin (VAC, COMP, UTIL) 1,142 4.64% 0 0.00%
Totals 24,634 100.00% 750,000 100.00%
Notes:
1. Source of Table: raSmith Trip database for Janesville and developed from
ITE Trip Generation Statistics 10th Edition:
https://www.ite.org/technical‐resources/topics/trip‐and‐parking‐generation/trip‐generation‐10th‐edition‐formats/
2. Residential categotry includes:
Single‐family residential
Multi‐family residential
Mobile home park
Senior living facilities
6%
32%
1%
1%3%
0%
6%
35%
16%
Estimate of Daily Trips by Land Use Type Port & Terminal
Industrial
Residential2
Lodging
Recreational
Institutional
Medical
Office
Retail
Services
Admin (VAC, COMP, UTIL)
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 7
Table 2Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis - Summary of Rate ScenariosCity of Janesville, WI
Program
Funding Level Wheel Other Transportation
Supported by Debt Tax Appropriations
Scenario 1 Variable Yes Constant
Scenario 2 0% Yes Constant
Scenario 3 25% Yes Constant
Scenario 4 50% Yes Constant
Scenario 5 0% No Constant
Scenario 6 25% No Constant
Scenario 7 50% No Constant
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 8
Table 3Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis - Summary of Utility Revenue Requirementsand Borrowing Needs by ScenarioCity of Janesville, WI
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Scenario #1 ‐ Baseline
Appropriations Remain Constant
Debt as % of Program Funding = Variable
Prior Debt ‐ General Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
New Debt ‐ General Fund 4,176,200 4,460,200 4,758,400 5,071,500 5,400,200 5,745,300 6,107,700 6,488,300 6,887,900 7,307,500
Appropriations
General Fund
Wheel Tax 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
General Transportation Aids 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
Wheel Tax Special Revenue Fund 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200
Stormwater Utility 1,284,700 1,348,900 1,416,300 1,487,100 1,561,500 1,639,600 1,721,600 1,807,700 1,898,100 1,993,000
Transportation Utility ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Subtotal 2,527,900 2,592,100 2,659,500 2,730,300 2,804,700 2,882,800 2,964,800 3,050,900 3,141,300 3,236,200
Reimbursable 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
GRAND TOTAL 6,964,100$ 7,312,300$ 7,677,900$ 8,061,800$ 8,464,900$ 8,888,100$ 9,332,500$ 9,799,200$ 10,289,200$ 10,803,700$
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Scenario #2
Appropriations Remain Constant
Debt as % of Program Funding = 0%
Prior Debt ‐ General Fund 250,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
New Debt ‐ General Fund ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Appropriations
General Fund
Wheel Tax 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
General Transportation Aids 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
Wheel Tax Special Revenue Fund 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200
Stormwater Utility 1,284,700 1,348,900 1,416,300 1,487,100 1,561,500 1,639,600 1,721,600 1,807,700 1,898,100 1,993,000
Transportation Utility 4,176,200 4,710,200 5,008,400 5,321,500 5,650,200 5,995,300 6,357,700 6,738,300 7,137,900 7,557,500
Subtotal 6,704,100 7,302,300 7,667,900 8,051,800 8,454,900 8,878,100 9,322,500 9,789,200 10,279,200 10,793,700
Reimbursable 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
GRAND TOTAL 6,964,100$ 7,312,300$ 7,677,900$ 8,061,800$ 8,464,900$ 8,888,100$ 9,332,500$ 9,799,200$ 10,289,200$ 10,803,700$
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WIPage 9
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Scenario #3
Appropriations Remain Constant
Debt as % of Program Funding = 25%
Prior Debt ‐ General Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
New Debt ‐ General Fund 1,741,000 1,828,100 1,919,500 2,015,500 2,116,200 2,222,000 2,333,100 2,449,800 2,572,300 2,700,900
Appropriations
General Fund
Wheel Tax 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
General Transportation Aids 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
Wheel Tax Special Revenue Fund 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200
Stormwater Utility 1,284,700 1,348,900 1,416,300 1,487,100 1,561,500 1,639,600 1,721,600 1,807,700 1,898,100 1,993,000
Transportation Utility 2,435,200 2,632,100 2,838,900 3,056,000 3,284,000 3,523,300 3,774,600 4,038,500 4,315,600 4,606,600
Subtotal 4,963,100 5,224,200 5,498,400 5,786,300 6,088,700 6,406,100 6,739,400 7,089,400 7,456,900 7,842,800
Reimbursable 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
GRAND TOTAL 6,964,100$ 7,312,300$ 7,677,900$ 8,061,800$ 8,464,900$ 8,888,100$ 9,332,500$ 9,799,200$ 10,289,200$ 10,803,700$
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Scenario #4
Appropriations Remain Constant
Debt as % of Program Funding = 50%
Prior Debt ‐ General Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
New Debt ‐ General Fund 3,482,100 3,656,200 3,839,000 4,030,900 4,232,500 4,444,100 4,666,300 4,899,600 5,144,600 5,401,900
Appropriations
General Fund
Wheel Tax 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
General Transportation Aids 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
Wheel Tax Special Revenue Fund 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200 973,200
Stormwater Utility 1,284,700 1,348,900 1,416,300 1,487,100 1,561,500 1,639,600 1,721,600 1,807,700 1,898,100 1,993,000
Transportation Utility 694,100 804,000 919,400 1,040,600 1,167,700 1,301,200 1,441,400 1,588,700 1,743,300 1,905,600
Subtotal 3,222,000 3,396,100 3,578,900 3,770,900 3,972,400 4,184,000 4,406,200 4,639,600 4,884,600 5,141,800
Reimbursable 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
GRAND TOTAL 6,964,100$ 7,312,300$ 7,677,900$ 8,061,800$ 8,464,900$ 8,888,100$ 9,332,500$ 9,799,200$ 10,289,200$ 10,803,700$
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WIPage 10
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Scenario #5
Appropriations Remain Constant, but Wheel Tax is Eliminated
Debt as % of Program Funding = 0%
Prior Debt ‐ General Fund 250,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
New Debt ‐ General Fund ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Appropriations
General Fund
Wheel Tax ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
General Transportation Aids 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
Wheel Tax Special Revenue Fund ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Stormwater Utility 1,284,700 1,348,900 1,416,300 1,487,100 1,561,500 1,639,600 1,721,600 1,807,700 1,898,100 1,993,000
Transportation Utility 5,249,400 5,783,400 6,081,600 6,394,700 6,723,400 7,068,500 7,430,900 7,811,500 8,211,100 8,630,700
Subtotal 6,704,100 7,302,300 7,667,900 8,051,800 8,454,900 8,878,100 9,322,500 9,789,200 10,279,200 10,793,700
Reimbursable 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
GRAND TOTAL 6,964,100$ 7,312,300$ 7,677,900$ 8,061,800$ 8,464,900$ 8,888,100$ 9,332,500$ 9,799,200$ 10,289,200$ 10,803,700$
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Scenario #6
Appropriations Remain Constant, but Wheel Tax is Eliminated
Debt as % of Program Funding = 25%
Prior Debt ‐ General Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
New Debt ‐ General Fund 1,741,000 1,828,100 1,919,500 2,015,500 2,116,200 2,222,000 2,333,100 2,449,800 2,572,300 2,700,900
Appropriations
General Fund
Wheel Tax ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
General Transportation Aids 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
Wheel Tax Special Revenue Fund ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Stormwater Utility 1,284,700 1,348,900 1,416,300 1,487,100 1,561,500 1,639,600 1,721,600 1,807,700 1,898,100 1,993,000
Transportation Utility 3,508,400 3,705,300 3,912,100 4,129,200 4,357,200 4,596,500 4,847,800 5,111,700 5,388,800 5,679,800
Subtotal 4,963,100 5,224,200 5,498,400 5,786,300 6,088,700 6,406,100 6,739,400 7,089,400 7,456,900 7,842,800
Reimbursable 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
GRAND TOTAL 6,964,100$ 7,312,300$ 7,677,900$ 8,061,800$ 8,464,900$ 8,888,100$ 9,332,500$ 9,799,200$ 10,289,200$ 10,803,700$
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WIPage 11
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection
Scenario #7
Appropriations Remain Constant, but Wheel Tax is Eliminated
Debt as % of Program Funding = 50%
Prior Debt ‐ General Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
New Debt ‐ General Fund 3,482,100 3,656,200 3,839,000 4,030,900 4,232,500 4,444,100 4,666,300 4,899,600 5,144,600 5,401,900
Appropriations
General Fund
Wheel Tax ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
General Transportation Aids 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000
Wheel Tax Special Revenue Fund ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Stormwater Utility 1,284,700 1,348,900 1,416,300 1,487,100 1,561,500 1,639,600 1,721,600 1,807,700 1,898,100 1,993,000
Transportation Utility 1,767,300 1,877,200 1,992,600 2,113,800 2,240,900 2,374,400 2,514,600 2,661,900 2,816,500 2,978,800
Subtotal 3,222,000 3,396,100 3,578,900 3,770,900 3,972,400 4,184,000 4,406,200 4,639,600 4,884,600 5,141,800
Reimbursable 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
GRAND TOTAL 6,964,100$ 7,312,300$ 7,677,900$ 8,061,800$ 8,464,900$ 8,888,100$ 9,332,500$ 9,799,200$ 10,289,200$ 10,803,700$
Notes:
1. Source for all data in table was provided by the City of Janesville Finance Department September, 2020. All scenarios assume construction costs will increase by 5.00% annually.
