HomeMy WebLinkAboutDIMOC 08-29-23 Meeting Agenda1.Capital Impacts Model Update
1.A.Capital Impacts Model Annual Update
Discussion of the annual update of select inputs to the Capital Impacts Model for
Frederick County, Virginia.
1.B.Capital Impacts Model 5 Year Update & Transportation Module
Discussion on conducting a refresh update to the full Capital Impacts Model (CIM) with
TischlerBise and consideration to either add a cash proffer calculation for road impacts
and/or study the implementation of a Road Impact Fee program in accordance with
Virginia Code §15.2 Chapter 22 Article 9. See attached TischlerBise scope of work.
2.Other
AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2023
9:00 AM
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CLOSED SESSION ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
DIMOC08-29-23CapitalImpactsModelAnnualUpdate_Redacted.pdf
DIMCO08-29-23CapitalImpactsModel5YearUpdate_TransportationModule.pdf
1
Development Impact Model Oversight Committee
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: August 29, 2023
Agenda Section: Capital Impacts Model Update
Title: Capital Impacts Model Annual Update
Attachments:
DIMOC08-29-23CapitalImpactsModelAnnualUpdate_Redacted.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: Wyatt Pearson, AICP, Director of Planning Development
RE: Capital Impacts Model (CapIM) 2023 Annual Base Year Data Update
DATE: August 21, 2023
On June 12, 2019, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors directed staff to use 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.
Several inputs to the CapIM are updated each year to ensure that the fiscal projections
accurately reflect County capital expenditures. The following data elements have been
adjusted to reflect current year (2023) numbers:
• Population - 2020 Census and Weldon Cooper Center Projections
• Frederick County Public School Enrollment
• Jobs Data – ESRI Business Analytics
• Updated 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Plan Projects
Please find attached to this memo comparisons that identify the new base year data (2022)
information and the data from the past two years. As you are aware, there is no fixed output
value with the CapIM as each example is variable depending on the location and make up of a
given project. However, we ran a hypothetical scenario under the 2022 model, and the 2023
update for those interested in how the data update might impact outputs.
This information is being provided to the DIM-OC to ensure the Committee has the most
current information. The updates are planned to be presented to the Board of Supervisors at
their September 27th, 2023, meeting for their consideration.
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.
Attachments:
• Base Year Data comparison sheet
• Model Output comparison sheets
• 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Plan Tables
• Capital Impacts Study – Executive Summary
3
Base Year Data Changes 2022 & 2023
4
2022 Model
5
2023 Update
6
Contribution Per Fiscal Year
Projects - Ranked by Department 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028
Long Range
Comprehensive
Plan Projects
County
Contributions Notes
Total Project
Costs
Department
Ensuing
Fiscal Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Beyond FY
2028
Public Schools Please refer to the map identifying future school sites for additional school sites located throughout the County.
Fourth High School $9,600,000 $53,200,000 $42,600,000 $31,900,000 $137,300,000 $137,300,000
Sherando High School Renovation/Expansion $8,800,000 $48,700,000 $38,900,000 $29,200,000 $125,600,000 $125,600,000
Sherando High Addition $5,000,000 $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000
Millbrook High Addition $5,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $30,000,000
Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School Phase 2 Renovation $2,000,000 $16,900,000 $10,100,000 $29,000,000 $29,000,000
Armel Elementary School Renovation/Expansion $800,000 $6,700,000 $4,000,000 $11,500,000 $11,500,000
Jordan Spring Elementary School Classroom Addition $400,000 $3,300,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000
Onsite Traffic Safety Improvements $300,000 $2,600,000 $2,900,000 $2,900,000
Total $0 $15,400,000 $86,400,000 $128,100,000 $85,900,000 $54,200,000 $370,000,000 $370,000,000
Parks & Recreation
Abrams Creek Greenway Trail $550,646 $1,512,149 $2,037,027 $819,964 G $4,099,822
Old Charlestown Road Park $3,862,740 $1,931,370 G $3,862,740
Sherando Park Softball Complex $15,000 $973,800 $988,800 $988,800
