The URL can be used to link to this page

DIMOC 07-29-21 Meeting Agenda1.Capital Impacts Model Update 1.A.Capital Impacts Model Update Discussion of the annual update of select inputs to the Capital Impacts Model for Frederick County, Virginia. 2.Other AGENDA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2021 10:00 AM PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING WINCHESTER, VA DIMOC07-29-21OverviewofAnnualUpdate.pdf 1 Development Impact Model Oversight Committee Agenda Item Detail Meeting Date: July 29, 2021 Agenda Section: Capital Impacts Model Update Title: Capital Impacts Model Update Attachments: DIMOC07-29-21OverviewofAnnualUpdate.pdf 2 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/ 665-5651 Fax: 540/ 665-6395 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 MEMORANDUM TO: Development Impact Model – Oversight Committee (DIM-OC) FROM: Candice Perkins, AICP, CZA, Assistant Director of Planning & Development RE: July 29, 2021 – Development Impact Model Oversite Committee (DIM-OC) Annual Update of the Capital Impacts Model (CapIM) DATE: July 20, 2021 On June 12, 2019, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors approved, and directed staff to utilize the new Capital Impacts Model (CapIM) to analyze the capital costs generated by new development in the County. The CapIM was created by an economic consultant, TischlerBise, as part of a Capital Impact Study. The CapIM is designed to evaluate the anticipated need for capital facilities based on growth and to determine the cost of those capital facilities to the County. Further, the model determines the cost to the County for mitigating the infrastructure impacts associated with rezonings. It is the tool to use to determine if a cash proffer can be collected due to the presence of “excess capacity” or not. The Model provides a cash proffer calculation for County staff to use in determining the reasonableness of a cash proffer for a development project. Updated Inputs Several inputs to the CapIM are to be reviewed and updated on an annual basis to assure that the fiscal projections accurately reflect County capital expenditures. This 2021 update to the model includes the following data elements to be adjusted: • Population – 2020 Projections from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service • Frederick County Public School Enrollment – December 2020 Enrollment • Jobs – JobsEQ data as of 2020 Q4 • Capital Impact Program (CIP) 2021 Adopted Priorities (Tables) Please find attached to this memo a work sheet that identifies this new base year data (2021) information in comparison to the current data (2020). As you are aware, there is no fixed output value with the CapIM as each example is variable depending on the location and the housing types proposed with a project. 3 2021 DIM-OC Meeting July 20, 2021 Page 2 At the DIM-OC meeting staff will provide: • An overview of the base year data update • A brief review of the CapIM and what the model does and does not analyze • Examples of hypothetical projects with a summary of resulting impact Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Development Impact Model–Oversight Committee regarding the update of the base year data for the CapIM to forward to the Board of Supervisors. Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Attachments: • Base Year Data comparisons • Level of Service/CIP Updates – Schools, Parks, Sheriff, Fire and Rescue • 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Plan Tables • Capital Impacts Study, Frederick County, Virginia – Executive Summary CEP/pd 4 BASE YEAR DATA Capital Impacts Model Frederick County, Virginia FISCAL YEAR FY2021 POPULATION Countywide 89,790 Urban 62,853 Rural 26,937 TOTAL 89,790 FCPS ENROLLMENT Elementary 5,857 Middle 3,325 High 4,441 TOTAL 13,623 JOBS Jobs Located in the County 35,782 Urban 26,836 Rural 8,946 TOTAL 35,782 OTHER DATA Household Size Data Average Persons per Housing Unit Student Generation Rates Student Generation Rates Projections Residential Projections Nonresidential Projections Traffic ProjectionsREGIONREGION 5 BASE YEAR DATA Capital Impacts Model Frederick County, Virginia FISCAL YEAR FY2020 POPULATION Countywide 88,654 Urban 60,285 Rural 28,369 TOTAL 88,654 FCPS ENROLLMENT Elementary 6,243 Middle 3,363 High 4,323 TOTAL 13,929 JOBS Jobs Located in the County 28,827 Urban 21,331 Rural 7,495 TOTAL 28,826 OTHER DATA Household Size Data Average Persons per Housing Unit Student Generation Rates Student Generation Rates Projections Residential Projections Nonresidential Projections Traffic ProjectionsREGIONREGION 6 7 Schools Level of Service (LOS)User_Interface Capital Impacts Model Frederick County, Virginia SCHOOLS Elementary Schools Total Enrollment 13,622 Grades K-5 Inventory, Enrollment, and Levels of Service Site Building Value Per 31-Dec-20 Current Sq. Ft. per Attendance Zone Value Acreage Square Feet Square Feet Enrollment Capacity Utilization Capacity Apple Pie Ridge $10,041,800 14.2 65,120 $154 432 509 85%128 Armel $10,158,600 15.0 70,281 $145 613 580 106%121 Bass-Hoover $9,659,500 18.3 64,630 $149 577 580 99%111 Evendale $14,956,800 27.77 82,585 $181 480 607 79%136 Gainesboro $15,489,900 18.9 96,488 $161 420 595 71%162 Greenwood Mill $18,227,200 15.2 100,465 $181 583 696 84%144 Indian Hollow $8,142,700 19.5 59,065 $138 393 442 89%134 Middletown $9,886,500 15.0 70,281 $141 509 527 97%133 Orchard View $11,171,800 37.4 76,227 $147 436 473 92%161 Redbud Run $10,158,600 40.3 70,697 $144 572 613 93%115 Stonewall $11,047,700 10.0 67,987 $162 400 488 82%139 Jordan Springs $28,500,000 20.0 84,375 $337 442 500 88%169 Future ES 2 $0 0%0 Future ES 3 $0 0%0 Future ES 4 $0 0%0 Countywide Total $157,441,100 251.6 908,201 $173 5,857 6,610 89%137 Source: Frederick County Public School Planning Office; Virginia Department of Education Middle Schools Grades 6-8 Inventory, Enrollment, and Levels of Service Site Building Value Per 31-Dec-19 Current Sq. Ft. per Attendance Zone Value Acreage Square Feet Square Feet Enrollment Capacity Utilization Capacity Admiral Byrd $42,098,800 27.77 159,966 $263 1004 900 112%178 Frederick County $33,756,300 39.09 187,764 $180 813 880 92%213 James Wood MS $15,719,000 26.91 149,952 $105 886 840 105%179 Robert E. Aylor $6,500,000 23.90 115,008 $57 622 720 86%160 Future MS 1 $0 0%0 Future MS 2 $0 0%0 Future MS 3 $0 0%0 Future MS 4 $0 0%0 Countywide Total $98,074,100 117.7 612,690 $160 3,325 3,340 100%183 Source: Frederick County Public School Planning Office; Virginia Department of Education High Schools Grades 9-12 Inventory, Enrollment, and Levels of Service Site Building Value Per 31-Dec-19 Current Sq. Ft. per Attendance Zone Value Acreage Square Feet Square Feet Enrollment Capacity Utilization Capacity James Wood HS $40,012,500 68.9 229,187 $175 1,375 1,283 107%179 Millbrook $55,923,000 88.2 253,843 $220 1,506 1,341 112%189 Sherando $41,521,700 40.0 239,517 $173 1,559 1,323 118%181 Future HS 1 $0 0%0 Future HS 2 $0 0%0 Future HS 3 $0 0%0 Future HS 4 $0 0%0 Countywide Total $137,457,200 197.0 722,547 $190 4,440 3,947 112%183 Source: Frederick County Public School Planning Office; Virginia Department of Education Education Centers Inventory, Enrollment, and Levels of Service Site Building Value Per Facility Value Acreage Square Feet Square Feet Dowell J. Howard Center Countywide $7,456,600 20 70,417 $106 NREP/Senseny Road School Countywide $5,064,400 9.7 62,869 $81 Future Facility 1 $0 Future Facility 2 $0 TOTALS $12,521,000 29.7 133,286 $94 Sumary by Region/School Demand Units Value per Acres per Building (Students)Student Student SF per Student LOS based on Current Enrollment 13,622 $919 0.002 10 LOS based on Capacity 13,897 $901 0.002 10 Support