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WIPage 12
Table 4Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis- User Rate Calculation By ScenarioCity of Janesville, WI
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 1
Revenue Requirement1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Customers2 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634
Fixed Rate per Customer3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Trips per Day2 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
Rate per Trip4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Percentage Increase N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 2
Revenue Requirement1 4,176,200$ 4,710,200$ 5,008,400$ 5,321,500$ 5,650,200$ 5,995,300$ 6,357,700$ 6,738,300$ 7,137,900$ 7,557,500$
Customers2 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634
Fixed Rate per Customer3 16.95$ 19.12$ 20.33$ 21.60$ 22.94$ 24.34$ 25.81$ 27.35$ 28.98$ 30.68$
Total Trips per Day2 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
Rate per Trip4 5.01$ 5.65$ 6.01$ 6.39$ 6.78$ 7.19$ 7.63$ 8.09$ 8.57$ 9.07$
Percentage Increase 13% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WIPage 13
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 3
Revenue Requirement1 2,435,200$ 2,632,100$ 2,838,900$ 3,056,000$ 3,284,000$ 3,523,300$ 3,774,600$ 4,038,500$ 4,315,600$ 4,606,600$
Customers2 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634
Fixed Rate per Customer3 9.89$ 10.68$ 11.52$ 12.41$ 13.33$ 14.30$ 15.32$ 16.39$ 17.52$ 18.70$
Total Trips per Day2 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
Rate per Trip4 2.92$ 3.16$ 3.41$ 3.67$ 3.94$ 4.23$ 4.53$ 4.85$ 5.18$ 5.53$
Percentage Increase 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 4
Revenue Requirement1 694,100$ 804,000$ 919,400$ 1,040,600$ 1,167,700$ 1,301,200$ 1,441,400$ 1,588,700$ 1,743,300$ 1,905,600$
Customers2 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634
Fixed Rate per Customer3 2.82$ 3.26$ 3.73$ 4.22$ 4.74$ 5.28$ 5.85$ 6.45$ 7.08$ 7.74$
Total Trips per Day2 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
Rate per Trip4 0.83$ 0.96$ 1.10$ 1.25$ 1.40$ 1.56$ 1.73$ 1.91$ 2.09$ 2.29$
Percentage Increase 16% 14% 13% 12% 11% 11% 10% 10% 9%
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 5
Revenue Requirement1 5,249,400$ 5,783,400$ 6,081,600$ 6,394,700$ 6,723,400$ 7,068,500$ 7,430,900$ 7,811,500$ 8,211,100$ 8,630,700$
Customers2 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634
Fixed Rate per Customer3 21.31$ 23.48$ 24.69$ 25.96$ 27.29$ 28.69$ 30.17$ 31.71$ 33.33$ 35.04$
Total Trips per Day2 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
Rate per Trip4 6.30$ 6.94$ 7.30$ 7.67$ 8.07$ 8.48$ 8.92$ 9.37$ 9.85$ 10.36$
Percentage Increase 10% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WIPage 14
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 6
Revenue Requirement1 3,508,400$ 3,705,300$ 3,912,100$ 4,129,200$ 4,357,200$ 4,596,500$ 4,847,800$ 5,111,700$ 5,388,800$ 5,679,800$
Customers2 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634
Fixed Rate per Customer3 14.24$ 15.04$ 15.88$ 16.76$ 17.69$ 18.66$ 19.68$ 20.75$ 21.88$ 23.06$
Total Trips per Day2 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
Rate per Trip4 4.21$ 4.45$ 4.69$ 4.96$ 5.23$ 5.52$ 5.82$ 6.13$ 6.47$ 6.82$
Percentage Increase 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 7
Revenue Requirement1 1,767,300$ 1,877,200$ 1,992,600$ 2,113,800$ 2,240,900$ 2,374,400$ 2,514,600$ 2,661,900$ 2,816,500$ 2,978,800$
Customers2 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634 24,634
Fixed Rate per Customer3 7.17$ 7.62$ 8.09$ 8.58$ 9.10$ 9.64$ 10.21$ 10.81$ 11.43$ 12.09$
Total Trips per Day2 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
Rate per Trip4 2.12$ 2.25$ 2.39$ 2.54$ 2.69$ 2.85$ 3.02$ 3.19$ 3.38$ 3.57$
Percentage Increase 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%
Notes:
1. Revenue requirement for each scenario taken from Table 3.
2. Customers and number of trips taken from Table 1. Total trips from Table 1 are expressed daily.
3. Fixed charge per customer calculated by allocated 10% of the revenue requirement to the fixed charge divided by the number of customers within the utility.
4. Rate per trip calculated by dividing 90% of the revenue requirement by the number of assumed daily trips. The rate per trip is an annual rate and rounded off to the hundredth decimal place.