Community Center $1,125,122 $10,126,098 $11,251,220 $11,251,220
Playground Replacement $340,830 $225,000 $310,000 $875,830 $875,830
Water Slide/Sprayground/Bld Renovation $115,736 $1,041,621 $1,157,357 $1,157,357
CB Park Development $227,220 $227,220 $454,440 $454,440
Gym Addition Jordan Springs Elem.$165,712 $1,491,412 $1,657,124 $1,657,124
Sherando Park Area 1 Rec Access Phase 2 $159,487 $1,435,385 $1,594,872 $1,594,872
Sherando Park Area 3 Development $281,000 $2,529,001 $2,810,001 $2,810,001
Sherando Baseball Field Lighting Replacement $1,072,183 $1,072,183 $1,072,183
Neighborhood Parks $588,386 $588,386 $1,176,772 $3,530,317 $5,883,861 $5,883,861
Regional Parks $3,596,893 $3,596,893 $10,790,678 $17,984,464 $17,984,464
Indoor Aquatics Facility $2,492,495 $22,432,457 $24,924,952 $24,924,952
Indoor Ice Rink $1,357,209 $12,214,880 $13,572,089 $13,572,089
South Sherando Park Development $2,799,450 $2,799,450 $2,799,450
National Guard Armory Gym Addition $715,743 $715,743 $715,743
Sherando Park Area 1 & 2 Development $3,916,725 $3,916,725 $3,916,725
Total $355,830 $3,217,524 $19,346,596 $14,206,524 $43,337,727 $19,157,472 $94,410,445 $99,621,673
Regional Library
Gainesboro Library $162,773 $1,407,000 $237,022 $134,688 $1,941,483 $1,941,483
Senseny/Greenwood Library TBD TBD
522 South Library TBD TBD
Total $0 $162,773 $1,407,000 $237,022 $134,688 $1,941,483 $1,941,483
County Administration
Double Toll Gate Convenience Site $35,000 $750,000 $785,000 E $785,000
County Office Annex (Sunnyside)TBD TBD TBD
General Government Capital Expenditures $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 TBD $1,000,000 $1,000,000
County/School Board Administration Building TBD TBD
Joint Judicial Center New Facility TBD TBD TBD
Total $235,000 $950,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,785,000 $1,785,000
Table 1 - 2023-2028 Capital Improvement Plan Requests
7
Contribution Per Fiscal Year
Projects - Ranked by Department 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027-2028
Long Range
Comprehensive
Plan Projects
County
Contributions Notes
Total Project
Costs
Fire & Rescue
Fire & Rescue Station 22 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000
Station 22 Apparatus $1,100,000 $8,000,000 $9,100,000 $9,100,000
Fire and Rescue Station 23 $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Station 23 Apparatus $2,975,000 $2,975,000
Station Renovations $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,000,000
Capital Requests Capital Requests $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Total $1,200,000 $1,200,000 $9,800,000 $4,175,000 $1,200,000 $11,200,000 18,800,000 $28,775,000
Fire & Rescue Volunteer
Company Capital Requests Station 11 Apparatus/Vehicles $850,000 $572,000 $207,000 $1,237,000 $882,000 $965,000 $4,713,000
Station 12 Building Expansion $3,000,000 $3,000,000
Station 12 Apparatus/Vehicles $400,000 $0 $0 $775,000 $0 $0 $1,175,000
Station 13 Apparatus/Vehicles $775,000 $0 $650,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $1,825,000
Station 14 Apparatus/Vehicles $650,000 $650,000
Station 15 Apparatus/Vehicles $775,000 $775,000
Station 16 Apparatus/Vehicles $2,450,000 $0 $0 $0 $775,000 $0 $3,225,000
Station 18 Parking Lot Repair $150,000 $150,000
Station 18 Apparatus/Vehicles $0 $400,000 $775,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $1,575,000
Station 19 Apparatus/Vehicles $650,000 $650,000
Station 20 Paving $200,000 $200,000
Station 20 Apparatus $775,000 $1,200,000 $0 $650,000 $0 $0 $2,625,000
Station 21 Apparatus $775,000 $0 $1,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $2,375,000
Station Renovations $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $7,000,000
Wildland Replacement Vehicle $400,000 $400,000
Wildland Replacement Vehicle $400,000 $400,000
Wildland Replacement Vehicle $400,000 $400,000
Total $10,225,000 $4,622,000 $5,007,000 $4,462,000 $3,857,000 $2,965,000 0 $31,138,000
Sheriffs Office Replacement Law Enforcement Vehicles $1,000,000 $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,400,000 continuous $6,000,000 $12,000,000
Firearms Training Simulator $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Storage/Training Building $380,000 $380,000 $380,000
Total $1,530,000 $1,100,000 $1,200,000 $1,300,000 $1,400,000 $0 6,530,000 $12,530,000
Project 25 Pubic Safety Radio Network $20,981,973 20,981,973 $20,981,973
Communications
Total $0 $20,981,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,981,973 $20,981,973
