Reston Funding Plan

County of Fairfax, Virginia
Reston Funding Plan
Potential Sources of Revenue for Funding
Reston Transportation Improvements
Reston Network Analysis & Funding Plan Advisory Group
December 14, 2015
Janet Nguyen
Fairfax County Department of Transportation

Reston Funding Plan
1. Overview
2. Status
3. Sources of Revenue
4. Tysons Cost Allocation Model
5. Next Steps
Department of Transportation
2

Funding Plan Overview
Strategy for providing financial resources to pay for
transportation improvements in the Reston Phase I
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Approved February 11,
2014.
•Years FY2015-FY2054 (40 years)
•Project priorities
•Project Cash Flows
•Cost allocations
3

Status of Funding Plan
• Drafted:
– Projects list
– Preliminary cost estimates, in FY2015 dollars
– Potential revenue sources
• In Development:
– Project prioritization
– Cost allocations
4

Transportation Improvement Categories
1. Reston-wide Improvements
– Road transportation improvements1
(Overpasses, Widenings,
Extensions, Interchanges) to enhance connectivity
– Intersection improvements required for adequate traffic
operations
1. Grid of local streets in Reston TSA areas
– Enhance pedestrian and vehicular circulation in, around, and
through, station areas
5
1
All roadways will be designed with pedestrian facilities. Many will also have bike facilities.

6
Projects
Major Components of
Reston Phase I
Infrastructure:
Reston-Wide Projects,
$1.345B
•Roadway (Overpasses,
Widenings, Extensions,
Interchanges), $1.280B
•Intersection Projects,
$0.065B
Grid Network, $1.284B
Total $2.629B

Shared Funding Solutions
Public and private investment in Reston is both critical and responsible for ensuring
Reston’s future success. While each solution is unique to the situation, there are a range
of transportation funding mechanisms available.
Public sector funding will come from federal, state, local, and regional sources.
•Multiple sources within each category
Private sector funding can come from:
•Proffers
•Cash contributions, Road Fund(per square foot/per dwelling unit contributions)
•In-kind Contributions
•Tax Districts/Service Districts and/or
•Other
7

Public and Private Investment
Public and private sources of revenue identified to potentially
fund plan include the following:
•Existing and historical funding sources that have been allocated to
transportation projects
•Existing or potential funding sources available to Fairfax County, as
permitted by law
8

Public | Federal Revenue Sources
9
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ)
•Primarily for capital projects that relieve congestion and improve air quality.
•Allocated and approved annually by the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority
(NVTA).
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP)
•Can be used for many transportation capital improvements.
•Allocated and approved annually by NVTA.
Discretionary Grant Programs
•Competitive process, not a predictable source of revenue.
•Amount of funding varies by cycle.
•TIGER – Transportation Infrastructure Generating Economic Recovery.
•Allocated by USDOT.

Public | Federal Revenue Sources
10
Attributes:
•Can provide lump sum of revenue.
•Can be used to leverage other sources of revenue.
•Can provide fairly flexible revenues, e.g., RSTP.
•Tend to increase overall project costs due to additional Federal requirements.
•Tend to lengthen overall project schedule to meet these requirements.
•Requires project funding agreements, which can be a lengthy process.
•Unreliable/Unpredictable due to competitive process for discretionary grants.
Source and Estimated Annual Allocation to County
Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) $14M
Regional Surface Transportation Program (RSTP) $18M
Discretionary Grant Programs $N/A
Total Estimated Annual Allocation to County $32M

Public | State Revenues Sources
Revenue Sharing
•Can be used for many transportation capital improvements.
•Requires 100% local cash match.
•Between $15 million and $200 million can be allocated and approved annually
by the CTB.
•Limited availability, $10M max application per locality per year.
•The state has allocated approximately $180 million for the program in FY 2016
and has proposed reducing the funding over the next five years:
– $150 million in FY 2017
– $100 million in FY 2018 and 2019
– $50 million in FY 2020 and 2021
11

