County of Fairfax Virginia Transportation Funding and Improving

County of Fairfax, Virginia Transportation Funding and Improving Roadway Services Delivery Transportation Advisory Commission October 5, 2010 Department of Transportation 1

County of Fairfax, Virginia STUDY PROGRESS x Finalize project scope, perform initial data collection, and gather input from Transportation Advisory Commission (TAC) (January 2010 – May 2010) x Meet with other jurisdictions (February 2010, August 2010) x Coordinate with VDOT, gather VDOT cost data, analyze cost data (May 2010 – September 2010) x Develop and analyze alternatives (May 2010 – September 2010) x Gather input from TAC q Develop draft report (September 2010 – November 2010) q Present study to the Board Transportation Committee (November 30, 2010 - tentative) Department of Transportation 2

County of Fairfax, Virginia STUDY GOAL AND OBJECTIVES • Examine ways to improve the delivery of roadway services – Consider different levels of responsibility the County may assume • Examine ways to improve the funding of roadway services – Is there a potential to increase state funding? – What type of local sources may be needed? • This study considered the “roadway” as multimodal – the entire right-of-way has the potential to carry pedestrians, bikes, transit, and cars Department of Transportation 3

County of Fairfax, Virginia HOW IS ROADWAY MAINTENANCE FUNDED? • State transportation funds are collected within the Commonwealth Transportation Fund (CTF) • The CTF is divided into funds for maintenance and funds for construction – Highway Maintenance and Operations Fund (HMOF): maintenance – Transportation Trust Fund (TTF): highway construction, transit, ports • State law requires that maintenance be funded prior to construction – Amounts from the highway construction portion of the TTF can be transferred to the HMOF to fully fund maintenance needs Department of Transportation 4

County of Fairfax, Virginia HOW DOES VDOT FUND MAINTENANCE? • Cities and Towns: VDOT makes annual payments for cities and towns to maintain their own roads. VDOT maintains interstates only. – Urban Principal and Minor Arterial Roads: $16, 576 per lane mile – Urban Collector and Local Roads: $9, 732 per lane mile • Counties with Special Arrangements: VDOT makes annual payments to Arlington and Henrico counties to maintain their own secondary roads. VDOT maintains interstates and primary roads. – Arlington County: $15, 604 per lane mile – Henrico County: $8, 810 per lane mile • All other Counties: VDOT is responsible for maintaining most other roads (interstate, primary, and secondary) in all other counties statewide. – Not a set rate Department of Transportation 5

County of Fairfax, Virginia ESTIMATED VDOT COSTS TO MAINTAIN FAIRFAX COUNTY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SYSTEMS $100 $80 $31, 1 $ Million $60 $40 $51, 6 $43, 2 $57, 1 $32, 0 $61, 3 $20 $28, 4 $16, 6 $20, 7 $23, 1 FY 2007 Expenditures FY 2008 Expenditures FY 2009 Expenditures $0 Primary System Department of Transportation 6 FY 2010 Allocations. FY 2011 Allocations Secondary System

County of Fairfax, Virginia FUNDING COMPARISION: CURRENT STRUCTURE VS CITIES AND TOWNS STRUCTURE $100, 0 $80, 0 $ Million $68, 2 $70, 4 $73, 0 $72, 5 $75, 2 $71, 9 Estimated VDOT Costs to Maintain System under Current Administrative Structure $60, 0 $92, 4 $40, 0 $72, 3 $80, 2 $73, 0 $60, 3 $59, 8 $20, 0 $0, 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 Department of Transportation 7 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 5 Year Average Hypothetical VDOT Payments if County was in the Urban System

County of Fairfax, Virginia FUNDING COMPARISON: CURRENT STRUCTURE VS STRUCTURE IN ARLINGTON AND HENRICO COUNTIES $100, 0 $ Million $80, 0 $81, 4 $84, 9 $87, 6 $87, 4 $60, 0 $20, 0 $47, 9 $43, 2 $86, 3 $51, 0 $46, 8 $40, 0 $90, 3 $51, 6 $49, 4 $48, 9 $49, 4 $57, 1 $43, 0 $31, 1 $32, 0 FY 2011 $0, 0 FY 2007 FY 2008 Department of Transportation 8 FY 2009 5 Year Average Estimated VDOT Costs to Maintain Secondary System under Current Administrative Structure Hypothetical VDOT Payments if County Received Same Rate as Henrico County for the Secondary System Hypothetical VDOT Payments if County Received Same Rate as Arlington County for the Secondary System

County of Fairfax, Virginia POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF GREATER COUNTY INVOLVEMENT • Overall funding level • Enhanced influence in transportation decision-making • Improved responsiveness and accountability • Increased flexibility in establishing priorities and standards Department of Transportation 9