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WIPage 15
Table 5Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis- User Rate Summary By ScenarioCity of Janesville, WI
Summary of User Rates By Scenario
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 1 Fixed Charge ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Trip Rate ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Scenario 2 Fixed Charge 16.95$ 19.12$ 20.33$ 21.60$ 22.94$ 24.34$ 25.81$ 27.35$ 28.98$ 30.68$
Trip Rate 5.01$ 5.65$ 6.01$ 6.39$ 6.78$ 7.19$ 7.63$ 8.09$ 8.57$ 9.07$
Scenario 3 Fixed Charge 9.89$ 10.68$ 11.52$ 12.41$ 13.33$ 14.30$ 15.32$ 16.39$ 17.52$ 18.70$
Trip Rate 2.92$ 3.16$ 3.41$ 3.67$ 3.94$ 4.23$ 4.53$ 4.85$ 5.18$ 5.53$
Scenario 4 Fixed Charge 2.82$ 3.26$ 3.73$ 4.22$ 4.74$ 5.28$ 5.85$ 6.45$ 7.08$ 7.74$
Trip Rate 0.83$ 0.96$ 1.10$ 1.25$ 1.40$ 1.56$ 1.73$ 1.91$ 2.09$ 2.29$
Scenario 5 Fixed Charge 21.31$ 23.48$ 24.69$ 25.96$ 27.29$ 28.69$ 30.17$ 31.71$ 33.33$ 35.04$
Trip Rate 6.30$ 6.94$ 7.30$ 7.67$ 8.07$ 8.48$ 8.92$ 9.37$ 9.85$ 10.36$
Scenario 6 Fixed Charge 14.24$ 15.04$ 15.88$ 16.76$ 17.69$ 18.66$ 19.68$ 20.75$ 21.88$ 23.06$
Trip Rate 4.21$ 4.45$ 4.69$ 4.96$ 5.23$ 5.52$ 5.82$ 6.13$ 6.47$ 6.82$
Scenario 7 Fixed Charge 7.17$ 7.62$ 8.09$ 8.58$ 9.10$ 9.64$ 10.21$ 10.81$ 11.43$ 12.09$
Trip Rate 2.12$ 2.25$ 2.39$ 2.54$ 2.69$ 2.85$ 3.02$ 3.19$ 3.38$ 3.57$
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 16
Table 6Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis - User Rate Summary & TotalTransportation Charges and Taxes For Single-Family Residential CustomerCity of Janesville, WI
Scenario 1
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Rate per Trip (Annual) ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Assigned Trips 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44
Annual Fixed Charge ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Annual Transportation Utility Charge ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Wheel Tax 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$
Transportation Tax Rate for Debt ‐$ 0.09$ 0.18$ 0.29$ 0.40$ 0.51$ 0.63$ 0.76$ 0.90$ 1.04$
Annual Transportation Tax for $149,000 Property ‐$ 13.30$ 27.51$ 42.80$ 59.19$ 76.35$ 94.55$ 113.59$ 133.71$ 154.86$
Total Transporation Charges & Taxes 40.00$ 53.30$ 67.51$ 82.80$ 99.19$ 116.35$ 134.55$ 153.59$ 173.71$ 194.86$
Percentage Change 33.24% 26.67% 22.65% 19.79% 17.31% 15.64% 14.15% 13.10% 12.18%
Scenario 2
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Rate per Trip (Annual) 5.01$ 5.65$ 6.01$ 6.39$ 6.78$ 7.19$ 7.63$ 8.09$ 8.57$ 9.07$
Assigned Trips 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44
Annual Fixed Charge 16.95$ 19.12$ 20.33$ 21.60$ 22.94$ 24.34$ 25.81$ 27.35$ 28.98$ 30.68$
Annual Transportation Utility Charge 64.26$ 72.48$ 77.07$ 81.88$ 86.94$ 92.25$ 97.83$ 103.69$ 109.83$ 116.29$
Wheel Tax 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$
Transportation Tax Rate for Debt ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Annual Transportation Tax for $149,000 Property ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Total Transporation Charges & Taxes 104.26$ 112.48$ 117.07$ 121.88$ 126.94$ 132.25$ 137.83$ 143.69$ 149.83$ 156.29$
Percentage Change 7.88% 4.08% 4.12% 4.15% 4.18% 4.22% 4.25% 4.28% 4.31%
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 17
Scenario 3
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Rate per Trip (Annual) 2.92$ 3.16$ 3.41$ 3.67$ 3.94$ 4.23$ 4.53$ 4.85$ 5.18$ 5.53$
Assigned Trips 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44
Annual Fixed Charge 9.89$ 10.68$ 11.52$ 12.41$ 13.33$ 14.30$ 15.32$ 16.39$ 17.52$ 18.70$
Annual Transportation Utility Charge 37.47$ 40.50$ 43.68$ 47.02$ 50.53$ 54.21$ 58.08$ 62.14$ 66.41$ 70.88$
Wheel Tax 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$
Transportation Tax Rate for Debt ‐$ 0.04$ 0.08$ 0.12$ 0.16$ 0.21$ 0.26$ 0.31$ 0.36$ 0.41$
Annual Transportation Tax for $149,000 Property ‐$ 5.63$ 11.57$ 18.01$ 24.47$ 31.20$ 38.38$ 45.86$ 53.33$ 61.49$
Total Transporation Charges & Taxes 77.47$ 86.13$ 95.25$ 105.04$ 115.00$ 125.42$ 136.46$ 148.00$ 159.74$ 172.37$
Percentage Change 11.17% 10.59% 10.27% 9.49% 9.05% 8.81% 8.45% 7.93% 7.91%
Scenario 4
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Rate per Trip (Annual) 0.83$ 0.96$ 1.10$ 1.25$ 1.40$ 1.56$ 1.73$ 1.91$ 2.09$ 2.29$
Assigned Trips 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44
Annual Fixed Charge 2.82$ 3.26$ 3.73$ 4.22$ 4.74$ 5.28$ 5.85$ 6.45$ 7.08$ 7.74$
Annual Transportation Utility Charge 10.68$ 12.37$ 14.15$ 16.01$ 17.97$ 20.02$ 22.18$ 24.45$ 26.82$ 29.32$
Wheel Tax 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$ 40.00$
Transportation Tax Rate for Debt ‐$ 0.07$ 0.15$ 0.24$ 0.32$ 0.41$ 0.51$ 0.61$ 0.71$ 0.81$
Annual Transportation Tax for $149,000 Property ‐$ 11.09$ 22.95$ 35.24$ 48.15$ 61.73$ 75.94$ 90.60$ 105.68$ 121.43$
Total Transporation Charges & Taxes 50.68$ 63.46$ 77.10$ 91.25$ 106.12$ 121.75$ 138.12$ 155.05$ 172.50$ 190.75$
Percentage Change 25.22% 21.49% 18.36% 16.29% 14.74% 13.44% 12.25% 11.26% 10.58%
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 18
Scenario 5
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Rate per Trip (Annual) 6.30$ 6.94$ 7.30$ 7.67$ 8.07$ 8.48$ 8.92$ 9.37$ 9.85$ 10.36$
Assigned Trips 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44
Annual Fixed Charge 21.31$ 23.48$ 24.69$ 25.96$ 27.29$ 28.69$ 30.17$ 31.71$ 33.33$ 35.04$
