Loading...
DIMOC 06-08-10 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Development Impact Model — Oversight Committee FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director,/, SUBJECT: June 8, 2010 DIM -OC Meeting DATE: June 1, 2010 The Development Impact Model - Oversight Committee (DIM -OC) will be meeting on TuesdaV, June 8, 2010 at 8.00 AM in the Planning Department Conference Room of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202, Winchester, Virginia. The DIM -OC will discuss the following agenda item: AGENDA 1. Review of Annual Updated DIM Figures 2. Discussion regarding Model Operations Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. ERL/bad Attachments: Overview and Critical Inputs Table Correspondence dated April 20, 2010 and May 27, 2010 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Annual Review of Updated DIM Figures The Development Impact Model ("DIM") was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on October 12, 2005, following its creation by the economic consulting firm TischlerBise. The DIM is an economic tool that the County utilizes when considering land use planning policy decisions and rezoning applications. The DIM has been designed to project fiscal impacts that may result with land use change decisions. The Development Impact Model — Oversight Committee (DIM -OC) was created by the Board of Supervisors in 2006 and tasked with overseeing the annual update of the figures utilized by the Development Impact Model. The model update occurs each year following the Board's adoption of the County budget. It is important to note that the model itself is not modified; the model's formula and functionality does not change. The annual update process involves County staff gathering updated budget and capital improvement plan figures, along with a myriad of other data that is utilized within the model's various formulas. This updated data is brought before the DIM -OC for review and evaluation prior to being input into the model and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their approval. Attached is a list of the information that staff has gathered — "Annual Review/Update Critical Inputs" - for inclusion in the DIM update. Discussion regarding. Model Operations At the previous meeting of the DIM -OC, an issue was raised regarding whether the DIM acknowledges the real estate taxes paid by a residential use. Staff will present an overview on the DIM's operations, and how the DIM has been applied to forecast impacts of new development. Correspondence on this issue is attached. Annual Review / Update Critical Inputs Updated Value Inputs for FYI FY10 Current Value Source; FY11 info POPULATION 75,341 Number of Dwelling Units SINGLE FAMILY -DETACHED 25,431 SINGLE FAMILY -ATTACHED 2,643 MULTIFAMILY 924 MOBILE HOME/OTHER 2,018 AGRICULTURE/OTHER JOBS 407 INDUSTRIAL JOBS 10,942 RETAIL/SERVICE JOBS 5,028 OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL JOBS 6,197 PARK ACRES 405 RES SHERIFF CALLS 45,344 NONRES SHERIFF CALLS 27,689 RES FIRE CALLS 6,694 NONRES FIRE CALLS 1,957 OTHER FIRE CALLS 578 Residential Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per Unit Single Family -Detached 9.57 Single Family -Attached 5.86 Multifamily 6.59 Mobile Home/Other 4.99 Non -Residential Average Weekday Vehicle Trips Ends per Unit Office 15.59 Retail 68.17 Ind./Flex 12.76 Page 1 Development Impact Model - Critical Input Annual Update 7-- 73,886 Weldon Cooper Center, 1/27/2010 25,159 Fred Co. CAMA File 2,593 Fred Co. CAMA File 900 Fred Co. CAMA File 2,013 Fred Co. CAMA File 380 VEC, 3rd quarter, aveage employment 9,267 VEC, 3rd quarter, aveage employment 5,954 VEC, 3rd quarter, aveage employment 8,281 VEC, 3rd quarter, aveage employment 403 Frederick County Parks & Recreation 49,774 Frederick County Sheriff's Office 26,809 Frederick County Sheriffs Office 5,566 Frederick County Fire & Rescue 1,988 Frederick County Fire & Rescue 1,728 Frederick County Fire & Rescue 9.57 (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2003) 5.86 (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2003) 6.59 (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2003) 4.99 (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2003) 15.59 (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2003) 68.17 (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2003) 12.76 (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (2003) June 2010 Inputs Person per Dwelling Unit Single Family -Detached Single Family - Attached Multifamily Mobile Home/Other School Children per Dwelling Unit Single Family -Detached Elementary Middle High Single Family -Attached Elementary Middle High Multifamily Elementary Middle High School Children per Dwelling Unit (cont) Mobile Home/Other Elementary Middle High Schools ELEMENTARY ENROLLMENT MIDDLE ENROLLMENT HIGH ENROLLMENT Page 2 Annual Review 1 Update Critical Inputs Updated Value for FYI FY10 Current Value Source; FYI info 2.77 2.77 US Census 2000 2.30 2.30 US Census 2000 2.12 2.12 US Census 2000 2.43 2.43 US Census 2000 0.222 0.222 Frederick County Public Schools 0.112 0.112 Frederick County Public Schools 0.151 0.152 Frederick County Public Schools 0.176 0.179 Frederick County Public Schools 0.079 0.081 Frederick County Public Schools 0.087 0.089 Frederick County Public Schools 0.147 0.147 Frederick County Public Schools 0.060 0.060 Frederick County Public Schools 0.077 0.077 Frederick County Public Schools 0.182 0.196 Frederick County Public Schools 0.078 0.083 Frederick County Public Schools 0.115 0.121 Frederick County Public Schools 5,907 2,958 4,196 Development Impact Model - Critical Input Annual Update it-- 5,838 Virginia Department of Education 2,919 Virginia