County of Fairfax, Virginia ALTERNATIVES • Enhance selected maintenance activities – Provide additional funding to VDOT – Assume responsibility for select activities • Assume responsibility for the secondary road system under VDOT’s devolution guidelines – – Maintenance only Construction only Maintenance and construction Maintenance, operations, and construction • Assume responsibility of primary and secondary roads within selected geographic areas (Urban Transportation Service Districts) • Assume responsibility of entire primary and secondary system within the County Department of Transportation 10

County of Fairfax, Virginia CONSIDERATIONS ü Public Expectations ü The condition of the road system ü Start up and reoccurring costs to include, facilities, equipment, labor and materials ü Levels of Service ü The appropriate form of government ü Payments / Revenues ü Experiences of other jurisdictions that maintain their roadway systems • The majority of other jurisdictions supplement VDOT’s maintenance payment Department of Transportation 11

County of Fairfax, Virginia ADMINISTRATIVE, LEGISLATIVE and COST IMPLICATIONS OF ALTERNATIVES • Functions, responsibilities, payments differ for different arrangements • Code of Virginia – Establishes Requirements for Some Alternatives – Assumption of Secondary system maintenance – Conversion to City status – Urban Transportation Service District • Requirements for Other Alternatives Subject to VDOT – County Agreement Department of Transportation 12

County of Fairfax, Virginia ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANGATES Enhanced Selected Maintenance Activities: Provide Funding to VDOT for Selected Maintenance Activities Advantages • Minimal new administrative tasks for County • Low cost relative to other options, low start up costs • No change to current roles and responsibilities for VDOT and County Disadvantages • Requires increased auditing of VDOT expenditures • May not improve responsiveness and accountability Enhanced Selected Maintenance Activities: Assume responsibility from VDOT of Selected Maintenance Activities Advantages • County control over maintenance priorities and schedules for selected activities • May improve responsiveness and accountability • Low cost relative to other options, low start up costs Department of Transportation 13 Disadvantages • VDOT standards and permitting required • Potential County liability for County activities • Potential for unclear roles and responsibilities between VDOT and County • Requires enabling legislation

County of Fairfax, Virginia ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANGATES Assume Responsibility for Various Functions of the Secondary Road System under VDOT Devolution Guidelines Advantages Maintenance Only Option • County control over maintenance priorities and scheduling Construction Only Option • County control over construction priorities and scheduling Maintenance, Construction and Operations Option • Full control over the entire Secondary system including signals and traffic operation activities • Ability to set standards and grant permits All Options • May improve responsiveness and accountability Department of Transportation 14 Disadvantages Maintenance Only and Construction Only Options • VDOT standards and permitting required • No County control over signals and traffic operations activities All Options • High start up costs for County • Unlikely to result in increased funding from VDOT • Auditing and reporting requirements • Potential County liability for County activities • Unclear roles and responsibilities between VDOT and County when secondary roads cross primary roads

County of Fairfax, Virginia ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANGATES Assume Responsibility for Primary and Secondary Road System within Certain Geographic Areas Advantages Disadvantages County control over all functions within areas: • Setting maintenance priorities • Scheduling • Setting standards and granting permits Flexibility to increase maintenance responsibilities only in areas where citizens desire Costs can be controlled by limiting size of areas to assume responsibilities May improve responsiveness and accountability within areas Department of Transportation 15 • Potential inefficiencies if multiple areas established • Potential service inconsistencies in different areas • Potential County liability for County activities • Unclear roles and responsibilities between VDOT and County if too many areas are created • Potentially high start up costs for County, depending on size of area.

County of Fairfax, Virginia ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANGATES Assume Responsibility for Primary and Secondary Road System for the Entire County Advantages Disadvantages County control over all functions within areas: • • Setting maintenance priorities Scheduling Setting standards and granting permits Coordination of land use and transportation • High cost to County (ongoing and start up) regardless of state funding level • Unlikely to receive maintenance reimbursement from VDOT at urban rates for the entire County Roles and responsibilities between VDOT and County are simplified • May require enabling legislation or change to City form of government May improve responsiveness and accountability within areas • Auditing and reporting requirements • County assumes all liability. Department of Transportation 16

County of Fairfax, Virginia OPTIONS FOR ENHANCING FUNDING / REVENUES • State maintenance funding – Not likely to increase – Changing administrative structure does not necessarily increase funding • Potential existing local funding sources – – – • Real estate taxes Personal property taxes Other general fund sources Transportation would compete against other essential public services Difficult to raise any of these in current economic climate Potential local sources requiring voter approval – Meals tax – Income tax for transportation: current provisions not suitable for funding maintenance – General obligation bonds: not suitable for maintenance Department of Transportation 17

County of Fairfax, Virginia OPTIONS FOR ENHANCING FUNDING / REVENUES • Potential new local sources that would require new legislation from General Assembly – Taxes and fees to originally be raised by Northern Virginia Transportation Authority (NVTA) – Increased sales tax – Increased motor fuels tax • Tax districts – Service districts – Urban transportation service districts – Transportation improvement districts: not suitable for maintenance • User fees and other private sources – Tolls – Public private partnerships – Proffers: not suitable for maintenance Department of Transportation 18