DIMOC 07-30-24 Meeting Agenda1.Capital Impacts Model Update
1.A.Capital Impacts Model 5 Year Update & Transportation Module
Presentation by TischlerBise on 5-year update to the Capital Impacts Model and
information regarding both cash proffer calculation for road impacts and/or the
implementation of a Road Impact Fee program in accordance with Virginia Code §15.2
Chapter 22 Article 9.
2.Other
AGENDA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, JULY 30, 2024
10:00 AM
THE BOARD ROOM
FREDERICK COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA
DIMOC07-30-24_CapitalImpactsModelUpdate_Part1.pdf
DIMOC07-30-24_CapitalImpactsModelUpdate_Part2_Transportation.pdf
1
Development Impact Model Oversight Committee
Agenda Item Detail
Meeting Date: July 30, 2024
Agenda Section: Capital Impacts Model Update
Title: Capital Impacts Model 5 Year Update & Transportation Module
Attachments:
DIMOC07-30-24_CapitalImpactsModelUpdate_Part1.pdf
DIMOC07-30-24_CapitalImpactsModelUpdate_Part2_Transportation.pdf
2
Briefing to Development Impact Model Oversight Committee (DIMOC)
Frederick County, Virginia
July 30, 2024
Capital Impacts Model Update, Part 1:
All Categories except Transportation
DRAFT Findings
3
2
DRAFTOutline
•Land Use Assumptions and Demand Factors
•Draft Capital Impacts (Non-Transportation)
•Levels of Service and Cost Assumptions
•Capital Impact Amounts
•Discussion
4
Land Use Assumptions
5
4
DRAFTLand Use Assumptions
•Residential Land Use Assumptions
•Demand Factors
•Current Estimates
•Growth Projections
•Nonresidential Land Use Assumptions
•Current Estimates
•Demand Factors
•Growth Projections
•Student Generation Rates
6
5
DRAFTResidential Demand Factors
7
6
DRAFTHousing Unit and Population Estimates
8
7
DRAFTResidential Projections
9
8
DRAFTNonresidential Estimates: Employment
10
9
DRAFTNonresidential Estimates
•Nonresidential Square Footage, Employment, and Demand Factors (square
feet per job)
11
10
DRAFTNonresidential Projections
12
11
DRAFTStudent Generation Rates
•Approach
•Obtained Frederick County Public Schools redacted student enrollment file with
addresses along with Frederick County residential property file with housing unit type
indicated
•Matched student and address files
•QA/QC and cleaned files to increase match rates (TischlerBise and Frederick County
staff)
•Result is 98% student records matched to Frederick County residential addresses
•Generate summary of students per unit by type of unit and by school level
13
12
DRAFTStudent Generation Rate Analysis
Total Matched 13,524 /
13,863 = 98%
Figures are rounded to three decimal places.
Total by unit type is the sum of school levels.
14
13
DRAFTStudent Generation Rates Summary
15
Capital Impacts
16
15
DRAFTOverview
•Capital Categories
•Schools
•Parks and Recreation
•Sheriff
•Fire and Rescue
•Animal Shelter
•Library
•General Government
•Courts
•Environmental Services (Solid Waste)
•Note: Transportation Provided
Separately
•For Each Capital Category
•Methodology Overview
•Level of Service Factors
•Cost Factors
•Draft Capital Impacts
•Discussion Items
17
16
DRAFTMethodology Choices for Capital Impact Calculations
•Incremental Expansion Approach
•Formula-based approach based on existing levels of service
•Capital impact is based on the current cost to replicate existing levels of
service (i.e., replacement cost)
•Plan-Based Approach
•Usually reflects a Capital Improvement Plan or master plan
•Growth-related costs are more refined
18
17
DRAFTSchools Overview
•Components
•Elementary, Middle, and High Schools: Incremental
•Transportation: Incremental
•Education Centers: Incremental
•Support Facilities: Incremental
•Debt Service Payment as Credit
•Service Area Recommendation
•Region Approach
•Elementary: Urban North, Urban South, and Rural
•Middle and High: Urban and Rural
19
18
DRAFTElementary Schools Level of Service
20
19
DRAFTMiddle Schools Level of Service
21
20
DRAFTHigh Schools Level of Service
22
21
DRAFTSchool Costs
23
22
DRAFTEducation Centers Costs and LOS
Current average cost for
new construction
($520/sf) used for
replacement value
24
23
DRAFTSupport Facilities Costs and LOS
Current average costs per sq.
ft. used for replacement value
25
24
DRAFTBus Costs and LOS
26
25
DRAFTDebt Service Credit
27
26
DRAFTDraft School Capital Impacts
Summary of costs per
student by Region.