Facilities Inventory, Enrollment, and Levels of Service Site Building Value Per Facility Value Acreage Square Feet Square Feet Buildings & Ground Facility Countywide $2,132,600 12.13 49,626 $43 Support Facilities Services West Countywide $676,000 6.02 10,423 $65 School Board Office Countywide $3,601,700 6.64 35,494 $101 Smithfield Facility Countywide $789,876 1.32 6,380 $124 Transportation Facility Countywide $11,044,200 57.3 58,832 $188 Future Facility 1 $0 Future Facility 2 $0 Future Facility 3 $0 TOTALS $18,244,376 83.4 160,755 $113 Sumary by Region/School Demand Units Value per Acres per Building (Students)Student Student SF per Student LOS based on Current Enrollment 13,622 $1,339 0.006 12 LOS based on Capacity 13,897 $1,313 0.006 12 Smithfield Facility Building is shared by Schools and Court Services Value Acres SF $/SF Total $3,017,500 5.03 24,373 $123.81 Schools $789,876 1.32 6,380 $123.81 26% Courts $2,227,624 3.71 17,993 $123.81 74% Region Region 8 CIP Projects Building Building SF Facility Service Area Value Square Feet Capacity per Student James Wood HS Renovations and Additions Rural $73,600,000 229,187 $321 1,375 $53,527 167 New High School Urban $94,000,000 229,187 $410 1,725 $54,492 133 Armel Expansion Urban South $16,100,000 72,000 $223 580 $27,758 124 Indian Hollow Renovation Rural $12,000,000 Sherando High School Renovations Additions Urban $71,400,000 Apple Pie Phase 2 Rural - TOTAL $267,100,000 530,374 $503 3,680 $72,581 144 Source: Frederick County Capital Improvement Plan 2020-2025; 2021-2026 Plan Note: The Armel Expansion includes 72,000 sq ft of renovations New School Cost Building Facility Value Square Feet Jordan Springs ES $28,500,000 84,375 $337 Aylor MS Replacement $45,000,000 133,000 $338 New High School $94,000,000 229,187 $410 TOTAL $139,000,000 362,187 $384 Source: Frederick County Capital Improvement Plan 2019-2024 Plan; Jordan Springs ES Construction Plan Set Value per Square Feet Value per Student Value per Square Feet 9 Parks and Recreation User_Interface Capital Impacts Model Frederick County, Virginia District Parks Park Name Project Purpose Acres Value $/Acre Service Area Note Sherando Park Area 1 Development $1,415,000 $0 Urban Park Type Urban Rural Countywide Sherando Park Water Slide $515,000 $0 Urban District Parks Yes Yes N/a Clearbrook Park Water Slide $515,000 $0 Urban Community Parks Yes No N/a Sherando Park Softball Complex $1,740,000 $0 Urban Neighborhood Parks Yes Yes N/a Sherando Park Ballfield Lighting $945,000 $0 Urban Upgrading the lighting equipment of 4 ballfields Unpaved Trails No No N/a Sherando Park Area 3 Development $2,460,000 $0 Urban Paved Trails Yes No N/a New District Parks Land Aquisition 300.0 $8,262,000 $27,540 Urban Two 150-200 acres of parkland Community Centers Yes No N/a New District Park Land Aquisition 150.0 $4,131,000 $27,540 Rural One 150-200 acres of parkland Indoor Facilities N/a N/a Yes Sherando Park Playground Replacement $1,050,000 $0 Urban Source: Frederick County 2021-2026 CIP Clearbrook Park NE Area Park Development $420,000 $0 Urban $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 450.0 $21,453,000 $47,673 Community Parks Park Name Project Purpose Acres Value $/Acre Service Area Note Old Charlestown Rd Park Park Development $3,400,000 $0 Urban Improvement only costs New Community Park Multi-Purpose Park 35.0 $2,194,000 $62,685 Urban Land and improvement costs $0 $0 $0 Total 35.0 $5,594,000 $159,828 Neighborhood Parks Park Name Project Purpose Acres Value $/Acre Service Area Note New Neighborhood Parks Multi-Purpose Park 20.0 $1,674,667 $83,733 Urban Two 10-acre parks New Neighborhood Parks Multi-Purpose Park 40.0 $3,349,332 $83,733 Rural Four 10-acre parks $0 $0 $0 Total 60.0 $5,236,000 $87,266 Unpaved Trails Trail Name Project Purpose Miles Value $/Mile Service Area Note $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 0.0 $0 $0 Paved Trails Trail Name Project Purpose Miles Value $/Mile Service Area Note Abrams Creek Trail Paved Walking Trail 3 $2,198,900 $732,966 Urban $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 3.0 $2,198,900 $732,966 Community Center Facility Name Project Purpose Sq. Ft.Value $/SF Service Area Note Jordan Springs Community Center $1,400,000 $0 Urban $0 $0 $0 $0 Total 0.0 $1,400,000 $0 Indoor Facilities Facility Name Project Purpose Sq. Ft.Value $/SF Service Area Note Field House Indoor Recreation 44,000 $9,900,000 $225 Countywide Indoor Swimming Pool Swimming 35,000 $12,835,000 $366 Countywide at the 4th High School campus $0 $0 $0 Total 79,000 $22,735,000 $287 Listed in CIP 10 Sheriff Level of Service (LOS)User_Interface Capital Impacts Model Frederick County, Virginia Capacity Increasing Project in CIP for Sheriff Station?No Existing LOS: Sheriff Facilities Res.Nonres.Total Value $Value $Value $ Public Safety Building 38,203 60%40%22,842 15,361 $13,318,000 $348.61 $7,962,862 $5,355,138 $13,318,000 Future Facility 1 60%40%0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 Future Facility 2 60%40%0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 Future Facility 3 60%40%0 0 $0.00 $0 $0 $0 GRAND TOTAL 38,203 22,841 15,361 $13,318,000 $348.61 $7,962,861 $5,355,138 $13,318,000 Source: Frederick County Facility Inventory Residential Nonresidential Sheriff Calls for Service 60%40%Total Total Sheriff Sq. Ft.22,841 15,361 38,202 Base Year Population or Nonres. Trip 89,790 182,739 Square Feet per Person or Nonres. Trip 0.25 0.08 Source: Frederick County Sheriff's Office Residential Nonresidential Square Feet per Person or Nonres. Trip 0.25 0.08 Total Cost per Sq. Ft. $348.61 $348.61 Cost per Person or Nonres. Trip $87.15 $27.89 Capacity Increasing Project in CIP for Support Facilities?Yes CIP Countywide Service Area Sheriff Portion Res.Nonres.Total Value $ Facility Sq. Ft.Res %Nonres %Value Value $Value $Value $Per Sq. Ft. Project 25 Pubic Safety Radio Network Countywide - 60%40%$18,626,952 $11,137,096 $7,489,856 $18,626,952 $0 Subtotal - $18,626,952 $11,137,096 $7,489,856 #DIV/0! Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share 60%40% Facility Square Feet Cost Cost per Sq. Ft.Res. Cost Nonres. Cist Project 25 Pubic Safety Radio Network $18,626,952 $0 $11,137,096 $7,489,856 Residential Nonresidential Square Feet of Facility - $11,137,096 $7,489,856 2035 Population or Nonres. Trips 108,067 218,533 SF per Person or Nonres. Trips Total Cost per Sq. Ft. $0 $0 Cost per Person or Nonres. Trip Countywide $103 $34 ~~~~~ WORK AREA Residential 37,565 60% Nonresidential 25,263 40% Total 62,828 100% Source: Frederick County Sheriff's Office Value $/Sq. Ft. Calls for Service % Facility Sq.Ft.Res %Nonres %Res SF Year to be Constructed 2025 Land Use Nonres SF 11 Fire and Rescue Capital Impacts User_Interface Capital Impacts Model Service Area Stephens City Frederick County, Virginia Capital Needs?Yes Existing Stations Stephens City Local District 15,032 $1,002,900 $67 Middletown Local District 5,814 $400,500 $69 Clear Brook Local District 7,325 $561,700 $77 Gore Local District 12,496 $715,200 $57 Round Hill Local District 16,435 $2,872,200 $175 Gainesboro Local District 11,988 $812,500 $68 Star Tannery Local District 3,408 $280,200 $82 Greenwood Local District 22,000 $1,832,800 $83 North Mountain Local District 7,754 $595,800 $77 Reynolds Store Local District 14,720 $1,104,800 $75 Millwood Local District 17,260 $2,009,500 $116 Future Station 1 $0 Future Station 2 $0 Future Station 3 $0 GRAND TOTAL 134,232 GRAND TOTAL Fire Stations Only 134,232 GRAND TOTAL Support Facilities Only 0 Planned CIP Fire Stations Res.Nonres.Total Value $ Facility Sq. Ft.Res %Nonres %Value Value $Value $Value $Per Sq. Ft. Fire & Rescue Station 22 Stephens City 10,000 77%23%$7,500,000 $5,775,000 $1,725,000 $7,500,000 $750 Fire & Rescue Station 23/Annex Facility Millwood 10,000 77%23%$7,000,000 $5,390,000 $1,610,000 $7,000,000 $700 Greenwood Fire Station Renovations Greenwood -77%23%$2,195,000 $1,690,150 $504,850 $2,195,000 $0 Clear Brook Replacement Clear Brook -77%23%$4,830,000 $3,719,100 $1,110,900 $4,830,000 $0 Middletown Renovations Middletown -77%23%----$0 Countywide 77%23%20981973 $16,156,119 $4,825,854 $20,981,973 $0 Total 20,000 $42,506,973 $32,730,369 $9,776,604 $42,506,973 $1,450 Source: Frederick County 2019-2024 CIP CIP Countywide Service Area Fire Portion Res.Nonres.Total Value $ Facility Sq. Ft.Res %Nonres %Value Value $Value $Value $Per Sq. Ft. Project 25 Pubic Safety Radio Network Countywide - 77%23%$2,355,021 $1,813,366 $541,655 $2,355,021 $0 Subtotal - $2,355,021 $1,813,366 $541,655 #DIV/0! Grand Total 20,000 $44,861,994 $34,543,735 $10,318,259 $2,243 Fire District Capital Need? Stephens City Yes Middletown Yes Clear Brook Yes Sheriff 81,072 89% Gore No Fire/Rescue 10,250 11% Round Hill No Total 91,322 Gainesboro No Star Tannery No Greenwood Yes Project 25 Pubic Safety Radio Network $20,981,973 North Mountain No Reynolds Store No Sheriff Portion $18,626,952 Millwood Yes Fire/Rescue Portion $2,355,021 Source: Frederick County 2021-2026 CIP Capital Need? Countywide Yes Facility Sq. Ft.Service Area Service Area Value Cost per Sq. Ft. Calls for Service (2018)Public Safety % of Total 12 FIRE STATION LOS APPARATUS LOS Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share 77%23%Unit Total Service Area Square Feet Res. Sq. Ft.Nonres. Sq. Ft.# of Units Cost ($2017)Cost ($2017) Stephens City 15,032 11,575 3,457 Engine 15 $500,000 $7,500,000 Middletown 5,814 4,477 1,337 Ladder 3 $1,200,000 $3,600,000 Clear Brook 7,325 5,640 1,685 Ambulance 23 $250,000 $5,750,000 Gore 12,496 9,622 2,874 Tanker 14 $500,000 $7,000,000 Round Hill 16,435 12,655 3,780 Other 30 $102,667 $3,080,000 Gainesboro 11,988 9,231 2,757 Total 85 $26,930,000 Star Tannery 3,408 2,624 784 Greenwood 22,000 16,940 5,060 Residential Nonresidential North Mountain 7,754 5,971 1,783 Proportionate Share 77%23% Reynolds Store 14,720 11,334 3,386 Cost Allocation $20,736,100 $6,193,900 Millwood 17,260 13,290 3,970 Population or Nonres. Trips 89,790 182,739 Future Station 1 0 0 Cost per Person or Nonres. Trip $231 $34 Future Station 2 0 0 Future Station 3 0 0 Total 134,232 103,359 30,873 Value $Demand Unit -Res. LOS Per Sq. Ft.Population (Sq. Ft./Capita) Countywide $1,450 89,790 103,359 1.15 $1,668 Value $Demand Unit -Nonres. LOS Per Sq. Ft.Vehicle Trips (Sq. Ft./Trip) Countywide $1,450 182,739 30,873 0.17 $247 Per Capita Per Nonres Trip Fire Station $1,668 $247 Apparatus $231 $34 Subtotal $1,899 $281 Support Facilities $17 $2 Res. Capital Impact/Capita Residential Square Feet Apparatus Nonresidential Square Feet Nonres. Capital Impact/Trip 13 SUPPORT FACILITIES LOS Residential Nonresidential Proportionate Share 77%23% Year to be Constructed Square Feet Cost Cost per Sq. Ft.Res. Cost Nonres. Cist 2025 - $2,355,021 $0 $1,813,366 $541,655 Residential Nonresidential Square Feet of Facility - $1,813,366 $541,655 2035 Population or Nonres. Trips 108,067 218,533 SF per Person or Nonres. Trips Total Cost per Sq. Ft. $0 $0 $0 Cost per Person or Nonres. Trip Countywide $17 $2 SUPPORT FACILITIES LOS - Removing from CapImp Tab. No specifics other than cost and square footage available. Center is listed as a partnership with surrounding communities, so Frederick County cost is not able to be calculated. Project 25 Pubic Safety Radio Network Facility 14 15 Contribution Per Fiscal Year Projects - Ranked by Department 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026+ Long Range Comprehensive Plan Projects County Contributions Notes Total Project Costs Department Ensuing Fiscal Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Beyond Year 6+ Public Schools Please refer to the map identifying future school sites for additional school sites located throughout the County. Indian Hollow Elementary School Renovation $5,800,000 $3,800,000 $2,400,000 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 James Wood High School Additions/Renovations $3,600,000 $30,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 $73,600,000 $73,600,000 Armel Elementary School Renovation/Expansion $8,100,000 $5,400,000 $2,600,000 $16,100,000 $16,100,000 School Board Office IT Addition $4,800,000 $1,600,000 $6,400,000 $6,400,000 Fourth High School $35,300,000 $23,500,000 $23,500,000 $11,700,000 $94,400,000 $94,000,000 Sherando High School Renovation/Expansion TBD Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School Phase 2 Renovation TBD Total $17,500,000 $44,000,000 $61,900,000 $43,500,000 $23,500,000 $11,700,000 $202,500,000 $202,100,000 Parks & Recreation Abrams Creek Greenway Trail $479,985 $508,915 $1,210,000 $1,630,000 $3,828,900 $3,828,900 Recreation Center $650,000 $9,250,000 $9,900,000 $9,900,000 Old Charlestown Road Park $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 Indoor Aquatic Facility $835,000 $12,000,000 $12,835,000 $12,835,000 Jordan Springs Elementary Gym Addition $75,000 $1,325,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 Water Slide/Sprayground $1,030,000 $1,030,000 $1,030,000 Sherando Sherando Park Area 1 Rec Access Phase 2 $100,000 $1,315,000 $1,415,000 $1,415,000 Clearbrook Clearbrook Park Development $220,000 $200,000 $420,000 $420,000 Sherando Sherando Park Softball Complex $115,000 $1,625,000 $1,740,000 $1,740,000 Sherando Sherando Park Area 3 Development $110,000 $2,350,000 $2,460,000 $2,460,000 Playground Replacement $350,000 $300,000 $150,000 $250,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 Sherando Sherando Ballfield Light Replacement $945,000 $945,000 $945,000 Community Parks $1,040,000 $1,154,000 $2,194,000 $2,194,000 Neighborhood Parks $293,000 $600,000 $4,131,000 $5,024,000 $5,024,000 Regional Parks $5,400,000 $4,110,000 $6,320,000 $15,830,000 $15,830,000 Sherando South Sherando Park Development $2,465,000 $2,465,000 $2,465,000 National Guard Armory Gym Addition $630,000 $630,000 $630,000 Fleet Trip Vehicles $340,000 $340,000 $340,000 Sherando SH Park Area 1 and 2 Development $3,450,000 $3,450,000 $3,450,000 Indoor Ice Rink $6,930,000 $6,930,000 $6,930,000 Total $5,224,985 $20,058,915 $14,443,000 $5,984,000 $5,650,000 $6,575,000 $17,721,000 $77,286,900 $77,286,900 Regional Library Gainesboro Library $155,023 $1,340,000 $225,736 $128,275 $1,849,034 $1,849,034 Senseny/Greenwood Library TBD TBD 522 South Library TBD TBD Total $155,023 $1,340,000 $225,736 $128,275 $0 $0 $1,849,034 $1,849,034 County Administration Gore Convenience Site Expansion $750,000 $750,000 E $750,000 Double Toll Gate Convenience Site $35,000 $550,000 $585,000 $585,000 County Office Annex (Sunnyside)TBD TBD TBD General Government Capital Expenditures $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 E $1,000,000 County/School Board Administration Building TBD TBD E TBD Joint Judicial Center New Facility TBD TBD TBD Total $950,000 $235,000 $750,000 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $2,335,000 $2,335,000 Table 1 - 2021-2026 Capital Improvement Plan Requests 16 Contribution Per Fiscal Year Projects - Ranked by Department 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026+ Long Range Comprehensive Plan Projects County Contributions Notes Total Project Costs Fire & Rescue Frederick County Fire & Rescue Station 22 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 Station 22 Apparatus $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Fire and Rescue Station 23 / Annex Facilities $7,000,000 $7,000,000 $7,000,000 Station 23 Apparatus $1,100,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000 