Public | State Revenues Sources
HB2 and HB1887
HB 2 provides for the development of a prioritization process for projects funded by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB).
•Considers congestion mitigation, economic development, accessibility, safety, and environmental
quality.
•CTB weights these factors for each of Virginia’s transportation districts and can assign different
weights to the factors for various regions.
•Congestion mitigation must be weighted highest in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.
HB 1887 created a new funding formula for the Commonwealth’s roadway construction projects:
•45% of the funding goes to state of good repair.
•27.5% of the funding goes to statewide high-priority projects program (projects of statewide
importance that will be evaluated and selected using the HB2 process).
•27.5% of the funding to highway construction district grant programs (localities would compete for
funds under a regional version of the HB2 process).
The County submits applications for both Statewide and District Grant programs, in accordance with
Board priorities and the Programs’ requirements.
12

Public | State Revenue Sources
13
Source and Estimated Annual Allocation to County
Revenue Sharing $10
(HB2/HB1887) Statewide High Priority Projects Program (HPPP) $N/A
(HB2/HB1887) Construction District Grant Program (CDGP) $N/A
Total Estimated Annual Allocation to County $10
Attributes:
•HB 2/HB1887 programs unpredictable due to competitive project selection process.
•Can provide large sums of revenue, e.g. HB2/HB1887
•Can be used to leverage other sources of revenue, e.g. HB2/HB1887, Revenue Sharing.
•Proposed reduction in Revenue Sharing funds may make it more difficult for County to
receive the same amount of funding as in years past.
•Use of State funds requires project funding agreements, which can be a lengthy process.

Public | Local Revenue Sources
14
General Fund
•The General Fund is the County’s primary operating fund and supports all general
purpose functions in the County.
•Revenues derived mostly through real property and personal property taxes.
•Significant portion of General Fund revenues are transferred to finance other county
priorities, the public schools (FCPS), human services, public safety, and debt service
among other things.
Attributes:
•Currently, transfers are primarily for transit projects
•FY 2016 Transfers:
– County Transit $34.5M;
– Metro $11.3M;
– Transportation $7.8M;
– debt-service on transportation related G.O. Bonds N/A.
Source and Estimated Annual Revenue to County
General Fund Transfers to Transportation FY2016 $53.6M

15
Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Taxes
•For projects that increase transportation capacity.
•Currently set at $0.125/$100 assessed value on commercial and industrial
properties.
•Generates approximately $50M annually
•Allocated by the Board.
Attributes:
•Reliable source of revenue
•Flexible source of revenue and can be easily shifted between projects.
•Must be used to increase capacity.
Source and Estimated Annual Allocation or Revenue to County
Commercial and Industrial (C&I) Taxes $52M

16
General Obligation (G.O.) Bonds
•Form of long-term borrowing to help finance public facilities.
•Enacted/Approved by referendum.
• In 2014, $100M transportation bond was approved – bicycle, pedestrian, and spot
projects. Projects proposed for bond funding were identified through extensive public
outreach and engagement, called the Countywide Dialogue on Transportation.
•Allocated by the Board.
Attributes:
•Reliable source of revenue.
•Creates long-term future obligation to the county, debt-service.
•Proceeds of bond sales must be used for purpose specified in the referendum question.
•Bond program is not designed to contribute to an increase in tax rate.
G.O. Bonds $20M

Public | Local/Regional Revenue Sources
HB2313
Provides approximately $300 million per year to regional transportation by:
•Increasing Northern Virginia sales tax by 0.7%, for total of 6%
•2% Transient Occupancy Tax (hotel tax)
•Imposes a Congestion Relief Fee (grantors tax) of $0.15 per $100 valuation
All of the taxes and fees collected under HB 2313 are sent to the Northern Virginia
Transportation Authority (NVTA). Dollars are divided into one of two categories:
•NVTA 30% Local Distribution Funds
•NVTA 70% Regional Revenue Funds
17

HB2313 - NVTA 30% Local Distribution Funds
•30% of funds will be distributed to the individual localities on pro-rata basis for
transportation.
•Must be spent on: urban or secondary road construction; capital improvements that
reduce congestion; projects included in NVTA’s long-range plan; or for public
transportation purposes.
•Distributed monthly to the County from NVTA; County receives about $45 million
annually.
•Allocated to projects by the County Board.
Attributes:
•Reliable sources of revenue.
•Flexible source of revenue and can be shifted between projects to optimize availability of
funding.
18
NVTA 30% Local Distribution Funds $45M

