01045564

Component

This paper analyzes several transportation impact fee structures in the states of California and Florida to derive a multi-tiered impact fee adjustment factor for Minnesota. The specific counties and cities identified were analyzed over the course of six months starting in October 2004. These examples are intended to serve as a guide for a new transportation impact fee structure within Minnesota as presented at the end of the document. Existing research surrounding this topic was also analyzed to position this paper within the current literature. Impact fees act as a mechanism to collect revenues from new development throughout the state of California. Recent transportation planning efforts in Merced County, CA were enacted with the intent to use the impact fees as a portion of the funding for all newly proposed Transportation Improvement Plans in a pilot program involving CalTrans and the Merced County Association of Governments. Cities and counties in Florida provide a multi-tiered approach to assessing impact fees for commercial development. However, these impact fees differ in their implications for retail development because of the way in which the fees are structured. Many of the examples recently published within the Urban Transportation Monitor suggest that more counties are assessing a larger per square foot fee to larger stores based upon the overall size of the development, except in the case of large shopping mall types of development. This recent trend differs from the suggested fees currently in place within other counties throughout Florida. This contradiction in the structuring of the multi-tiered impact fees in the state suggests that there is still a debate over the best way to collect funds for transportation improvement projects. Recent movements in Minnesota consider impact fees to recoup some of the transportation related costs associated with new development. The impact fee adjustment factor proposed in the remainder of this document creates incentives for developing smaller stores with their correspondingly smaller trade areas. Larger stores are assessed a proportionally larger fee to account for the larger region of impact necessary for the trade area of the larger size stores.

01042056

07-0733

English

89p

2007

Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting

CD-ROM

Appendices (8) ; Maps; Tables

City planning; Development; Impact fees; Public transit; Retail trade; Shopping; Shopping centers; Transit operating agencies; Transportation planning; Urban areas

California; Minnesota

Finance; Highways; Planning and Forecasting; Public Transportation; I10: Economics and Administration; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning

Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting 2007 Paper #07-0733

TRIS, TRB

Feb 8 2007 5:19PM