Annual Transportation Utility Charge 80.77$ 88.99$ 93.58$ 98.40$ 103.46$ 108.77$ 114.34$ 120.20$ 126.35$ 132.80$
Wheel Tax ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Transportation Tax Rate for Debt ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Annual Transportation Tax for $149,000 Property ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Total Transporation Charges & Taxes 80.77$ 88.99$ 93.58$ 98.40$ 103.46$ 108.77$ 114.34$ 120.20$ 126.35$ 132.80$
Percentage Change 10.17% 5.16% 5.15% 5.14% 5.13% 5.13% 5.12% 5.12% 5.11%
Scenario 6
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Rate per Trip (Annual) 4.21$ 4.45$ 4.69$ 4.96$ 5.23$ 5.52$ 5.82$ 6.13$ 6.47$ 6.82$
Assigned Trips 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44
Annual Fixed Charge 14.24$ 15.04$ 15.88$ 16.76$ 17.69$ 18.66$ 19.68$ 20.75$ 21.88$ 23.06$
Annual Transportation Utility Charge 53.99$ 57.02$ 60.20$ 63.54$ 67.05$ 70.73$ 74.60$ 78.66$ 82.92$ 87.40$
Wheel Tax ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Transportation Tax Rate for Debt ‐$ 0.04$ 0.08$ 0.12$ 0.16$ 0.21$ 0.26$ 0.31$ 0.36$ 0.41$
Annual Transportation Tax for $149,000 Property ‐$ 5.63$ 11.57$ 18.01$ 24.47$ 31.20$ 38.38$ 45.86$ 53.33$ 61.49$
Total Transporation Charges & Taxes 53.99$ 62.64$ 71.77$ 81.55$ 91.52$ 101.93$ 112.98$ 124.52$ 136.25$ 148.89$
Percentage Change 16.04% 14.56% 13.64% 12.22% 11.38% 10.84% 10.21% 9.43% 9.27%
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 19
Scenario 7
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Rate per Trip (Annual) 2.12$ 2.25$ 2.39$ 2.54$ 2.69$ 2.85$ 3.02$ 3.19$ 3.38$ 3.57$
Assigned Trips 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44 9.44
Annual Fixed Charge 7.17$ 7.62$ 8.09$ 8.58$ 9.10$ 9.64$ 10.21$ 10.81$ 11.43$ 12.09$
Annual Transportation Utility Charge 27.19$ 28.89$ 30.66$ 32.53$ 34.48$ 36.54$ 38.69$ 40.96$ 43.34$ 45.84$
Wheel Tax1 ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$
Transportation Tax Rate for Debt ‐$ 0.07$ 0.15$ 0.24$ 0.32$ 0.41$ 0.51$ 0.61$ 0.71$ 0.81$
Annual Transportation Tax for $149,000 Property ‐$ 11.09$ 22.95$ 35.24$ 48.15$ 61.73$ 75.94$ 90.60$ 105.68$ 121.43$
Total Transporation Charges & Taxes 27.19$ 39.97$ 53.61$ 67.77$ 82.63$ 98.27$ 114.64$ 131.56$ 149.02$ 167.26$
Percentage Change 47.00% 34.12% 26.40% 21.93% 18.93% 16.66% 14.76% 13.27% 12.24%
Notes:
1. Total wheel tax assumes two vehicles per household.
2. Transportation tax rate for debt taken from Tables 14 ‐ 16.
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 20
Table 7Transportation Utility Feasibility Analysis - Summary of Total Charges & TaxesFor Single-Family Residential Customer by ScenarioCity of Janesville, WI
Total Transportation Charges & Taxes 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
Scenario 1 (Base, No Utility) 40.00$ 53.30$ 67.51$ 82.80$ 99.19$ 116.35$ 134.55$ 153.59$ 173.71$ 194.86$
Scenario 2 104.26$ 112.48$ 117.07$ 121.88$ 126.94$ 132.25$ 137.83$ 143.69$ 149.83$ 156.29$
Scenario 3 77.47$ 86.13$ 95.25$ 105.04$ 115.00$ 125.42$ 136.46$ 148.00$ 159.74$ 172.37$
Scenario 4 50.68$ 63.46$ 77.10$ 91.25$ 106.12$ 121.75$ 138.12$ 155.05$ 172.50$ 190.75$
Scenario 5 80.77$ 88.99$ 93.58$ 98.40$ 103.46$ 108.77$ 114.34$ 120.20$ 126.35$ 132.80$
Scenario 6 53.99$ 62.64$ 71.77$ 81.55$ 91.52$ 101.93$ 112.98$ 124.52$ 136.25$ 148.89$
Scenario 7 27.19$ 39.97$ 53.61$ 67.77$ 82.63$ 98.27$ 114.64$ 131.56$ 149.02$ 167.26$
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 21
Table 8Transportation Utility - Base Borrowing Scenario 1No Transportation UtilityCity of Janesville, WI
2021 G.O. Notes 2022 G.O. Notes 2023 G.O. Notes 2024 G.O. Notes 2025 G.O. Notes 2026 G.O. Notes 2027 G.O. Notes 2028 G.O. Notes 2029 G.O. Notes 2030 G.O. Notes
CIP Projects
Street Rehabilitation Projects 4,176,200 4,460,200 4,758,400 5,071,500 5,400,200 5,745,300 6,107,700 6,488,300 6,887,900 7,307,500
Estimated Issuance Expenses 102,750 106,850 110,750 115,050 119,650 130,000 135,200 142,150 147,900 155,600
TOTAL TO BE FINANCED 4,278,950 4,567,050 4,869,150 5,186,550 5,519,850 5,875,300 6,242,900 6,630,450 7,035,800 7,463,100
Estimated Interest Earnings (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)
Rounding 2,050 3,950 1,850 4,450 1,150 700 3,100 550 200 2,900
NET ISSUE SIZE 4,280,000 4,570,000 4,870,000 5,190,000 5,520,000 5,875,000 6,245,000 6,630,000 7,035,000 7,465,000
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 22
Table 9Allocation of Debt Service - Base Scenario 1No Transportation UtilityCity of Janesville, WI
Year
Ending Principal Interest Total
2020 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0
2022 390,000 66,188 456,188
2023 820,000 128,523 948,523
2024 1,280,000 203,091 1,483,091
2025 1,775,000 286,180 2,061,180
2026 2,310,000 362,266 2,672,266
2027 2,890,000 435,696 3,325,696
2028 3,510,000 505,429 4,015,429
2029 4,180,000 570,251 4,750,251
2030 4,900,000 629,256 5,529,256
2031 5,680,000 681,486 6,361,486
2032 5,380,000 525,130 5,905,130
2033 4,970,000 435,298 5,405,298
2034 4,520,000 348,761 4,868,761
2035 4,025,000 267,761 4,292,761
2036 3,490,000 194,205 3,684,205
2037 2,905,000 129,568 3,034,568
2038 2,265,000 75,729 2,340,729
2039 1,570,000 34,910 1,604,910
2040 820,000 9,020 829,020
Total 57,680,000 5,888,748 63,568,748
Notes:
1) Estimated interest rates for 2021‐2030 debt issues assumes Aa2 sale from
August, 2020 plus 35 basis points for the 2021 issuance, an additional 60 basis points
for the 2022 issuance, an additional 85 basis points for the 2023 issuance
and an additional 100 basis points for the 2024‐2030 issuances.