Total of All Categories $13,545,830 $47,634,270 $123,360,596 $152,680,546 $136,029,415 $87,522,472 $514,448,901 $566,773,129
E= Partial funding anticipated through development & revenue sources $469,669,051
Other Funding Sources:TBD= To be Determined
G=Partial/full funding anticpated through grants
Public Safety - Fire and Rescue, Sheriff's Office and Communications
8
Contribution Per Fiscal Year
Projects - Ranked by Agency 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027+
Long Range
Comprehensive
Plan Projects
County/VDOT/P
rivate
Contributions Notes
Total Project
Costs
Ensuing
Fiscal Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Beyond
Year 6+
Funded Priorities
Exit 313 Bridge Replacement and Capacity Improvements $38,422,650 $38,422,650 $38,422,650
Rennaisance Drive, Phase 2 $4,655,857 $4,655,857 E $4,655,857
Route 277 right turn extension Warrior Drive $500,850 $500,850 $500,850
Route 7 STARS Study Project $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000
Exit 317 Interchange Ramp Realignment $7,103,494 $7,103,494 $7,103,494
Route 11 @ Old Charlestown Road Roundabout $5,426,108 $5,426,108 E $5,426,108
promoted from unfunded Redbud Road Realignment $5,988,000 $5,988,000 E $5,988,000
Gainsboro Road Intersection with Route 522 upgrade (design)$300,000 $300,000 $300,000
Unfunded Priorities
Route 37 Engineering & Construction $851,681,250 $851,681,250 E $851,681,250
Route 277, Fairfax Pike, Widening $0
and Safety Improvements (ph 2)$28,876,025 $28,876,025 E $28,876,025
Exit 317 Interchange Upgrade $36,750,000 $36,750,000 $36,750,000
Widening of Route 11 North (ph 1)$32,189,145 $32,189,145 E $32,189,145
Brucetown/Hopewell Realign.$9,084,600 $9,084,600 E $9,084,600
Valley Mill Road Realignment West $0 E TBD
Route 7 Corridor Imporovements Exit 315 to Greenwood Rd $5,407,500 $5,407,500 $5,407,500
Route 11 S Widening and Intersection Improvements from
Winchester City Limits to Opequon Church Lane $3,747,397 $3,747,397 E $3,747,397
Widening of Route 11 North (ph2)$218,030,400 $218,030,400 E $218,030,400
Senseny Road Widening $76,083,525 $76,083,525 E $76,083,525
Senseny Road turn lanes/improvements Crestleigh Drive $2,894,102 $2,894,102 $2,894,102
I-81 Exit 307 Relocation with 4 ln connection to Double Church and
Stephens City Bypass $266,014,654 $266,014,654 E $266,014,654
Warrior Drive Extension (south)including Brandy Lane upgrade $53,372,025 $53,372,025 E $53,372,025
Channing Drive Extension $51,100,875 $51,100,875 E $51,100,875
Inverlee Way $31,001,197 $31,001,197 E $31,001,197
Warrior Drive Extension (Crosspointe south)$38,041,762 $38,041,762 E $38,041,762
Jubal Early Drive Extension and Interchange with Route 37 E TBD
Valley Mill Road Realignment East E TBD
Eastern Road Plan Improvements TBD TBD E TBD
Total $63,446,959 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,704,274,457 $1,767,721,416 $1,767,721,416
Other Funding Sources: E= Partial funding anticipated through development & revenue sources
Table 2 - Transportation Projects - CIP Requests
The inclusion of transportation projects to the CIP is in no way an indication that Frederick County will be undertaking these projects. Funding
projects will continue to come from a combination of state and federal funds, developer contributions, and revenue sharing
9
Contribution Per Fiscal Year
Projects - Ranked by Agency 2022-2023 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 2027+
County
Contributions Notes
Total
Project
Costs
Ensuing
Fiscal Year Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Beyond
Year 6+
New Terminal $7,500,000 $85,000 A,B,C $7,585,000
Taxiway "A" Relocation $3,680,000 $3,650,000 4,444,444.00$ $4,444,444 A,B,C $16,218,888
Land Parcel 64-A-60 (Cooper)$200,000 A,B,C $200,000
Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) Land Services $150,000 A,B,C $150,000
Acquire Land/Easements $270,000 $500,000 A,B,C $770,000
North Side Site Prep $500,000 A,B,C $500,000
North Side Access Road $700,000 A,B,C $700,000
Fuel Storage Facility $500,000 A,B,C $500,000
Master Plan Update $500,000 A,B,C $500,000
Total $11,180,000 $3,735,000 $5,144,444 $5,564,444 $1,500,000 $0 $27,123,888
A= Partial funding from VA Dept. of Aviation
B= Partial funding from FAA
C = Partial local funding (% split between Frederick County and Winchester based on Weldon Cooper figures)
Table 3 - Winchester Reginal Airport CIP Requests
*Airport projects will be funded by contributions from the federal, state, and local
governments. The local portion may include contributions from Frederick, Clarke,
Shenandoah, and Warren Counties, and the City of Winchester.