Public | Regional Revenue Sources
HB2313 - NVTA 70% Regional Revenue Funds
•70% will be provided to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) to be used on:
– Regional projects included in TransAction 2040 or its updates; and
– Projects evaluated by VDOT for reducing congestion as required by HB 599 (2012)
– NVTA must give priority to selecting projects that are expected to provide the greatest
congestion reduction relative to cost of the project
•Approximately $200 million available to be allocated by NVTA each year.
Attributes:
•Can provide large and small sums of revenue.
•Competitive process; NVTA 70% not guaranteed due to limited amount of funds available relating to
amount requested.
•Over the long-term, each locality’s total long-term benefit must be approximately equal to the
proportion of the total of the regional fees and taxes attributable to the locality.
•Projects must meet specific requirements to be eligible (no maintenance, inclusion in regional plan,
etc.)
19

Public | Other Revenues
Sales Tax: Local (Northern Virginia) sales tax rate is 6%
•General sales tax rate for VA is 5.3 percent
•Additional 0.7 percent state tax is imposed in localities in Northern Virginia for
transportation; sent to NVTA to be distributed via NVTA 30% Local and NVTA 70%
Regional Funds. The County generated roughly $106.4M from the additional 0.7 percent
tax for transportation in FY2015.
•Requires Virginia General Assembly authorization to increase the current rate.
Gas Tax: Regional gas tax of 2.1 percent on wholesale gas sales in Northern Virginia.
•These funds are collected by the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission (NVTC)
and distributed directly to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
on behalf of Fairfax County.
•Covers portion of County’s subsidy for Metro operations, about $24.8M annually.
•Requires Virginia General Assembly authorization to increase the current rate.
20

Real-estate tax (base rate): $1.09/$100 assessed value; Board of Supervisors has
authority to annually amend and adopt a new tax rate. An increase of 1 cent could
generate approximately $22M in additional revenues in FY2016.
Car Tax/Personal property tax: $4.57 per $100 of assessed value; Board of
Supervisors has authority to amend and adopt a new tax rate. An increase of 1 cent
could generate approximately $800k in additional revenues in FY2016.
Hotel and motel tax: 6% (2% general transient occupancy tax, 2% for tourism, and 2%
transient occupancy tax for regional transportation (HB2313)). General Assembly
authorization required to increase.
Grantor’s Tax: $0.15 per $100 of value on deeds (for transportation HB2313). General
Assembly authorization required to increase.
21

Meals Tax
•Tax on prepared food and beverages at restaurants, cafes, coffee shops, etc.
•Counties in Virginia are limited to a rate of up to 4 percent.
•Tax would be in addition to the state’s sales tax (6 percent).
•Virginia law requires voter referendum to levy meals tax.
•Revenues can be earmarked to a specific purpose.
Sales tax on service: currently no sales tax on services in Fairfax County; requires General
Assembly authorization to enact.
Parking fees: currently no fees on county owned parking lots that charge for parking; requires
approval for parking lots and on street parking.
Local income tax: income taxes are collected by the state. The power to enact a 1% local income
tax via referendum was repealed by HB2313. An additional local income tax would require General
Assembly authorization to enact.
Vehicles Miles Traveled (VMT): Tax on miles traveled by vehicles registered in Fairfax County. The
County currently does not have a fee on VMT. This would affect businesses and residents with
vehicles registered in Fairfax County. Requires General Assembly authorization to enact.
22
Potential Annual Revenue to County
Meals Tax at 1% rate $22.5M*
Meals Tax at 4% rate $90M*
*Based on calendar year 2013 taxable sales at
Food and Drink Places in Fairfax County

Public Sources of Revenue
Estimated annual public funds to County for transportation, County-wide from sources discussed:
However, public funding for Reston Funding Plan projects may not be readily available until
FY2021:
•Most of the public sources of revenue have already been committed to projects in the Board’s Six
Year Transportation Project Priorities (TPP) for FY2015-FY2020, which includes about $12.5M for
DTR overpasses (planning level funding only) that are included in the Reston Funding Plan.
•Fairfax County bond packages are planned to fund specific projects. This means that all previous
bond authorizations were planned for or are obligated to specific projects.
•Even after FY2021, public funds for transportation must be programmed to projects throughout
County. Example: Some of the public sources have been committed to the Tysons funding plan
through 2050 or projects initiated during FY2015-2020 timeframe.
Additional funding from private sources of revenue required to fully fund projects in Reston.
23
Federal $32,000,000
State $10,000,000
Regional $90,000,000
Local $171,000,000
Total Estimated Annual Public
Funds to County for Transportation $303,000,000