Total $0 $0 $8,600,000 $0 $0 $8,100,000 $0 16,700,000 $16,700,000 Fire & Rescue Company Capital Requests Fire & Rescue Capital Equipment $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 E $1,000,000 Fire & Rescue Company Capital Requests Greenwood Fire Station Upgrade/Expand Living Quarters $1,500,000 $1,500,000 including capital equipment requests Greenwood Fire Station Ambulance Replacement Program $310,000 $385,000 $695,000 Middletown Station Building Renovation/Addition TBD Clearbrook - New Fire Station $50,000 $205,000 $4,575,000 $4,830,000 Stephens City Station - Tower 11 Replacement $130,000 $1,170,000 $1,300,000 Stephens City Station - Medic Unit Replacement (11-2)$240,000 $240,000 Stephens City Station - Medic Unit Replacement (11-3)$280,000 $280,000 Total $1,700,000 $510,000 $200,000 $0 $200,000 $280,000 $0 1,000,000 $9,845,000 Sheriffs Office Eight Bay Steel Building for Large Vehicles $320,000 $320,000 $320,000 Replacement Law Enforcement Vehicles $870,000 $870,000 $870,000 $870,000 $870,000 $870,000 continuous $5,220,000 $5,220,000 Apex 8500 Mobile Radios $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 continuous $1,200,000 $1,200,000 Apex 8000 Portable Radios $187,500 $187,500 $187,500 $187,500 $187,500 $187,500 continuous $1,125,000 $1,125,000 Firearms Training Simulator $100,000 $100,000 Total $1,677,500 $1,257,500 $1,257,500 $1,257,500 $1,257,500 $1,257,500 $0 7,865,000 $7,965,000 Communications Project 25 Pubic Safety Radio Network $4,196,395 $6,294,592 $6,294,592 $2,098,197 $2,098,197 $20,981,973 Total $20,981,973 Total of All Categories $27,207,508 $67,401,415 $87,376,236 $51,069,775 $30,807,500 $27,912,500 $17,721,000 $309,535,934 $339,062,907 Other Funding Sources:E= Partial funding anticipated through development & revenue sources TBD= To be Determined Public Safety - Fire and Rescue, Sheriff's Office and Communications 17 18 Capital Impacts Study Frederick County, Virginia Submitted to: Frederick County, Virginia June 3, 2019 4701 Sangamore Road Suite S240 Bethesda, Maryland 20816 800.424.4318 www.tischlerbise.com 19 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia i TischlerBise 4701 Sangamore Road Suite S240 Bethesda, Maryland 20816 800.424.4318 www.tischlerbise.com June 2019 20 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia ii CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Background on Cash Proffers ...................................................................................................................... 2 Capital Impacts Approach ........................................................................................................................... 3 Methodologies ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Generic Cash Proffer Calculation ................................................................................................................ 5 Figure 1. Generic Cash Proffer Formula ................................................................................................ 5 Credits ......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Summary of Capital Impacts Approach ....................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Summary of Frederick County Capital Impacts Methodologies ............................................. 8 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ............................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Service Areas ................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 3. Frederick County Service Area Map ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Household Size ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4. Countywide Persons per Housing Unit .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 5. Persons Per Housing Unit by Service Area .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Service Area Residential Proportion of Frederick County ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 6. Service Area Proportion of Frederick County, 2016 ................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Building Permit Activity ................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 7. Building Permit Totals 2013-2017 ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Current Population and Housing Units ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 8. Countywide Base Year Population .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 9. Base Year Population by Service Area ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 10. Countywide Base Year Housing Units .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 11. Service Area Base Year Housing Unit .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Population and Housing Unit Projections .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 12. Population and Housing Unit Projections (2019-2028) ......... Error! Bookmark not defined. Student Generation Rates and Current Enrollment ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 13. Student Generation Rates ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 14. Current Student Enrollment, as of Spring 2018 ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Student Generation Projections ................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 15. Countywide Student Enrollment Projections (2019-2028) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Estimates .................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 16. 2018 Countywide Employment by NAICS Code .................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 17. Base Year Countywide Employment by Industry Sector ....... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 18. Base Year Countywide Nonresidential Floor Area by Industry Sector . Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 19. Square Foot per Job Factors .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Service Area Current Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area ............. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 20. Job Split by Service Area ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 21. Nonresidential Floor Area by Service Area ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 22. Percent of Job Growth by Industry ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 23. Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Demand Factors ....... Error! Bookmark not defined. 21 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia iii Figure 24. Employment and Nonresidential Floor Area Projections ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Vehicle Trip Generation ............................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 25. Customized Residential Trip End Rates ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 26. Frederick County Trip Adjustment Factor for Commuters .... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 27. Institute of Transportation Engineers Nonresidential Trip Factors Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 28. Frederick County Summary of Averages Daily Vehicle Trip FactorsError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 29. Frederick County Total Daily Vehicle Trip Projections (2019-2028)Error! Bookmark not defined. Functional Population .................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 30. Frederick County Functional Population ............................... Error! Bookmark not defined. PROJECT APPROACH .................................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAPITAL IMPACTS ............................