land to the county to improve abutting public streets in the context of a Transportation Master Plan, which identifies long-term highway capacity needs of Salt Lake County. The requirements imposed on developers under the ordinance are directly tied to the elements of the Transportation Master Plan and constitute a development exaction subject to the "rough proportionality" standard of the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-507 (Supp. 2005) became effective in May 2005 and iterates the rough proportionality test. The Utah Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals with directions that a rough proportionality review was to be conducted on remand to the trial court. Multimodal Fees and Mitigation As previously mentioned, the 2011 Community Planning Act requires local governments in Florida to plan for a multimodal transportation system. Counties with population greater than 75,000 and those within a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) planning area have the most extensive multimodal planning requirements. These include, but are not limited to, the need to plan for: • All alternative modes of travel (e.g., public transportation, pedestrian, and bicycle travel), all types of recreational traffic (including bicycle facilities, exercise trails, riding facilities). • Existing and projected quality of service for public transportation, quality of service standards, and system needs and availability of mass transit facilities and services, including rights-of-way. • An identification of land use densities, building intensities, and transportation management programs to promote public transportation systems in designated public transportation corridors to encourage population densities sufficient to support such systems. In addition, the 2011 amendments to Florida planning law made transportation concurrency optional and allowed local governments to replace concurrency with an alternative mobility funding system. In 2013, the Florida legislature encouraged the adoption of a mobility fee if they repeal transportation concurrency. Section 163.3180, F.S establishes requirements for mobility fee programs. Technical studies of the approach indicate that two basic methods may be used to calculate the mobility fee – consumption‐based and improvements‐based (Seggerman, et. al.,2009). “The consumption‐based method charges each new development the value of the increment of transportation facilities or services needed to serve that development. The value of each increment is determined based on recent transportation improvements and is typically reflected as an average cost per unit of transportation service (e.g., a lane mile of roadway, unit of transit service). The improvements‐based method charges each new development its proportionate share of the cost of a specific set of improvements deemed necessary to accommodate future growth at an adopted quality of service. “ A handful of local governments have chosen to establish a transportation concurrency mitigation fee or assessment, as opposed to a multimodal impact fee as their mobility fee. Examples include Broward County’s transportation concurrency assessment and the Alachua County multimodal impact mitigation program, which is discussed later in the report. Both systems are based on a planned program of projects. Broward County, for example bases its assessments in eight of its ten concurrency districts on the first five years of the adopted transit development plan (Renaissance, 2016). All funds all placed into a fund that must be used for transit enhancements and cannot be used for pedestrian or bicycle projects (Renaissance, 2016).
15
Made with FlippingBook Learn more on our blog