Department of Education 4,139 Virginia Department of Education June 2010 Annual Review I Update Critical Inputs Updated Value Inputs for FYI Prototype Elementary School Capacity (student program capacity) 743 Current Cost $23,200,000 Prototype Middle School Capacity (student program capacity) 850 Current Cost $33,992,000 Prototype High School Capacity (student program capacity) 1,250 Current Cost $55,250,000 FY10 Current Value Source; FYI info 750 Frederick County Public Schools $23,200,000 Capital Facility Improvement Plan 850 Frederick County Public Schools $33,992,000 Capital Facility Improvement Plan 1,250 Frederick County Public Schools $55,250,000 Capital Facility Improvement Plan Transportation Facility Growth Related Percentage 50% 50% Frederick County Public Schools Current Cost $18,220,000 $18,220,000 Capital Facility Improvement Plan Admin Office Expanison Growth Related Percentage 50% Current Cost $14,510,000 Fire Station Station Call Capacity 1,500 Current Cost $5,000,000 Parks & Recreation (Base Line Inventory) Regional Park Land 391 Acres Community Park Land 14 Acres Trails 2.40 Miles Shelters 16 Facilities Baseball Fields 8 Fields Softball Fields 5 Fields Playground/Picnic Area 20 Fields Picnic areas at regional parks 20 Facilities Tennis Court 6 Courts 50% Frederick County Public Schools $14,510,000 Capital Facility Improvement Plan 1,500 Frederick County Fire & Rescue $5,000,000 Capital Facility Improvement Plan 389 Acres 14 Acres 2.40 Miles 16 Facilities 8 Fields 5 Fields 20 Fields 20 Facilities 6 Courts Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Page 3 Development Impact Model - Critical Input Annual Update June 2010 Inputs Basketball Courts Swimming Pool Soccer Fields Volleyball Courts Horeshoe Courts Parks & Recreation (Current Cost) Regional Park Land Community Park Land Trails Shelters Baseball Fields Softball Fields Playground/Picnic Area Picnic areas at regional parks Tennis Court Basketball Courts Swimming Pool wl Field House Growth Related Percentage Soccer Fields Multi -Generational Community Center Growth Related Percentage New Regional Library Growth Related Percentage Additional Units Served (persons) Current Cost New Rural Branch Library Growth Related Percentage Additional Units Served (persons) Current Cost Page 4 Annual Review 1 Update Critical Inputs Updated Value for FYI 5 Facilities 2 Facilities 6 Fields 3 Courts 0 Courts $6,000 Per Acre $72,000 Per Acre $211,220 Per Mile $42,322 Per Shelter $275,000 Per Field $250,000 Per Field $150,000 Per Facility $700,000 Per Facility $56,250 Per Court $112,500 Per Court $15,163,000 Per Facility 30% $1,121,998 Per Field $8,802,605 Per Facility 80% FY10 Current Value 5 Facilities 2 Facilities 6 Fields 3 Courts 8 Courts $6,000 Per Acre $72,000 Per Acre $211,220 Per Mile $42,322 Per Shelter $275,000 Per Field $250,000 Per Field $150,000 Per Facility $700,000 Per Facility $56,250 Per Court $112,500 Per Court $15,163,000 Per Facility 30% $1,121,998 Per Field $8,802,605 Per Facility 80% Source; FY11 info Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Frederick County Parks & Recreation Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Frederick County Parks & Recreation Capital Facility Improvement Plan Capital Facility Improvement Plan Frederick County Parks & Recreation 2.8.5% 28.5% Handley Regional Library 16,000 16,000 Handley Regional Library $5,400,000 Per Facility $5,400,000 Per Facility Capital Facility Improvement Plan 29.0% 29.0% Handley Regional Library 8,000 8,000 Handley Regional Library $2,191,969 Per Facility $2,191,969 Per Facility Capital Facility Improvement Plan Development Impact Model - Critical Input Annual Update June 2010 COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 April 20, 2010 Mr. JP Carr Claize Developments, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Winchester, Virginia 22604-0888 Dear JP: In response to your letter and our conversation shortly thereafter, the County has been in contact with Tischler-Rise to better understand how the Development Impact Model (DIM) was designed, in particular to your concerns about the school component of the model that is utilized during the rezoning process. The DIM was designed to forecast overall County budget implications which might result from future land use changes over a 20 year period. In theory, the DIM could be utilized to analyze future land use plan changes and offer a fiscal overview of the operational and capital implications of the land use plan change, illustrating the positives and negatives of the land use plan in the Comprehensive Plan update process. The DIM was created as a land use planning tool, and is not part of the Finance Department's budgeting process. Additionally, the DIM was not designed as a proffer study per se, although the output of the model is certainly valuable in assessing the capital facility fiscal impacts of a rezoning development proposal. In terms of the use of the DIM during a rezoning consideration, only the capital component of the DIM is considered. Since your inquiry referenced school costs, we have reviewed the DIM capital component that would be utilized to project capital costs associated with new residential uses. The DIM utilizes student generation ratios, and school construction costs and design capacities, to project potential shortfalls reflective of the additional demands for schools generated by new residential development. The school construction costs within the model utilize those costs and projects included in the annually adopted Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) — note that the CIP figures do not include bond service costs. Therefore, bond service costs are not included in the DIMS output