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 31. Frederick County Public Schools Capital Impacts Methodology Chart . Error! Bookmark not defined. School Capital Impact Service Areas ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Public School Students per Housing Unit ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 32. Frederick County Student Generation Rates ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Public School Facilities Level of Service Standards ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 33. Frederick County Public Schools Elementary Schools Level of Service Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 34. Frederick County Public Schools: Middle Schools Level of ServiceError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 35. Frederick County Schools: High School Level of Service........ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 36. Frederick County Schools: Education Centers ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 37. Frederick County Schools: Support Facilities ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 38. Frederick County Schools: Transportation Vehicles .............. Error! Bookmark not defined. Public School Facilities in Capital Improvement Plan................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 39. School Facilities in Capital Improvement Plan ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Credit for Future Debt Payments for School Improvements ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 40. Payment Schedule for School Debt ....................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Public Schools Capital Impact Input Variables ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 41. Elementary School Level of Service and Cost Factors ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 42. Middle School and High School Level of Service and Cost FactorsError! Bookmark not defined. Capital Impacts for Public Schools ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 43. Frederick County Public Schools Capital Impact by Housing Unit, Elementary School Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 44. Frederick County Public Schools Capital Impact by Housing Unit, Middle SchoolError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 45. Frederick County Public Schools Capital Impact by Housing Unit, High SchoolError! Bookmark not defined. School Cash Proffer Eligibility ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. PARKS & RECREATION CAPITAL IMPACTS .................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 46. Parks & Recreation Capital Impact Methodology Chart ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. Park Inventory .............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 47. Parks & Recreation Inventory ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Parks & Recreation Facilities in Capital Improvement Plan ......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 48. Park Facilities in Capital Improvement Plan by Type and Service Area Error! Bookmark not defined. Parks & Recreation Level of Service and Cost Factors ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 49. Parks Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors ................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Community Center Level of Service and Cost Factors ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 50. Community Center Level of Service Standards and Cost FactorsError! Bookmark not defined. Indoor Recreational Facility Level of Service and Cost Factors .................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 22 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia iv Figure 51. Indoor Recreational Facility Level of Service and Cost Factors Error! Bookmark not defined. Parks & Recreation Input Variables and Capital Impacts ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 52. Parks & Recreation Input Variables and Capital Impact ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. Parks & Recreation Cash Proffer Eligibility ................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL IMPACTS: SHERIFF ................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 53. Sheriff Capital Impact Methodology Chart ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Cost Allocation for Sheriff Facilities ............................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 54. Frederick County Sheriff Calls for Service .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Sheriff Facilities Inventory and Level of Service ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 55. Sheriff Facilities Level of Service Standards .......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Sheriff Input Variables and Capital Impacts ................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 56. Sheriff Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Residential . Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 57. Sheriff Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Nonresidential Error! Bookmark not defined. Sheriff Cash Proffer Eligibility ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL IMPACTS: FIRE & RESCUE ..................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 58. Fire & Rescue Capital Impact Methodology Chart ................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Cost Allocation for Fire & Rescue Facilities .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 59. Frederick County Proportionate Share Factors ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fire & Rescue Facilities in Capital Improvement Plan .................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 60. Fire & Rescue Facilities in Capital Improvement Plan ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fire & Rescue Facilities Level of Service and Cost Factors ........................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 61. Fire & Rescue Facilities Level of Service and Cost Factors..... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fire Apparatus Capital Impact ...................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 62. Fire & Rescue Apparatus Level of Service and Cost Factor ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Fire & Rescue Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts ....................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 63. Fire & Rescue Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Residential Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 64. Fire & Rescue Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Residential cont.Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 65. Fire & Rescue Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Residential cont.Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 66. Fire & Rescue Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Nonresidential Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 67. Fire & Rescue Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Nonresidential cont. ................................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 68. Fire & Rescue Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Nonresidential cont. ................................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Fire & Rescue Cash Proffer Eligibility ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 69. Fire & Rescue Capital Projects ............................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. PUBLIC SAFETY CAPITAL IMPACTS: ANIMAL PROTECTION .......................