10
Development Impact Model Oversight Committee
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: August 29, 2023
Agenda Section: Capital Impacts Model Update
Title: Capital Impacts Model 5 Year Update & Transportation Module
Attachments:
DIMCO08-29-23CapitalImpactsModel5YearUpdate_TransportationModule.pdf
11
4701 Sangamore Road | Suite S240 | Bethesda, MD 20816
301.320.6900
www.tischlerbise.com
August 22, 2023
Wyatt Pearson, Planning Director
Frederick County Planning and Development
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Via Email: wyatt.pearson@fcva.us
Dear Wyatt,
Thank you for contacting us for an update to the Frederick County Capital Impacts Model and potential
add-on Transportation Module. TischlerBise developed the County’s original Development Impact Model
(DIM) in 2003-2004 (with periodic updates through 2018). The DIM was modified and updated to the
County’s current Capital Impacts Model (CIM) in 2018-2019 with a recent minor update in 2021. The
County seeks to update the CIM to reflect current conditions and costs as well as explore the possibility
of a transportation cash proffer or impact fee.
TischlerBise proposes the attached scopes to complete the effort.
We look forward to continuing our relationship with Frederick County and are committed to providing
cost-effective, high-quality support for this assignment.
Sincerely,
L. Carson Bise II, AICP, President
4701 Sangamore Road, Suite S240
Bethesda, MD 20816
Phone: 301.320.6900 Ext. 12
E-mail: carson@tischlerbise.com
12
2
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
Frederick County, Virginia, would like to update the Capital Impacts Model and Capital Impacts Study that
TischlerBise developed in 2018-2019, which was an update and modification from the County’s
Development Impact Model (DIM) developed by TischlerBise originally in 2003-2004 (and updated
periodically through 2018).
The Capital Impacts Model (CIM) is an Excel model developed by TischlerBise that calculates the
anticipated need for capital facilities from development/rezoning projects and determines the costs of
those capital facilities to the County. The Capital Impacts Model Study assists in ensuring the County’s
Cash Proffer Policy complies with the latest Virginia Cash Proffer legislation (Virginia Code §15.2-
2303.4.). Although not all categories are proffer eligible, the capital facilities to be addressed as part of
this update effort are: Public Schools, Parks and Recreation, Sheriff, Fire/Rescue, Animal Protection,
Libraries, General Government, Courts, and Environmental Services. (See Scope A.)
In addition, the following scope includes an optional add-on effort to explore a Transportation Cash
Proffer or Impact Fee. The proposed effort will add a module to the existing CIM and will determine
growth’s share of system-level transportation capital costs. The work scope will explore the tradeoffs
between implementation as a cash proffer or impact fee. (See Scope B.)
Cash proffers are one-time voluntary monetary commitments made at the time of rezoning to offset the
impact on public facilities from the rezoning. The funds collected from cash proffers are used to construct
capacity improvements to maintain levels of service to serve new development. Funds can only be used
for capital improvements that provide additional capacity, not operations or maintenance. Cash proffer
amounts represent new growth’s fair share of capital facility needs and are calculated using level of service
standards to account for infrastructure that may currently have excess capacity.
13
3
A. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK: CAPITAL IMPACTS
MODEL UPDATE
The following scope of work provides detailed steps to ensure the Frederick County Capital Impacts
Project is completed successfully. We have designed this scope of work to be responsive to the County’s
specific needs.
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION / DATA ACQUISITION, COMPILATION, AND REVIEW
Description: This task will serve as an opportunity for TischlerBise to conduct project “kick-off” activities.
During this task, we will meet with County staff to establish lines of communication, review, discuss, and
refine project goals and County policies related to the project, review the project schedule (and revise if
necessary), and to request data and documentation related to the project. The specifics of this initial
discussion are outlined below:
• Review and refine work plan and schedule, if appropriate
• Assess information needs and required staff support
• Discuss use of as well as strengths, weaknesses, and/or issues with existing Model
• Discuss the County’s current/future infrastructure needs
• Discuss overall capital facility financing issues
• Identify and collect data and documents relevant to the analysis
• Discuss service areas
• Identify any major policy issues, such as variations in levels of service in urban/rural service areas
Data Request. A typical data request will include current demographic data, adopted General Plan,
adopted Capital Improvement Plans, development projections, other relevant planning documents,
facility inventories, facility master plans, and relevant financial information. We will provide a data request
memorandum to the County prior to the initial meeting.
Project Timeline. We will discuss the timeline to ensure the project’s milestones are met according to the
County’s desired schedule. Through our project management tools, our project plan will minimize effort
on County staff. Naturally, staff effort will be required for data collection, meetings and review of
deliverables. However, we anticipate that our collaborative effort with the County will keep this effort to
a minimum.
Meetings: One (1) meeting with various members of County staff to initiate project.