Total 2021‐2030 Debt Issuances
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 23
Table 10Transportation Utility - Borrowing Scenarios 3 & 6City of Janesville, WI
2021 G.O. Notes 2022 G.O. Notes 2023 G.O. Notes 2024 G.O. Notes 2025 G.O. Notes 2026 G.O. Notes 2027 G.O. Notes 2028 G.O. Notes 2029 G.O. Notes 2030 G.O. Notes
CIP Projects
Street Rehabilitation Projects 1,741,000 1,828,100 1,919,500 2,015,500 2,116,200 2,222,000 2,333,100 2,449,800 2,572,300 2,700,900
Estimated Issuance Expenses 72,800 76,200 77,550 78,900 80,450 82,000 83,750 87,150 89,000 91,100
TOTAL TO BE FINANCED 1,813,800 1,904,300 1,997,050 2,094,400 2,196,650 2,304,000 2,416,850 2,536,950 2,661,300 2,792,000
Estimated Interest Earnings (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)
Rounding 2,200 1,700 3,950 1,600 4,350 2,000 4,150 4,050 4,700 4,000
NET ISSUE SIZE 1,815,000 1,905,000 2,000,000 2,095,000 2,200,000 2,305,000 2,420,000 2,540,000 2,665,000 2,795,000
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 24
Table 11Allocation of Debt Service - Scenarios 3 & 6City of Janesville, WI
Year
Ending Principal Interest Total
2020 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0
2022 165,000 28,050 193,050
2023 345,000 53,864 398,864
2024 540,000 84,184 624,184
2025 735,000 117,261 852,261
2026 945,000 147,053 1,092,053
2027 1,175,000 175,118 1,350,118
2028 1,420,000 201,150 1,621,150
2029 1,670,000 224,741 1,894,741
2030 1,950,000 245,478 2,195,478
2031 2,240,000 262,896 2,502,896
2032 2,110,000 202,521 2,312,521
2033 1,940,000 167,245 2,107,245
2034 1,750,000 133,494 1,883,494
2035 1,550,000 102,144 1,652,144
2036 1,335,000 73,861 1,408,861
2037 1,110,000 49,120 1,159,120
2038 860,000 28,596 888,596
2039 595,000 13,105 608,105
2040 305,000 3,355 308,355
Total 22,740,000 2,313,235 25,053,235
Notes:
1) Estimated interest rates for 2021‐2030 debt issues assumes Aa2 sale from
August, 2020 plus 35 basis points for the 2021 issuance, an additional 60 basis points
for the 2022 issuance, an additional 85 basis points for the 2023 issuance
and an additional 100 basis points for the 2024‐2030 issuances.
Total 2021‐2030 Debt Issuances
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 25
Table 12Transportation Utility - Borrowing Scenarios 4 & 7City of Janesville, WI
2021 G.O. Notes 2022 G.O. Notes 2023 G.O. Notes 2024 G.O. Notes 2025 G.O. Notes 2026 G.O. Notes 2027 G.O. Notes 2028 G.O. Notes 2029 G.O. Notes 2030 G.O. Notes
CIP Projects
Street Rehabilitation Projects 3,482,100 3,656,200 3,839,000 4,030,900 4,232,500 4,444,100 4,666,300 4,899,600 5,144,600 5,401,900
Estimated Issuance Expenses 99,000 101,550 104,200 107,050 110,100 119,000 122,450 126,000 129,800 135,550
TOTAL TO BE FINANCED 3,581,100 3,757,750 3,943,200 4,137,950 4,342,600 4,563,100 4,788,750 5,025,600 5,274,400 5,537,450
Estimated Interest Earnings (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)
Rounding 4,900 3,250 2,800 3,050 3,400 2,900 2,250 400 1,600 3,550
NET ISSUE SIZE 3,585,000 3,760,000 3,945,000 4,140,000 4,345,000 4,565,000 4,790,000 5,025,000 5,275,000 5,540,000
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 26
Table 13Allocation of Debt Service - Scenarios 4 & 7City of Janesville, WI
Year
Ending Principal Interest Total
2020 0 0 0
2021 0 0 0
2022 325,000 55,468 380,468
2023 685,000 106,371 791,371
2024 1,055,000 166,210 1,221,210
2025 1,445,000 231,754 1,676,754
2026 1,870,000 290,606 2,160,606
2027 2,325,000 346,261 2,671,261
2028 2,805,000 397,834 3,202,834
2029 3,310,000 444,481 3,754,481
2030 3,850,000 485,516 4,335,516
2031 4,430,000 520,339 4,950,339
2032 4,170,000 400,879 4,570,879
2033 3,835,000 331,158 4,166,158
2034 3,475,000 264,290 3,739,290
2035 3,075,000 202,058 3,277,058
2036 2,650,000 145,935 2,795,935
2037 2,190,000 96,969 2,286,969
2038 1,695,000 56,493 1,751,493
2039 1,170,000 25,993 1,195,993
2040 610,000 6,710 616,710
Total 44,970,000 4,575,323 49,545,323
Notes:
1) Estimated interest rates for 2021‐2030 debt issues assumes Aa2 sale from
August, 2020 plus 35 basis points for the 2021 issuance, an additional 60 basis points
for the 2022 issuance, an additional 85 basis points for the 2023 issuance
and an additional 100 basis points for the 2024‐2030 issuances.
Total 2021‐2030 Debt Issuances
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 27
Table 14Financing Plan Tax Impact Base Scenario 1 - No Transportation UtilityCity of Janesville, WI
Base Level Scenario 1
Street Rehabilitation Total Total Tax Levy Change Annual Taxes
Year New Debt Rate for from Prior $149,000 Year
Ending Total Principal and Interest Service Levy
Transportation
Debt Service Year Home Ending
2020 5,061,218,500 0 0 $0.00 $0 2020
2021 5,086,524,593 0 0 $0.00 0 $0 2021
2022 5,111,957,215 456,188 456,188 $0.09 456,188 $13 2022
2023 5,137,517,002 948,523 948,523 $0.18 492,335 $28 2023
2024 5,163,204,587 1,483,091 1,483,091 $0.29 534,569 $43 2024
2025 5,189,020,609 2,061,180 2,061,180 $0.40 578,089 $59 2025
2026 5,214,965,713 2,672,266 2,672,266 $0.51 611,086 $76 2026
2027 5,241,040,541 3,325,696 3,325,696 $0.63 653,430 $95 2027
2028 5,267,245,744 4,015,429 4,015,429 $0.76 689,733 $114 2028
2029 5,293,581,973 4,750,251 4,750,251 $0.90 734,823 $134 2029
2030 5,320,049,882 5,529,256 5,529,256 $1.04 779,005 $155 2030
2031 5,346,650,132 6,361,486 6,361,486 $1.19 832,230 $177 2031
Total 63,568,748 Total
Notes:
1. TID out equalized value assumed to increase by 0.5% annually.
Proposed Debt
Levy and Tax Rate
Equalized Value
(TID OUT)
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 28
Table 15Financing Plan Tax Impact Scenarios 3 & 6City of Janesville, WI
Scenarios 3 & 6
Street Rehabilitation Total Total Tax Levy Change Annual Taxes Projected
Year New Debt Rate for from Prior $149,000 Operating Year
Ending Total Principal and Interest Service Levy Transportation Debt Year Home Budget Ending
2020 5,061,218,500 0 0 $0 $52,665,734 2020
2021 5,086,524,593 0 0 $0.00 0 $0 $53,218,720 2021
2022 5,111,957,215 193,050 193,050 $0.04 193,050 $6 $53,970,570 2022
2023 5,137,517,002 398,864 398,864 $0.08 205,814 $12 $54,741,050 2023
2024 5,163,204,587 624,184 624,184 $0.12 225,320 $18 $55,536,960 2024
2025 5,189,020,609 852,261 852,261 $0.16 228,078 $24 $56,341,620 2025
2026 5,214,965,713 1,092,053 1,092,053 $0.21 239,791 $31 $57,164,050 2026
2027 5,241,040,541 1,350,118 1,350,118 $0.26 258,065 $38 $58,010,870 2027
2028 5,267,245,744 1,621,150 1,621,150 $0.31 271,033 $46 $58,876,840 2028
2029 5,293,581,973 1,894,741 1,894,741 $0.36 273,591 $53 $59,751,620 2029
2030 5,320,049,882 2,195,478 2,195,478 $0.41 300,736 $61 $60,659,850 2030
2031 5,346,650,132 2,502,896 2,502,896 $0.47 307,419 $70 $61,581,140 2031
Total 25,053,235 Total
Notes:
1. TID out equalized value assumed to increase by 0.5% annually.
Levy and Tax Rate
Equalized Value
(TID OUT)
Proposed Debt
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 29
Table 16Financing Plan Tax Impact Scenarios 4 & 7City of Janesville, WI
Scenarios 4 & 7
Street Rehabilitation Total Total Tax Levy Change Annual Taxes
Year New Debt Rate for from Prior $149,000 Year
Ending Total Principal and Interest Service Levy
Transportation
Debt Service Year Home Ending
2020 5,061,218,500 0 0 $0.00 $0 2020
2021 5,086,524,593 0 0 $0.00 0 $0 2021
2022 5,111,957,215 380,468 380,468 $0.07 380,468 $11 2022
2023 5,137,517,002 791,371 791,371 $0.15 410,904 $23 2023
2024 5,163,204,587 1,221,210 1,221,210 $0.24 429,839 $35 2024
2025 5,189,020,609 1,676,754 1,676,754 $0.32 455,544 $48 2025
2026 5,214,965,713 2,160,606 2,160,606 $0.41 483,853 $62 2026
2027 5,241,040,541 2,671,261 2,671,261 $0.51 510,655 $76 2027
2028 5,267,245,744 3,202,834 3,202,834 $0.61 531,573 $91 2028
2029 5,293,581,973 3,754,481 3,754,481 $0.71 551,648 $106 2029
2030 5,320,049,882 4,335,516 4,335,516 $0.81 581,035 $121 2030
2031 5,346,650,132 4,950,339 4,950,339 $0.93 614,823 $138 2031
Total 49,545,323 Total
Notes:
1. TID out equalized value assumed to increase by 0.5% annually.
Levy and Tax Rate
Equalized Value
(TID OUT)
Proposed Debt
Transportation Utility Creation Feasibility Analysis
Janesville, WI Page 30
June 16, 2020 Funding Streets through Transportation Utility Fees By: Curt Witynski, J.D., Deputy Executive Director Claire Silverman, Legal Counsel Maria Davis, Assistant Legal Counsel Wisconsin municipalities are searching for alternative ways to pay for essential services like street maintenance and other transportation services. One reason is lack of adequate funding to pay for those services. Although Wisconsin municipalities’ main source of revenue is the property tax, Wisconsin local governments have operated under the strictest property tax levy limits in the country for nearly a decade. Moreover, the State expressly prohibits municipalities from imposing other taxes such as a sales tax (with extremely limited exceptions) and local income taxes. At the same time, funding for state aid programs, such as shared revenue, has been flat or decreasing for years. State transportation aids currently cover, on average, sixteen percent (16%) of city and village transportation-related costs. In addition to lack of funding, some municipal leaders have concluded that paying for street improvements through special assessments imposed on abutting property owners is inequitable and places a disproportionate burden on property owners for improvements that benefit the area or community in general. Substantial assessments can jeopardize the ability of some residents (e.g., those living on fixed or limited incomes) to remain in their homes. As a result of these factors, some municipalities are turning to alternative revenue options like local vehicle registration fees and transportation utility fees to pay for street maintenance and other transportation services. Several League members have requested the League’s legal opinion on whether Wisconsin municipalities may create transportation utilities and charge property owners transportation utility fees. We conclude that a municipality may rely on its broad statutory and/or constitutional home rule powers to create a transportation utility and charge property owners transportation utility fees. Alternatively, a municipality may charge property owners a street maintenance user fee under Wis. Stat. § 66.0627. Any fee must be reasonably related to the cost of the services provided. The League suggests that a transportation utility fee is most defensible against challenge if the basis for the fee is closely related to property occupants’ use of the local street network. It is the League’s opinion that transportation utility fees with such a basis are accurately characterized as fees and not taxes. Such fees should be segregated and used only for street maintenance and other transportation services. To avoid needing to reduce the community’s property tax levy under § 66.0602(2m)(b) of the levy limit law, municipalities should avoid using transportation utility fee revenue to pay for snow plowing or street sweeping.
Page 31
Sources of Authority for Transportation Utility Fees While no state statute expressly authorizes Wisconsin communities to create transportation utilities and charge transportation utility fees, Wisconsin municipalities have broad authority to create, manage, and finance utilities. Transportation utility fees are financing mechanisms that treat the community’s street network and other transportation services like a utility. Residents and businesses are charged fees based on their use of the transportation system, analogous to how municipalities provide and pay for water, sewer, electric and stormwater services. In the state’s early years, no statutes existed expressly authorizing cities and villages to own and operate water, sewer, or other common municipal utilities. Instead, municipalities relied on non-specific, broad police power authority to create and fund such now-familiar utilities. Similarly, in the early 1990s, municipalities like Appleton, Glendale, and Eau Claire initially relied on their broad police power authority to create stormwater utilities and charge property owners stormwater fees based on the amount of impervious surface on the property. Cities over 10,000 in population began to charge such fees to help pay for the cost of complying with new state regulations requiring the removal of pollutants from stormwater. Only later did the Legislature add language to the predecessor of Wis. Stat. § 66.0681 expressly confirming municipal authority to create stormwater utilities and stormwater fees. See 1997 Wis. Act 53, which took effect January 9, 1998. Notably, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined fairly early that Wisconsin municipalities do not need explicit statutory authorization to create a municipally-owned utility. In 1895, the Court held that “it is not necessary to seek an expressed delegation of power to the city to build a water works and an electric lighting plant, because the power expressly granted to the city to pass ordinances for the preservation of the public health and general welfare includes the power to use the usual means of carrying out such powers, which includes municipal water and lighting services.”1 Similarly, a general grant of authority to act for the public health or general welfare is adequate legal authority today for Wisconsin cities and villages to create, operate, and finance through user charges, a transportation utility. Statutory Home Rule Authority Wisconsin cities and villages are vested by the state legislature with broad general police powers. The general city charter law, chapter 62, gives cities the “largest measure of self-government compatible with the constitution and general law.” Wis. Stat. § 62.04. Wisconsin Stat. § 62.11(5), the general authority statute for city councils, provides:
Except as elsewhere in the statutes specifically provided, the council shall have the management and control of the city property, finances, highways, navigable waters, and the public service, and shall have power to act for the government and good order of the city, for its commercial benefit, and for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and may carry out its powers by license, regulation, suppression, borrowing of money, tax levy, appropriation, fine, imprisonment, confiscation, and other necessary or convenient means. The powers hereby conferred shall be in addition to all other grants, and shall be limited only by express language.