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 70. Animal Protection Capital Impacts Methodology Chart ........ Error! Bookmark not defined. Animal Protection Facilities Inventory and Level of Service ........................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 71. Animal Protection Facilities and Level of Service .................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Animal Protection Input Variables and Capital Impacts .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 72. Animal Protection Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Type of Housing Unit Error! Bookmark not defined. Animal Protection Cash Proffer Eligibility .................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. LIBRARY CAPITAL IMPACTS .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 73. Library Capital Impacts Methodology Chart .......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 23 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia v Library Facilities Inventory ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 74. Library Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost FactorsError! Bookmark not defined. Library Facilities in Capital Improvement Plan ............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 75. Planned Library Facility Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors .. Error! Bookmark not defined. Library Level of Service and Cost Factors ..................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 76. Library Level of Service and Cost Factors .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Library Input Variables and Capital Impacts ................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 77. Library Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Type of Housing Unit . Error! Bookmark not defined. GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPACTS ............................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 78. General Government Facilities Capital Impact Methodology ChartError! Bookmark not defined. Cost Allocation for General Government Facilities ...................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 79. Frederick County Proportionate Share Factors ..................... Error! Bookmark not defined. General Government Facilities Level of Service and Cost Factors ............... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 80. General Government Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Error! Bookmark not defined. General Government Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts ........... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 81. General Govt. Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, ResidentialError! Bookmark not defined. Figure 82. General Govt. Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Nonresidential Error! Bookmark not defined. COURTS CAPITAL IMPACTS .......................................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 83. Courts Capital Impact Methodology Chart ............................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Cost Allocation for Court Facilities ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 84. Frederick County Sheriff Calls for Service .............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Court Facilities Level of Service and Cost Factors ........................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 85. Court Facilities Level of Service and Cost Factors.................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Court Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 86. Court Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Residential Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 87. Court Facilities Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Land Use, Nonresidential ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/SOLID WASTE CAPITAL IMPACTS ................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 88. Environmental Services Capital Impacts Methodology Chart Error! Bookmark not defined. Environmental Services Inventory ............................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 89. Environmental Services Facilities Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Error! Bookmark not defined. Environmental Services Facilities in Capital Improvement Plan .................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 90. Planned Environmental Services Facility Level of Service Standards and Cost Factors Error! Bookmark not defined. Environmental Services Level of Service and Cost Factors .......................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 91. Environmental Services Level of Service and Cost Factors .... Error! Bookmark not defined. Environmental Services Input Variables and Capital Impacts ...................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 92. Environmental Services Input Variables and Capital Impacts by Type of Housing Unit Error! Bookmark not defined. SUMMARY OF CAPITAL IMPACTS ................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 93. Example Summary of Capital Impacts by Land Use ............... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 94. Summary of Capital Impacts by Land Use ............................. Error! Bookmark not defined. APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE OF DEVELOPMENT RESULTS .................................. ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Figure 95. Example CapIM Test Results .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. 24 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia vi APPENDIX B: CASH PROFFER BACKGROUND ............................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. Definition ..................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Approach ...................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Cash Proffer Implementation and Administration Considerations .............. Error! Bookmark not defined. Credits and Reimbursements ....................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 25 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview TischlerBise has been retained by Frederick County, Virginia, to analyze the capital impacts of new development. The objective is to quantify the capital costs generated by new development in the County, specifically in light of changes to Cash Proffer law in Virginia. The assignment includes the development of a Capital Impacts Model (CapIM) for use in: 1. Calculating the “static” capital impact of new development by type of land use and 2. To allow County staff to use the Capital Impacts Model to determine the capital costs for development projects that take into consideration whether capacity is available or not (and therefore, whether a cash proffer can be offered and accepted by the County). TischlerBise evaluated capital impacts for the following categories of public capital improvements: (1) Public Schools, (2) Parks and Recreation, (3) Public Safety: Sheriff, (4) Public Safety: Fire & Rescue, (5) Public Safety: Animal Protection, (6) Library, (7) General Government, (8) Courts, and (9) Environmental Services/Solid Waste. Methodologies and calculations are presented in this report as supporting documentation for estimating capital impacts from new growth as well as potential support for cash proffers. 