Deliverables: Data request memorandum.
TASK 2: RECOMMEND LAND USE PROJECTIONS
Description: The purpose of this task is to review and understand the current demographics of the County
as it relates to growth and development and project future growth in the County in terms on new
population, housing units, public school enrollment, employment, and nonresidential building area over
the next 20 years. In this task TischlerBise will meet with County (including School Board) staff to discuss
14
4
current demographic data as well as discuss any available annual projections of population, employment,
housing units, commercial, industrial and other nonresidential square footage data needed to assess the
demand generated by new development for capital facilities. These projections may come from the
County’s General Plan and a review of approved, planned or anticipated development projects, depending
on the outcome of our onsite discussions.
Meetings: Discussions with the Planning Department will be held as part of Task 1.
Deliverable: We will prepare a memorandum discussing the recommended land use factors and
projections.
TASK 3: DETERMINE CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS AND SERVICE LEVELS
Description: This task as well as tasks 4-6 may vary somewhat depending on the methodology applied to
a particular facility category. The capital impact analysis for each facility type would be presented in a
separate chapter in the capital impact report.
Identify/Update Facilities/Costs Impacted by Growth and Eligible for Cash Proffer Funding. As an
essential part of the nexus analysis, TischlerBise will evaluate the impact of development/redevelopment
on the need for additional facilities, by type, and identify potential cost components eligible for cash
proffer funding. Elements of the analysis include:
• Review facility plans, fixed asset inventories, and other documents establishing the relationship
between development and facility needs by type.
• Identify and distinguish among planned facilities, vehicles, equipment, and other capital
components eligible and ineligible for cash proffer funding.
• Identify existing capacity of capital facilities.
• Prepare projection of relevant future capital facility needs.
• Adjust costs as needed to reflect other funding sources.
Identify/Update Appropriate Level of Service Standards. We will review needs analyses and level-of-
service levels for each facility type. Activities related to this task include:
• Apply defined service standards to data on future development to identify the impacts of
development on facility and other capital needs. This will include discussions with staff on levels
of service, as appropriate. Ascertain and evaluate the actual demand factors (measures of impact)
that generate the need for each type of facility to be addressed in the study.
• Identify actual existing service levels for each facility type. This is typically expressed in the
number of demand units served.
• Define service standards to be used in the capital impact analysis.
• Determine appropriate geographic service areas for each facility category.
15
5
Meetings: One (1) to two (2) meetings with County staff to discuss capital facility needs and levels of
service.
Deliverables: See Task 7.
TASK 4: EVALUATE DIFFERENT ALLOCATION METHODOLOGIES
Description: The purpose of this task is to confirm and/or update the methodology most appropriate for
each facility category. It is imperative that the methodology take into account the County’s funding needs
as well as land use and other policy objectives. The three basic methodologies that can be applied in the
determination of capital impacts are the plan-based, incremental expansion, and cost-recovery
approaches. Selection of the particular methodology for each component within a facility category will
depend on which is most beneficial for the County while meeting the requirements of Virginia Cash Proffer
law. The following paragraphs discuss the three basic methods for calculating cash proffers and how those
methods can be applied.
Plan-Based Cash Proffer Calculation - The plan-based method allocates costs for a specified set of
future improvements to a specified amount of development. The improvements are identified by a
CIP. In this method, the total cost of relevant facilities is divided by total demand to calculate a cost
per unit of demand. The plan-based method is often the most advantageous approach for facilities
that require engineering studies, such as roads and utilities.
Cost Recovery Cash Proffer Calculation - The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new
development is paying for its share of the useful life and remaining capacity of facilities from which
new growth will benefit. To calculate a cash proffer using the cost recovery approach, facility cost is
divided by the ultimate number of demand units the facility will serve. An oversized fire station is an
example.
Incremental Expansion Cash Proffer 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 capita or park acres per
capita. The LOS standards are determined in a manner similar to the current replacement cost
approach used by property insurance companies. However, in contrast to insurance practices, clients
do not use the funds for renewal and/or replacement of existing facilities. Rather, the jurisdiction uses
the proffer revenue 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.
In a number of cases, we will determine the capital impact for a particular infrastructure category using
several methodologies and will discuss the trade-offs with the County. This allows us to use a combination
of methodologies within one facility category. For instance, a plan-based approach may be appropriate
for a new facility building while an incremental approach may be appropriate for support vehicles and
equipment. By testing all possible methodologies, the client is assured that defensible capital impacts will
be identified. Policy discussions will then be held at the staff level regarding the trade-offs associated with
each allocation method prior to proceeding to the next task.
16
6
Meetings: One (1) meeting or conference call with County staff to issues related to allocation
methodologies and County fiscal and land use policy.
Deliverable: See Task 7.