Private | Proffers/Contributions
Proffers
•Voluntary commitment by landowners/developers to perform an act or to donate money,
land, services or products to address/offset impact(s) arising from their proposed
rezoning.
Proffers may be offered to offset public facility costs via two methods:
1.Cash Proffer: money voluntarily proffered in a writing signed by the owner of property
subject to rezoning, submitted as part of a rezoning application.
– Funding can be pooled from multiple rezonings to fund one or more projects e.g.
Road Fund.
1.In-kind Contribution: projects completed by the developer seeking rezoning;
– On-Site: Improvements directly connected and/or needed for redevelopment.
– Off-Site: Improvements not directly connected and/or needed for redevelopment.
24

Private | Road Fund/In-Kind Contributions
Example: Developers provide in-kind contributions and contribute to two funds to pay for
Tysons improvements over 40 years.
Grid of Streets ($865M) – Will be paid entirely by developers through:
•Tysons Grid of Streets Contributions Fund ($304M): per gross square foot (gsf) or
per dwelling unit contribution
•In-kind Contributions ($561): Developers may elect to construct transportation
improvements outlined in Tysons guidelines in lieu of cash contributions, as negotiated in
individual proffer agreements.
Tysons-Wide Road Improvements – Developers pay for majority of projects inside
Tysons and a portion of projects outside of Tysons ($506M):
•Tysons-Wide Developer Contributions Fund ($253M): per gsf or per dwelling unit
contribution
•Tysons Service District ($253M)
25

Private | Service District
Service District:
•Fund transportation improvements located within a defined geographic area.
•Does not require landowner approval, approved and established by the Board of Supervisors.
•Tysons Service District will fund approximately $253M worth of improvements or 50 percent of
Tysons-Wide Road Improvements. Rate in FY2016 is $0.05 per $100 of assessed real estate value.
Boundary is generally consistent with the Tysons Corner Urban Center.
Attributes:
•Bondable
•Applies to both residential and commercial property
•Imposed by the Board of Supervisors
26
Source Potential Revenue FY17
Example Reston Service District @ $0.01
•Estimate using FY15 Assessed Values for properties in Reston TSAs
•Assumes 3% annual growth in assessed value
$0.8M
For example
purposes only.

Private | Tax District
Tax District
•Voluntary petition of landowners and approved by the Board of Supervisors.
•Fund large projects in a defined geographic area.
•Route 28 Transportation Tax District:1987 two-county district for specific purpose of
widening the major arterial in a largely undeveloped area. Rate in FY2016 is $0.18 per
$100 of assessed value of commercial and industrial property. Revenues estimated to
be $11M in FY2016.
•Dulles Rail Phase 1: $400M; Dulles Rail Phase II: $330M.
Attributes:
•Bondable
•Self-imposed
27
Source Potential Revenue FY17
Example Reston Tax District @ $0.01
•Estimate using FY15 Assessed Values for non-residential (including
commercial residential(apartment))properties in Reston TSAs
•Assumes 3% annual growth in assessed value
$0.6M
For example
purposes only.

Tysons Model
Major redevelopment over the next 40 years to capitalize on the four Metro
stations in Tysons and transform Tysons into a transit-oriented mixed-use
urban center.
A funding plan was developed to pay for $3.1B transportation improvements in
Tysons to support development with public and private sectors sharing
responsibility for cost of improvements.
Components of Tysons Infrastructure:
1.Grid of Streets
2.Tysons-wide Improvements
3.Neighborhood and Access Improvements
4.Transit
28
Cr. Tysons Partnership