26 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia 2 Background on Cash Proffers Cash proffers are one-time voluntary monetary commitments made at the time of rezoning to offset the impact on certain public facilities from new residential development. The funds ultimately collected from cash proffers are used to construct capital improvements to mitigate capital impacts with the goal of maintaining levels of service. Funds can only be used for capital improvements that provide additional capacity, not operations or maintenance. Cash proffer are calculated using level of service standards to account for infrastructure that may currently have excess capacity. Cash proffers cannot be used to correct existing deficiencies. However, since cash proffers do not apply to “by-right” development but only apply during the rezoning process, only a portion of the impacts from new growth can be mitigated through cash proffers. Cash proffers are a small part of an overall funding strategy and should not be regarded as a total solution for infrastructure financing needs. Therefore, other strategies and revenue sources are needed to offset the impact to infrastructure from new growth. Cash proffers are authorized under Virginia Code §15.2-2303 and §15.2-2298. A major change to cash proffer authority was enacted in 2016 affecting Section 15.2-2303.4(B) that added requirements to the acceptance of cash proffers. The new section states that localities cannot require an unreasonable proffer or deny a rezoning application or proffer condition amendment due to applicant’s failure or refusal to submit an unreasonable proffer.1 The implementation of this change to the cash proffer law hinges on defining an unreasonable proffer, or more positively, defining a reasonable proffer. Defining reasonable proffers requires the analysis of existing capacity in public facilities as well as the demand for additional capacity from growth. This report and the accompanying Capital Impacts Model address this requirement specifically for Frederick County and provides a tool for ongoing implementation of the cash proffer law. Furthermore, the changes to the cash proffer law restrict the infrastructure categories to public transportation facilities, public safety facilities, public school facilities, and public parks and further restricts the impacts that can be addressed to capacity improvements associated with construction projects. 1 Virginia Code Section 15.2-2303.4(B) was revised in 2019 from restricting a local governing body from merely requesting or accepting an unreasonable proffer, to restricting a local governing body from requiring an unreasonable proffer. This allows a local governing body to discuss and negotiate with a developer to determine a reasonable proffer. 27 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia 3 Capital Impacts Approach TischlerBise evaluated possible methodologies and documented appropriate demand indicators by type of land use for the infrastructure categories addressed in this study. The formula used to calculate each capital impact is diagrammed in a flow chart at the beginning of each chapter. Specific capital costs have been identified using local data and current dollars (2019). Because cash proffers reflect a point in time, the calculations and study should be updated periodically (typically 3 to 5 years). Costs reflect the direct impact of new development on the need for new facilities and infrastructure and do not reflect secondary or indirect impacts. Capital impacts and resulting cash proffer amounts are calculated to recognize three key elements: need, benefit, and proportionality. • First, to justify a cash proffer for public facilities, it must be demonstrated that new development/rezonings will create a need for capital improvements (including an assessment of existing capacity). • Second, new development/rezonings must derive a benefit from the payment of the cash proffers (i.e., in the form of public facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe). • Third, the cash proffer to be paid by a particular type of development (land use) should not exceed its proportional share of the capital cost for system improvements. For each capital impact calculation, the report includes a summary table indicating the specific factors used to derive the amounts. These factors are referred to as “Level of Service” (LOS) standards. The capital impacts outlined in this report reflect the actual cost to the County generated from new residential and nonresidential development, and as such, each represents the true capital impact generated by type of land use for each public facility category. The Capital Impacts Model developed for the County by TischlerBise is the tool to use to determine if a cash proffer can be collected due to the presence of “excess capacity” or not. The Model provides a cash proffer calculation for County staff to use in determining the reasonableness of a cash proffer for a particular development project. 28 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia 4 Methodologies Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate cash proffers. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics and planning requirements for the facility type being addressed. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to some extent can be interchangeable, because each allocates facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Reduced to its simplest terms, the process of calculating cash proffers involves two main steps: (1) determining the cost of development-related capital improvements and (2) allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of cash proffers can become quite complicated because of the many variables involved in defining the relationship between development and the need for facilities. The following paragraphs discuss three basic methods for calculating cash proffers and how those methods can be applied. Plan-Based Calculation. The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a facility plan and development is identified by a land use plan. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total future demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand. Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by the amount of demand per unit of development (e.g., housing units or square feet of building area) in each category to arrive at a cost per specific unit of development (e.g., single family detached unit). Incremental Expansion Calculation. The incremental expansion method documents the current level of service (LOS) for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures, based on an existing service standard (such as square feet per student). This approach ensures that there are no existing infrastructure deficiencies or surplus capacity in infrastructure. New development is only paying its proportionate share for growth-related infrastructure. The level of service standards are determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost approach used by property insurance companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, the cash proffer revenues would not be for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, revenue will be used to expand or provide additional facilities, as needed, to accommodate new development. An incremental expansion cost method is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded in regular increments, with LOS standards based on current conditions in the community. Cost Recovery or Buy-In Calculation. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities already built or land already purchased from which new growth will benefit. This methodology is often used for oversized systems. At the beginning of each capital facility chapter the chosen methodology will be explained and illustrated with a figure. 