TASK 5: DETERMINE THE NEED FOR CREDITS
Description: A consideration of “credits” is integral to the development of a legally valid capital impact
methodology. There are two types of “credits” each with specific, distinct characteristics, but both will be
considered in the calculation. The first is a credit due to possible double payment situations. This could
occur when a property owner will make future contributions toward the capital costs of a public facility
covered by cash proffers through property or other revenue. The second is a credit due to required
dedication of public sites and improvements (e.g., land for schools/parks) provided by the developer and
for which capital impacts have been calculated. Both types of credits will be considered and addressed in
the analysis.
Deliverable: See Task 7.
TASK 6: CONDUCT FUNDING AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
Description: In order to prepare a meaningful capital improvement plan, it is important to not only
understand the gross revenues, but also the capital facility costs and any deficits. In this case some
consideration should be given to anticipated funding sources. This calculation will allow the County to
better understand the various revenue sources possible and the amount that would be needed to mitigate
impacts on capital facilities.
Deliverable: See Task 7.
TASK 7: PREPARE CAPITAL IMPACT MODEL AND SUMMARY REPORT, PRESENTATIONS
Description: Based on the findings from the above tasks, TischlerBise will revise the Capital Impact Model
to allow for case-by-case analysis of rezoning requests. The Model will allow the County to determine the
cost of capital impacts from rezonings. The Model will include data on Frederick County demographics,
budgetary structure, current and planned infrastructure, service areas, applicable revenue sources, and
costs for infrastructure. Levels of service will be used in the model to determine the total impact from
new development.
In addition, TischlerBise will prepare a draft report that summarizes the impact from growth on the
applicable public facility categories, reflects the relevant methodologies employed, and documents all
assumptions and cost factors. Upon completion of the analysis and calculation of capital impacts, a draft
of the entire study report and draft of the model, incorporating any staff comments, will be submitted for
review by County staff.
The report will include the following components:
• Executive summary including summary of capital impacts.
• A chapter discussing legal framework and capital impact methodology.
17
7
• A chapter presenting data on existing and planned development in the County as well as demand
indicators (e.g., population, public school enrollment, vehicle trips, etc.) for each type of facility.
• A chapter for each facility category addressing methodology, level of service standards, eligible
costs required, cost allocation (growth versus existing residents), impact calculations,
recommended average impacts by type of development, listing of capital facilities impacted by
growth, and projected revenue.
In addition to the above components, the report will also contain a separate chapter on implementation.
Topics will include:
• Updating and indexing of capital impacts.
• Accounting and reporting procedures.
• Provision of credits for facilities constructed by developers.
• Information to be requested from a re-zoning application to run the analysis.
Because of TischlerBise’s extensive experience in calculating capital impacts and preparing such reports,
we have developed a succinct written product that leaves a well-understood paper trail. Following
completion of the first draft, one round of additional changes will be incorporated to produce a final
report/model. This proposal assumes that only minor changes will be required following completion of
the first draft due to the ongoing collaboration between TischlerBise and County staff.
Deliverable: Draft and final reports and presentation materials for meetings; Capital Impact Model.
Meetings: One (1) meeting/presentation to present results.
TASK 8: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Description: TischlerBise will present and meet with the Frederick County DIM advisory committee. The
continued purpose of this committee is to allow interested parties, designated by the County, to
understand assumptions and raise any questions about the technical demographic, cost, revenue, credit
and other data and supporting documentation that is being used in the capital impact study. This will not
be a forum to discuss the political and/or philosophical use of mitigation measures. Rather it will be an
opportunity for these interested parties to understand the soundness and the reasonableness of the
technical methodology. We anticipate two meetings with this group. The first would be to discuss the
initial data assumptions, after “sign-off” by the client. The second would be to discuss the draft
report/outputs.
Deliverable: Presentation materials for meetings.
Meetings: Two (2) meetings/presentations.
18
8
B. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK: TRANSPORTATION
CAPITAL IMPACTS MODULE
At the request of County staff, a scope and price is provided as an optional add-on to the Capital Impacts
Model (CIM) to determine growth’s share of system-level capacity Transportation improvement costs.
Project Overview
Cash proffers (or impact fees) are a form of land use regulation and therefore, it is possible to craft
methodologies to help a community implement land use, transportation and economic development
policy objectives. For example, current transportation planning thought recognizes that significant
national demographics changes, shifting market preferences for walkable urbanism, and the importance
of place making are compelling local governments to encourage redevelopment in urban and suburban
centers where there is existing infrastructure capacity. On average, higher density, mixed use residential
development has fewer persons and vehicles available per unit, relative to lower density suburban and
rural residential development; thus, lowering vehicular trip generation rates. Higher density, mixed use
settings also provide options for walking, biking, and transit travel, thus changing the vehicular mode
share. Finally, mixed land use (vertical and horizontal), more compact development, and a better jobs-
housing balance work together to reduce average trip lengths in higher density areas.