Tysons Cost Allocation Model
Components of Tysons Infrastructure Relevant to the Reston Funding Plan:
1. Grid of Streets – private sources (landowners/developers)
I. Grid of Streets Road Fund: Per square foot/per unit road fund
II. In-kind contributions
2. Tysons-wide Road Improvements
I. Outside of Tysons boundaries – primarily public sources
II. Inside of Tysons boundaries – primarily private
• Tysons-wide Road Fund: Per square foot/per unit road fund contributions
• Tysons Service District
29

Tysons Grid Cost Allocation Model
Grid of Streets
Projects: Improvements to transform superblock network to more urban model
Total: $865,000,000
Funding: Paid for entirely by developers through In-kind contributions and a Grid “Road
Fund”
30
Grid of Streets Rate FY2016 Estimated Total Need, $865M
In-kind Contributions N/A $561M
Grid “Road Fund” $304M
• Per Sq. Ft. Commercial Property $6.71
• Per Unit of Residential Property $1,042

Tysons-wide Cost Allocation Model
In June 2010, staff recommended to the Tysons sub-committee a cost allocation based
on local and through traffic as follows:
Tysons-wide project costs should be a shared responsibility between the public and
private sectors.
The cost share should be allocated based upon the ratio of through (35%) and local
(65%) traffic volumes of 2030 Tysons projects.
Private responsibility: ½ of local traffic generated (32.5%)
Public responsibility: All of through traffic (35%) and ½ of local traffic generated (32.5%)
Cost Split for Tysons-wide Projects ($810M):
Private Sector 32.5% ($263M)
Public Sector 67.5% ($547M)
31

In December 2010, the updated funding plan for 2050 included
additional projects totaling $1.208B.
•The Tysons sub-committee recommended a more equitable cost
allocation model that also included 2050 projects.
•Staff worked in cooperation with the Tysons Partnership over many
meetings arrived at a cost allocation model based on a 90/10 split
(discussed in the next slide).
•In June 2012, staff returned to the sub-committee with the 90/10 split
allocation (discussed in next slide), which the sub-committee
determined to be a correct basis for an appropriate allocation.
32

Tysons-wide Road Improvements
Projects: These are larger projects, such as new ramps, new roads, and
widening existing roads.
Total: $1,208,000,000
33
($mil) Public Private Total Public (%) Private (%)
Outside
Tysons
$653 $73 $726 90% 10%
Inside
Tysons
$48 $434 $482 10% 90%
Total $701 $506 $1208 100% 100%
Share 58% 42%

Tysons Cost Allocation Model
Tysons-Wide Transportation Fund (Private – Landowner/Developer
contributions) ($506M):
•“Road Fund” ($253) - Developer contributions to a per sq. ft./per unit fund
– Rates are subject to annual inflation adjustment based on CPI
•Service district ($253)
– “Modified Bell Curve” model to meet $253M need.
– Rates: $0.04 in FY 2014, $0.04 in FY 2015, and $0.05 in FY 2016.
– Increases to $0.07 later in Tysons funding plan.
34
Tysons-Wide Transportation Fund Rate FY2016 Estimated Total Need, $506M
Service District $0.05 $253M
Road Fund $253M
• Per Sq. Ft. Commercial Property $5.87
• Per Unit of Residential Property $1042

Tysons Transportation Funding Allocation

Reston Potential Cost Allocation
• Reston-wide Improvements ($1.345B)
– Outside/Inside
– Outside to be primarily funded by public sector
– Inside to be primarily funded by private sector
contributions
• Grid Network ($1.284B)
– Primarily funded by private sector contributions
• Total funding plan: $2.629 B
36

Next Steps
• Advisory group feedback on potential revenue sources,
including others that should be evaluated
• Development of proposed funding plan to include cost
allocations between public and private sector
• Outreach to stakeholders and public
• Revise plan based on feedback received
• Share proposed funding plan with Board Transportation
Committee
• Seek Board of Supervisors approval

Comments/Questions?
38

Contact Information
For questions and comments please contact:
Janet Nguyen
Janet.Nguyen@fairfaxcounty.gov
Ray Johnson
Carroll.Johnson@fairfaxcounty.gov

Reston Funding Plan

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Reston Funding Plan

Similar to Reston Funding Plan (20)

More from Fairfax County

More from Fairfax County (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (9)

Reston Funding Plan