29 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia 5 Generic Cash Proffer Calculation In contrast to development exactions, which are typically referred to as project-level improvements, cash proffers fund growth-related infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or the entire jurisdiction. The basic steps in a generic cash proffer formula are illustrated in Figure 1. The first step is to determine an appropriate demand indicator, or service unit, for the particular type of infrastructure. The demand/service indicator measures the number of demand or service units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for schools is growth in student enrollment and the increase in enrollment can be estimated from the average number of students per housing unit. The second step in the generic formula is to determine infrastructure units per demand unit, typically called level of service (LOS) standards. In keeping with the school example, a common LOS standard is square feet per student. The third step in the generic formula is the cost of various infrastructure units. To complete the school example, this part of the formula would establish the cost per square foot for school construction. Figure 1. Generic Cash Proffer Formula XX Dollars per Infrastructure Unit Infrastructure Units per Demand Unit Demand Units per Development Unit XX Dollars per Infrastructure Unit Infrastructure Units per Demand Unit Demand Units per Development Unit Students per housing unit Level of Service {e.g., Sq. Ft. per student} Cost {e.g., $ per Sq. Ft.} 30 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia 6 Credits A general requirement common to cash proffer methodologies is the evaluation of credits. Two types of credits should be considered, future revenue credits and site-specific credits. Future revenue credits are necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from a one-time cash proffer payment plus the payment of other revenues that may also fund the same growth-related capital improvements. Future revenue credits are dependent upon the cash proffer methodology used in the cost analysis. The incremental expansion methodology is best suited for public facilities that will be expanded incrementally in the future. Because new development will provide front-end funding of infrastructure, there is a potential for double payment of capital costs due to future principal payments on existing debt for public facilities. That is, because new development that may pay a cash proffer will also pay taxes to retire debt for the same type of infrastructure, a credit is included in the cash proffer calculation to account for this. (A credit is not necessary for interest payments if interest costs are not included in the cash proffers.) The second type of credit is a site-specific credit for system improvements that have been included in the cash proffer calculations. A site-specific credit is handled during implementation and would reduce the cash proffer amount due to contributions of improvements or land that mitigate new development’s impact on the infrastructure needs covered in the cash proffer program. Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits for system improvements should be addressed in the policy that establishes the Cash Proffer program. However, the general concept is that developers may be eligible for site-specific credits or reimbursements only if they provide system improvements that have been included in the cash proffer calculations. Project improvements normally required as part of the development approval process would not be eligible for credits against cash proffers. 31 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia 7 Summary of Capital Impacts Approach A summary of infrastructure categories is listed in Figure 2. To be eligible for a cash proffer, the facility must be for Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, or Public Safety (Sheriff, Fire, and Animal Services) which are noted in the figure. The noneligible infrastructure categories are included in the CapIM to capture a developments total capital impact to Frederick County. The County cannot collect a proffer for noneligible categories; however, understanding the full impact of a development (or a collection of developments) can be a tool in the long-term planning process. The figure includes the components and serve areas used in the analysis as well. The geographies used for an infrastructure category were determined based on how the County service is being provided and through discussions with County staff. For example, most of the Parks & Recreation facilities serve only the local population, so the Urban and Rural service areas are implemented in the analysis. While the Sheriff’s Office and Public Safety Building are serving the whole County. More granular service areas were needed for the School and Fire capital impact analysis. Several service area options were discussed with County staff when determining the service area for the School analysis. A properly calibrated service area is needed to accurately identify the local school utilization (enrollment compared to capacity) at each of the three grade levels. More general and larger service areas (i.e., countywide or Urban and Rural) would reflect utilization of the schools within that area being analyzed. More detailed service areas (i.e., based on school attendance zones) would result in the model analyzing only the utilization of the specific school that would be directly affected by the development. Initially, the model’s service areas for the School analysis were programmed based on the General Service Areas (i.e., Urban and Rural) with the Elementary School analysis splitting the Urban Service Area into North and South areas. This would provide some flexibility as school boundaries are adjusted to address growth-related needs. After review from the Frederick County Development Impact Model Oversight Committee (DIMOC), a consensus was reached that the service areas should be the school attendance zones. Thus, when a development is being inputted into the Capital Impact Model, the local school at each grade level is chosen. The model then analyzes just the utilization of those schools. 32 CAPITAL IMPACTS STUDY Frederick County, Virginia 8 Figure 2. Summary of Frederick County Capital Impacts Methodologies Type of Public Facility Infrastructure Components and Geography Used Cost Allocation Methodology Public Schools* Countywide ▪ Transportation Vehicles ▪ Education Centers ▪ Support Facilities Attendance Zones ▪ Elementary School ▪ Middle School ▪ High School Public School Students from Residential Development Incremental Approach Parks and Recreation* Countywide ▪ Indoor Recreation Facilities Urban & Rural Service Area ▪ District, Community, Neighborhood Parks ▪ Paved & Unpaved Trails ▪ Community Centers Residential Incremental Approach Public Safety: Sheriff* ▪ Public Safety Building: Countywide Residential and Nonresidential Incremental Approach Public Safety: Fire & Rescue* ▪ Fire Stations & Apparatuses: Fire Districts Residential and Nonresidential Incremental Approach Public Safety: Animal Protection* ▪ Animal Shelter: Countywide Residential Incremental Approach Libraries ▪ Library: Countywide Residential Incremental Approach General Government ▪ General Government Facilities: Countywide Residential and Nonresidential Incremental Approach Courts ▪ Court Facilities: Countywide Residential and Nonresidential Incremental Approach Environmental Services/Solid Waste ▪ Convenience Sites: Urban & Rural Service Area ▪ Landfill: Countywide Residential Incremental Approach *Note: the public facilities with an asterisk are eligible for cash proffers 33