As shown in the table below from a recent American Planning Association publication entitled “Next
Generation Transportation Impact Fees,” co-authored by Carson Bise, traditional transportation impact
fees were designed with a suburban worldview and designed to increase capacity for vehicle travel.
Traditional impact fees are typically uniform across the entire jurisdiction, are driven by generic formulas,
tend to focus on 20-year master plans or build-out estimates, and are designed to fund infrastructure that
will move vehicles.
In contrast, the basis of "next-generation" transportation impact fees is the recognition that the fees can
function as a land-use regulation to help shape development patterns. Planning and policy objectives drive
next generation transportation impact fees, which vary geographically (e.g., mixed-use areas with access
to the transit and other modes of transportation) to reflect mode share and cost differences and are
intended to move people rather than vehicles alone. In addition, a mix of land uses and more compact
development work together to reduce average trip lengths.
Traditional*Impact*Fees Next*Generation*Impact*Fees
"pay%to%play"%revenue%source contractual%arrangement%to%build%improvements
driven%by%generic%formulas driven%by%plans%and%policy
long%range%to%buildout%five%to%ten%year%planning%horizon
one%and%done ongoing%planning%and%budgeting%process
suburban%focus apply%transect%concept
uniform%across%jurisdiction vary%geographically
moving%vehicles moving%people
vehicle%trips inbound%vehicle%miles%of%travel
one%size%fits%all residential%by%dwelling%size
loose%cost%analysis%and%generous%credits specific%improvements%with%a%funding%strategy
19
9
Scope of Work
The Transportation scope will follow the same tasks as the CIM Update detailed under Scope A—each task
will be expanded to include relevant transportation cash proffer/impact fee elements further discussed
here. Deliverables and meetings under Scope A will be expanded to include transportation elements.
TASK 1: PROJECT INITIATION / DATA ACQUISITION, COMPILATION, AND REVIEW
Scope will be expanded to include discussion/data collection related to the County’s transportation
system, transportation plans, funding sources, and related metrics. Additionally, this task will include
discussions on policy objectives relative to implementation of cash proffers versus impact fees.
TASK 2: RECOMMEND LAND USE PROJECTIONS
Updated land use assumptions for the CIM will be used to project future trip activity. Average weekday
trip ends will be adjusted using appropriate factors for trip rate, trip length, and vehicle miles of travel
(VMT) per unit (or 1,000 square feet for nonresidential).
TASK 3: DETERMINE CAPITAL FACILITY NEEDS AND SERVICE LEVELS
An assessment of the current transportation system, combined with programmed improvements, will be
conducted to determine future system-level transportation infrastructure needs to support the traffic
generated by growth. The modeling will compare forecasted trip activity to available roadway capacity to
determine areas where improvements will be required, and then convert to a corresponding increase in
lane miles of new roadway. This will be compared to planned transportation improvements identified in
capital planning documents and related master plans (Primary Road Improvement Plan, Secondary Road
Improvement Plan, Comprehensive Transportations Plans, Area Plans, et al). Planning level cost estimates
for the new infrastructure will be obtained and/or developed and used to estimate total cost of new
transportation infrastructure.
TASK 4: EVALUATE DIFFERENT ALLOCATION METHODOLOGIES
Three basic methodologies (discussed above: plan-based, incremental expansion, and cost-recovery
approaches) will be evaluated for transportation cash proffers/impact fees. Selection of the particular
methodology for each component within a facility category will depend on which is most beneficial for
the County while meeting the requirements of Virginia Cash Proffer or Impact Fee law. Methodologies
will be tested to determine possible cash proffer/impact fee approaches and tradeoffs will be
present/discuss.
TASK 5: DETERMINE NEED FOR CREDITS
Credits will be analyzed related to transportation improvements. The first is a credit due to possible
double payment situations. This could occur when a property owner will make future contributions
toward the capital costs of a public facility covered by cash proffers through property or other revenue.
The second is a credit due to required dedication of public sites and improvements (e.g., land for
schools/parks) provided by the developer and for which capital impacts have been calculated. Both types
of credits will be considered and addressed in the analysis.
20
10
TASK 6: CONDUCT FUNDING AND CASH FLOW ANALYSIS
This task will be expanded to include available transportation funding sources and deficits. This calculation
will allow the County to better understand the various revenue sources possible and the amount that
would be needed to mitigate impacts on capital facilities. This task will explore potential cash flow from
implementation as a cash proffer (collection from residential rezonings) versus an impact fee (collection
from residential and nonresidential by-right development).