1 Ellinwood v. Reedsburg, 91 Wis. 131 (1895).
Page 32
The Legislature has directed courts to liberally construe this provision “in favor of the rights, powers and privileges of cities to promote the general welfare, peace, good order and prosperity of such cities and the inhabitants thereof.” Wis. Stat. § 62.04. A virtually identical grant of authority is provided to Wisconsin village boards by Wis. Stat. § 61.34(1). That authority is also to be liberally construed in favor of “the rights, powers and privileges of villages to promote the general welfare, peace, good order and prosperity of such villages and the inhabitants thereof” to give villages the largest measure of self government compatible with the Wisconsin constitution. Wis. Stat. § 61.34(5). These grants of power to cities and villages are substantial and give the governing body of a city or village “all the powers that the legislature could by any possibility confer upon it.” Hack v. Mineral Point, 203 Wis. 215, 219, 233 N.W. 82 (1931). These provisions are sufficient on their face to authorize city councils and village boards to create a municipal transportation utility and charge property owners transportation utility fees. However, these broad powers are not absolute. Home rule powers granted by §§ 62.11(5) and 61.34(1) are constrained if the state has preempted municipal authority in a particular area. Statutory home rule powers may not be exercised if: the legislature has expressly withdrawn the power of municipalities to act; municipal action would logically conflict with state legislation; municipal action would defeat the purpose of state legislation; or, municipal action would go against the spirit of state legislation. See Anchor Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Equal Opportunities Comm’n, 120 Wis. 2d 391, 355 N.W.2d 234 (1984); DeRosso Landfill Co. v. City of Oak Creek, 200 Wis. 2d 642, 651, 547 N.W.2d 770 (1996). Nonetheless, municipalities may enact ordinances in the same field and on the same subject covered by state legislation where such ordinances do not conflict with, but rather complement, the state legislation. Johnston v. City of Sheboygan, 30 Wis. 2d 179, 184, 140 N.W.2d 247 (1966). Municipalities are not preempted in the area of creating transportation utilities and charging transportation fees. In applying the above preemption tests to creating a transportation utility and charging transportation user fees, the State has not expressly prohibited communities from creating such a utility and imposing such fees. Indeed, the state has not entered the field of municipal transportation finance other than to explicitly authorize certain methods of funding transportation infrastructure improvements such as through the levying of special assessments under Wis. Stat. § 66.0703, imposing special charges for current services under Wis. Stat. § 66.0627, and charging local vehicle registration fees under Wis. Stat. § 341.35.2 The State has also created and funded several aid programs to assist local governments with transportation costs, including the General Transportation Aids and the Local Road Improvement programs. None of these grants of authority and financial assistance programs impliedly preempt municipal authority to create a transportation utility and charge property owners a transportation user fee. Indeed, the statute authorizing special charges for current services expressly provides “The authority under this section is in addition to any other method provided by law.” Wis. Stat. § 66.0627(2). Similarly, the special assessment authority granted pursuant to § 66.0703 expressly
Wis. Stat. § 66.1113 authorizes six cities and villages to impose a sales tax on tourism-related retail and requires that the revenue be used on infrastructure costs.
Page 33
states that it is a “complete alternative” to other methods provided by law. Wis. Stat.§ 66.0703(1)(a). Likewise, we are not aware of any statutory provisions that creation of a transportation utility would logically conflict with, defeat the purpose of, or go against the spirit of. Although there is an argument that Wis. Stat. § 66.0907 preempts municipalities from using transportation utility fees to finance sidewalk construction and repair because it specifies certain ways in which municipalities may cover expenses associated with sidewalks, we believe the stronger argument is that municipalities can use alternative means for financing sidewalks, such as transportation utility fees, because the language in § 66.0907 regarding financing options is permissive rather than mandatory. The exercise of home rule authority under §§ 62.11(5) or 61.34(5) must also serve a legitimate public purpose. This is usually not a significant bar to action because Wisconsin courts have adopted a very expansive view of public purpose. See State ex rel. Hammermill Paper Co. v. La Plante, 58 Wis. 2d 32, 55, 205 N.W.2d 784 (1973). (“Public purpose is not a static concept. The trend of both legislative enactments and judicial decisions is to extend the concept of public purposes in considering the demands upon municipal governments to provide for the needs of the citizens.”) Examples of public purposes that may be served by creating a transportation utility and imposing a user fee include protecting the health, safety and general welfare of the public as well as acting for the municipality’s commercial benefit by ensuring the fiscal ability to safely maintain municipal transportation systems and improve such systems to accommodate and facilitate economic growth. Funding and maintaining a transportation system is critically important to a community’s economy, tourism, and ability to attract and retain people and jobs. A well-maintained street network is also vital to ensuring that municipal emergency services can quickly and efficiently access commercial buildings and residences throughout the community. Constitutional Home Rule Authority A city or village may also rely on its constitutional home rule authority to create a transportation utility and charge transportation user fees. This authority is found in Article XI, Sec. 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution, which provides:
Cities and villages organized pursuant to state law may determine their local affairs and government, subject only to this constitution and to such enactments of the legislature of statewide concern as with uniformity shall affect every city or every village.
The method of exercising such authority is specified in Wis. Stat. § 66.0101 and requires enacting a charter ordinance. A charter ordinance exercising home rule authority is preempted if it conflicts with an existing state law that applies to all cities and villages. Black v. City of Milwaukee, 2016 WI 47, 369 Wis. 2d 272, 882 N.W.2d 333. However, no state law prohibits municipalities from creating transportation utilities and imposing transportation utility fees. For example, there are no state laws requiring communities to fund local transportation systems in a specific and exclusive way, precluding other options, such as a user fee. Similarly, no statute limits the type of utilities a municipality may create or the types of user fees it may charge. Indeed, the Legislature has chosen not to prohibit communities from charging transportation utility fees even though several
Page 34
municipalities, like the City of Neenah, Village of Harrison, and Village of Weston, along with the Town of Buchanan have implemented such fees in recent years. Special Charges for Current Services In addition to the statutory and constitutional home rule powers mentioned above, Wis. Stat. § 66.0627 provides authority for a municipality to charge property owners for municipal transportation-related services. Under § 66.0627(2), a municipal governing body may impose a special charge against real property for current services rendered by allocating all or part of the cost to the properties served. The statutory definition of “services” includes transportation maintenance activities like “street sprinkling, oiling, and tarring” and repair of sidewalks, curb and gutter. The definition of “services” is not an exclusive list. The examples given are not meant to limit its application in any way, but merely to highlight possible uses. Rusk v. City of Milwaukee 2007 WI App 7, ¶ 17, 298 Wis. 2d 407, 727 N.W.2d 358.