for rezoning consideration. The DIM projects that new residential uses will create a negative impact on school facilities. The following chart illustrates these projected capital impacts reflective of the 2009 model: Fiscal Impacts placed on School capital facilities Single Family $18,494 Townhomes $13,033 Multifamily $10,589 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5080 Mr. JP Carr April 20, 2010 Page 2 The DIM capital component utilized for rezoning consideration looks strictly at the capital costs impact reflective of the proposed residential housing type. Conversely, if a rezoning applicant proffers to mitigate a projected capital impact to schools, the resulting proffered contribution would be applied solely to school capital; impacts to operations are not relieved nor addressed. It is important to note that the County does not maintain a policy of applying a fixed percentage of residential real estate tax revenue toward school capital costs. The DIM's capital impacts projection is utilized to illustrate the impacts to school capital incurred by new residential growth. I trust you w'll find this information to be of use. sincerely, i rf J Eric R. Lawrence Director, Planning and Development cc: Kris Tierney, Assistant County Administrator ERL/bad May 27, 2010 4A AY 2 7 2010 Eric R. Lawrence Frederick County Planning Department 107 North Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 In Re: DIM Review Oversight Committee; Letter from Eric Lawrence dated April 20 2010 Eric: We appreciate your response to the DIM modeling question we posed in last year's meeting. It's a confusing issue and has various layers of complexity regarding the DIM's use, the voluntary proffer amounts, how the County utilizes tax revenues, and the other matters alluded to in your letter. Not to simplify this issue, but the statement that the "DIM's capital impacts projection is utilized to illustrate the impacts to school capital incurred by new real residential growth" is important. Voluntary or not, the output of the DIM model is utilized extensively in binding proffer agreements created during the rezoning process. It's critical that the model's hypothetical results are correct. In a nutshell, every pertly of a school proffer dollar paid to the county should go to capital improvements to schools, in other words "bricks and mortar." Right now the amount collected by the County from proffers is insignificant, but in a few years it should cover a significant portion of budgeted school construction costs. For example, if proffers for 600 single family homes in the amount of $18,491 are collected annually, the total revenues to the County would be over $11 million. In the stated example, the 600 homeowners ultimately pay the proffers through increased new home prices at the time they purchase their homes. Those homeowners are paying to compensate for the impact of moving into their new home in the County upfront and in fiill. However, as you state in your letter, the County does not have a fixed source of tax revenue to fiend capital improvements to schools, it merely utilizes a portion of on-going collected tax revenues to pay the capital costs of construction. A homeowner who buys a house with a school proffer incorporated in the price of the home immediately begins paying residential real estate taxes to the County. Those taxes, in part, go toward the funding of capital improvements to schools in addition to the up -front proffer money they have already paid to offset the impact to school capital costs. The specific amount paid by any givenhomeowner toward school capital costs through taxes may be hard to figure (and a reason for this exercise), but revenue from real estate taxes does get allocated to the Eric R. Lawrence Letter May 27, 2010 Page 2 capital construction cost of schools. As a result, a person buying a new home with a school proffer incorporated into the price is paying twice to mitigate impacts to the school system's capital budget caused by occupancy of the new home. According to your letter, the County does not specifically apply a fixed percentage of residential real estate tax revenue toward school capital costs. If there's no mechanism to calculate the amount of tax dollars a property owner pays toward capital improvements, there can be no way the DIM can calculate a "credit" for the taxes paid by the property owner to offset the "debit" paid by way of the proffer on the property. Persons purchasing a new house with a school proffer are paying the proffer without an offset to account for their ongoing payment of real estate taxes. This situation creates an imbalance where a new homeowner pays the impact cost up front, but still gets an annual bill for the principal and interest cost of school construction via taxes. There has to be an offset in the model or in the taxes that person pays. Otherwise, the DIM does not accurately account for impacts to the County's capital budget, which is the point of the model to begin with. Additionally, we note that the scenario regarding school proffers can be applied to any capital costs for which the DIM calculates an "impact" that is off -set by a proffer and for which a portion of taxes collected by the homeowner also fiends on an on-going basis. As we understand the function of the DIM Oversight Committee, it is to determine whether the inputs used in the model are accurate and appropriate. It is our belief that unless the inputs include credits for real estate tax revenues the inputs are faulty. We believe the issues raised in this letter deserve a thorough review by the DIM Oversight Committee. We hope the staff will be able to clarify this concern. Respectfully submitted, J. P. aIr