TASK 7: PREPARE CAPITAL IMPACT MODEL AND SUMMARY REPORT, PRESENTATIONS
The CIM and report(s) will be expanded to include transportation impacts and outputs. A preliminary
deliverable will include a storyboard with supporting documentation comparing potential implementation
of cash proffers versus impact fees.
A second deliverable (draft and final) will be a written report that will document methodologies and
assumptions to identify growth’s share of transportation capacity improvements regardless of
implementation decision. If the County desires to implement as an impact fee, the documentation is
anticipated to comply with the requirements of the Virginia Impact Fee Act.
The CIM deliverable will reflect direction from the County on implementation under a cash proffer policy
versus an impact fee.
TASK 8: ADVISORY COMMITTEE
This task will be expanded to include presentations to the Advisory Committee on transportation
approach and options and to receive feedback prior to bringing to the Board of Supervisors.
PROJECT PRICING
The table below outlines the fixed fee pricing for this work effort for Scopes A and B. Note, the pricing for
Scope B is predicated on both efforts occurring simultaneously. TischlerBise bills monthly on a percentage
complete basis for each Task.
Bise Herlands Gillooly Bise Herlands Gillooly
Principal
in Charge
Project
Manager
Project
Analyst
Principal
in Charge
Project
Manager
Project
Analyst
Hourly Rate:$230 $210 $185 Hours Cost $230 $210 $185 Hours Cost Hours Cost
Task 1: Project Initiation/Data Acquisition, Compilation, Review 4 8 2 14 $2,970 0 0 0 0 $0 14 $2,970
Task 2: Recommend Land Use Projections 0 20 10 30 $6,050 0 8 4 12 $2,420 42 $8,470
Task 3: Determine Capital Facility Needs and Service Levels 0 24 16 40 $8,000 8 40 16 64 $13,200 104 $21,200
Task 4: Evaluate Different Allocation Methodologies 0 20 4 24 $4,940 8 32 16 56 $11,520 80 $16,460
Task 5: Determine Need for Credits 0 6 8 14 $2,740 0 8 4 12 $2,420 26 $5,160
Task 6: Conduct Funding and Cash Flow Analysis 0 6 8 14 $2,740 4 24 12 40 $8,180 54 $10,920
Task 7: Prepare Capital Impact Model, Report, Presentations 4 24 10 38 $7,810 2 30 20 52 $10,460 90 $18,270
Task 8: Advisory Committee 6 12 2 20 $4,270 4 6 2 12 $2,550 32 $6,820
TOTAL 14 120 60 194 $39,520 26 148 74 248 $50,750 442 $90,270
* Pricing assumes the work effort occurs simultaneously with the Capital Impacts Model update.
As of 08.22.23
Frederick County, Virginia - Capital Impact Study and Model Update and Transportation Add-on 2023
Project Team Member:Scope A. CIM Update Scope B. Transportation Add-on*TOTAL
CIM Update
Total
Transportation
Total GRAND TOTAL
21
11
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The anticipated timeline for the above effort(s) is approximately 6 to 8 months. A more detailed project
schedule will be made available after notice to proceed.
ABOUT TISCHLERBISE
TischlerBise, Inc., was founded in 1977 as Tischler, Montasser & Associates. The firm became Tischler &
Associates, Inc., in 1980 and TischlerBise, Inc., in 2005. The firm is a Subchapter (S) corporation, is
incorporated in Washington, D.C., and maintains offices in Bethesda, Maryland and Boise, Idaho. The
firm’s legal addresses are:
Principal Office Idaho Office
L. Carson Bise, AICP, President Colin McAweeney, Sr. Analyst
4701 Sangamore Rd, Suite 240 999 West Main Street
Bethesda, MD 20816 Boise, ID 83702
301.320.6900 x12 (w) | 301.320.4860 (f) 202.642.8248
carson@tischlerbise.com colin@tischlerbise.com
TischlerBise is a fiscal, economic, and planning consulting firm specializing in fiscal/economic impact
analysis, impact fees, user fees, market feasibility, infrastructure financing studies, and related revenue
strategies. Our firm has been providing consulting services to public agencies for over forty years. In this
time, we have prepared over 900 fiscal/economic impact evaluations and over 1,000 impact
fee/infrastructure financing studies – more than any other firm. A summary or our Virginia clients is
shown below.
Albemarle County Falls Church Leesburg Prince William County
Alexandria Fauquier County Loudoun County Pulaski
Amherst County Frederick County Norfolk Shenandoah Univ.
Augusta County Fredericksburg Poquoson Spotsylvania County
Chesapeake Goochland County Portsmouth Stafford County
Chesterfield County Henrico County Powhatan Suffolk
Fairfax Isle of Wight County Prince George County Sussex County
Commonwealth of Virginia Experience
22