Fees for current services are not invalidated merely because a property does not use the service. In City of River Falls v. St. Bridget’s Catholic Church, 182 Wis.2d 436, 512 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1994), the Wisconsin court of appeals held that charging user fees for making water available for fire protection services was valid, even though the party charged the fee had not used the water. Services under § 66.0627 can be rendered within a district and need not be performed for specific, individual properties. In Grace Episcopal Church v. City of Madison, 129 Wis. 2d 331, 385 N.W.2d 200 (Ct. App. 1986), the court of appeals upheld service charges imposed under a predecessor to § 66.0627 (Wis. Stat. § 66.60(16)) on all properties within the State Street Mall and Capitol Concourse district, not just those abutting the pedestrian mall and concourse. The services the city provided to the district included lawn, tree, and shrub care, snow removal from walks and crosswalks, trash clean up and removal, and bus shelter and fixture maintenance. The city charged a portion of the annual cost of providing such services against property owners adjacent to or near the State Street Mall and Capitol Concourse. Municipalities may, therefore, rely on § 66.0627 to charge all property owners in a community a fee for current maintenance of the community’s street network even though not all properties being charged actually abut the streets being reconstructed or maintained with the fee revenue at any one time. The fact that the entire transportation system is being maintained is sufficient to charge all property owners using the system a fee for current services rendered under § 66.0627. Fees must Reasonably Relate to Costs Whether a community relies on its broad statutory or constitutional home rule authority or § 66.0627, a transportation utility fee must bear a reasonable relationship to the service for which it is being charged. Wis. Stat. § 66.0628. That is, the fee amount that a community charges a property owner may not exceed the municipality’s reasonable direct costs associated with activities the community takes related to the fee. Wis. Stat. § 66.0628(1). In addition, the fee amount that any property owner pays should reasonably relate to how much the property’s occupants use the transportation system. According to an expert on the use of transportation utility fees in the U.S., a transportation utility fee with a basis that is most closely related to actual use of the street network has the greatest chances of successful implementation
Page 35
and withstanding critical scrutiny by a court or a tax appeals commission.3 A transportation utility fee is most appropriate if its basis is closely related to property occupants’ use of the local street network and is sensitive to local context and individual variation.4 For example, a commercial business that generates a high amount of traffic may be charged a higher fee than a one-car household based on the different usage rates of a municipality’s transportation system. Generally, municipalities establish a more convincing link between transportation infrastructure usage and user fee charges when they base their transportation utility fee on the number of trips generated by the property. That is why, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Center for Innovative Finance Support, most transportation utility fee programs in the United States use trip generation rates prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).5 Fees v. Taxes. Transportation utility fees are susceptible to challenge if the fees resemble an unauthorized tax. The primary difference between a tax and a fee is the source of the municipality’s power and, more importantly, the municipality’s purpose in imposing the payment requirement. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals explained the primary difference between a tax and fee as follows in Bentivenga v. City of Delavan, 2014 WI App 118, ¶ 6, 358 Wis. 2d 610, 856 N.W.2d 546:
A tax is an “enforced proportional contribution[ ] from persons and property” levied to support a government and its needs. State ex rel. Bldg. Owners & Managers Ass'n v. Adamany, 64 Wis.2d 280, 289, 219 N.W.2d 274 (1974) (citation omitted). The purpose, and not the name it is given, determines whether
A TUF Sell: Transportation Utility Fee as User Fees for Local Roads and Streets, by Carole Turley Voulgaris, Public Works Management & Policy 2016 Vol. 4 pages 305-323 (2016). Id
5 See Transportation Utility Fees, Center for Innovative Finance Support, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, available at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/value_capture/defined/transportation_utility_fees.aspx#. For discussion of the pros and cons of basing transportation utility fees on trip generation rates for different classes of property, see the following sources:
1. Transportation Utility Fees: Possibilities for the City of Milwaukee, a 2007 research paper prepared by students at the Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs, UW Madison. https://lafollette.wisc.edu/images/publications/workshops/2007-tuf.pdf
2. Clintonville Road Maintenance and Transportation Utility Fee, Andrew Robert Eveland (2019) https://www.lwm-info.org/DocumentCenter/View/3516/Eveland-Clintonville-TUF-Final-Thesis
3. A TUF Sell: Transportation Utility Fee as User Fees for Local Roads and Streets, by Carole Turley Voulgaris, Public Works Management & Policy 2016 Vol. 4 pages 305-323 (2016). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1087724X16629961?casa_token=RJ3FY9IWC7gAAAAA:uzmdZqQTPn5YPKej33W2pYmTkfy3rYOzxmAhw8otjF8gpthIKMQcpnA9fjsH2JGwTPhaTHXGDyKunQ
Page 36
a government charge constitutes a tax. City of Milwaukee v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp., 6 Wis.2d 299, 305-06, 94 N.W.2d 584 (1959). “[T]he primary purpose of a tax is to obtain revenue for the government” as opposed to covering the expense of providing certain services or regulation. City of River Falls v. St. Bridget's Catholic Church of River Falls, 182 Wis. 2d 436, 441-42, 513 N.W.2d 673 (Ct.App.1994). A “fee” imposed purely for revenue purposes is invalid absent permission from the state to the municipality to exact such a fee. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp., 6 Wis. 2d at 306, 94 N.W.2d 584.
Municipal taxing power in Wisconsin is very limited. A municipality cannot impose a tax unless it is specifically authorized by the Legislature. Wisconsin municipalities are authorized to impose only property taxes and room taxes. (Six communities statewide are authorized to levy a sales tax on tourism-related retail sales under the Premier Resort Area tax laws. Wis. Stat. § 66.1113). In contrast, municipal fees are charged to cover the costs of specific services provided or the costs associated with regulating in a specific area. As discussed above, a transportation utility fee would be imposed under a community’s statutory or constitutional home rule powers or as a special charge for current services under § 66.0627. A transportation utility fee would not be implemented pursuant to a community’s power to levy general property taxes under Wis. Stat. Chap. 70. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals addressed service charges and their relation to general property taxes under the predecessor statute to Wis. Stat. § 66.0627 in Grace Episcopal Church v. City of Madison, 129 Wis. 2d 331, 385 N.W.2d 200 (Ct. App. 1986). The court held that since the services provided were authorized by the Legislature by the predecessor to Wis. Stat. § 66.0627, the service charges were not general property taxes and the property tax exemption provided to churches by Wis. Stat.§ 70.11(4) did not exempt the church from paying the fees. Grace Episcopal, 129 Wis. 2d at 335. In contrast to the general property tax, the purpose of a transportation utility fee is exclusively to help pay for the cost of a specific governmental service, street maintenance. A review of case law and scholarly literature on transportation utility fees suggests best practices that municipal officials can implement to avoid having a transportation utility fee ruled an illegal tax:
1. Place all transportation utility fee revenue in a separate fund used only on street maintenance and other transportation projects. Emerson College v. City of Boston, 462 N.E.2d 1098 (Mass. 1984).
2. Collect the transportation utility fee in the same manner as the community does other municipal utility fees by including the amounts on property owners’ utility bills alongside sewer, water, and stormwater service charges.
3. Ensure the formula used to calculate fees is as accurate as possible. Over-generalization of fee-paying entities and ignoring real differences in their use of the street network or end-trip generation gives the fee strong tax-like characteristics. Clintonville Road Maintenance and Transportation Utility Fee, Andrew Robert Eveland (2019).
Page 37
4. Transportation utility fee policies should avoid exempting tax-exempt properties as thisgives the fee the appearance of being a tax. For the same reason, such policies shouldexempt undeveloped properties and vacant buildings. Clintonville Road Maintenance andTransportation Utility Fee, Andrew Robert Eveland (2019).
5. To the extent practicable, a transportation utility fee policy should include a process bywhich users are permitted to demonstrate reduced use of the street system to qualify for alower fee. (e.g., Austin, Texas transportation utility fee ordinance allows residents who donot own or regularly use a motor vehicle to opt out of fee; Corpus Christi, Texas likewisehas a process by which property applicants may appeal their fee level). A TUF Sell:Transportation Utility Fee as User Fees for Local Roads and Streets, by Carole TurleyVoulgaris, Public Works Management & Policy 2016 Vol. 4.
Avoiding Levy Limit Consequences The levy limit law requires a municipality to reduce its allowable levy by the estimated amount of fee revenue it collects for providing certain listed services, including snow plowing and street sweeping, if those services were funded in 2013 in part or whole by the property tax levy. Wis. Stat. § 66.0602(2m)(b). To avoid having this statute apply, a community that imposes a transportation utility fee to help pay for street maintenance and other transportation services, must not use the fee revenue to pay for snow plowing or street sweeping services.
Conclusion Wisconsin cities and villages struggling to pay for the cost of maintaining quality streets and other transportation services residents and businesses demand, may rely on their broad statutory or constitutional home rule powers or, alternatively, Wis. Stat. § 66.0627, to charge property owners transportation utility fees. Such fees must be reasonably related to the cost of the services provided. Transportation utility fees are most defensible against a challenge if the basis for the fee is closely related to how much a property’s occupants use the local street network. It is possible to design a transportation utility fee policy that is defensible against a challenge that the fee is more like an illegal tax. Finally, to avoid needing to reduce the community’s property tax levy, municipalities should not use transportation utility fee revenue to pay for snow plowing or street sweeping.
Page 38