28
27
DRAFTDraft School Capital Impacts
Model output for Urban North subarea.
29
28
DRAFTDraft School Capital Impacts
Static Model Output by
Region and by School Level
30
29
DRAFTPark Overview
•Components
•Parks: Incremental
•Regional
•Community
•Neighborhood
•Trails: Incremental
•Recreation Facilities
•Community Centers: Incremental
•Recreation Centers: Plan-Based
31
30
DRAFTParks Inventory
32
31
DRAFTParks CIP and Approach
33
32
DRAFTParks LOS
34
33
DRAFTRecreation LOS and Costs
Plan-based approach for indoor recreation. LOS is set to projected population in 2044
35
34
DRAFTParks and Rec Capital Impact Summary
36
35
DRAFTSheriff Overview
•Components
•Public Safety Building: Incremental
•Support Facilities: Plan-based
•Communications Network
•Large Vehicle Storage
•Approach
•Allocate costs to residential and nonresidential using functional population
37
36
DRAFTFunctional Population
Allocation to Residential and
Nonresidential
•Even if nonresidential rezonings
will not be included in the proffer
policy, allocation by type of
development is necessary.
•Functional population identifies the
amount of time spent as residents
compared to nonresidents (in-
commuters).
38
37
DRAFTSheriff LOS: Sheriff Station/Building
39
38
DRAFTSheriff LOS: Support Facilities
Plan-based approach for Sheriff Support Facilities. LOS is set to
projected population and nonresidential trips in 2044.
40
39
DRAFTSheriff Capital Impact Summary
41
40
DRAFTFire Overview
•Components
•Fire Stations: Incremental
•Fire Apparatus/Equipment: Incremental
•Support Facilities: Plan-based
•Communications Network
•Wildland Interface Vehicle
•Approach
•Allocate costs to residential and nonresidential using functional population
42
41
DRAFTFire and Rescue CIP
43
42
DRAFTFire LOS: Stations and Apparatus
44
43
DRAFTFire LOS: Support Facilities/Equipment
Plan-based approach for Fire Support Facilities. LOS is set to
projected population and nonresidential trips in 2044.
45
44
DRAFTFire Capital Impact Summary
Excerpt
46
45
DRAFTAnimal Shelter Overview
•Components
•Animal Shelter: Incremental
•Approach
•No current capacity trigger
47
46
DRAFTAnimal Shelter LOS
48
47
DRAFTAnimal Shelter Capital Impact Summary
Capital cost but no capacity
trigger currently.
49
48
DRAFTLibrary Overview
•Components
•Libraries: Incremental
•Approach
•Capacity trigger assumed
50
49
DRAFTLibrary LOS
51
50
DRAFTLibrary Capital Impact Summary
52
51
DRAFTGeneral Government Overview
•Components
•General Government Office Space: Incremental
•Approach
•Current capacity trigger due to planned projects
53
52
DRAFTGeneral Government LOS
54
53
DRAFTGeneral Government Capital Impact Summary
55
54
DRAFTCourts Overview
•Components
•Courts Space: Incremental
•Approach
•No capacity project planned
56
55
DRAFTCourts LOS
57
56
DRAFTCourts Capital Impact Summary
Capital cost but no capacity
trigger currently.
58
57
DRAFTEnvironmental Services Overview
•Components
•Convenience center sites: Incremental
•Approach
•Capacity projects planned
59
58
DRAFTEnvironmental Services LOS
60
59
DRAFTEnvironmental Services Capital Impact Summary
61
60
DRAFT
Questions / Discussion
62
Briefing to Development Impact Model Oversight Committee (DIMOC)
Frederick County, Virginia
July 30, 2024
Capital Impacts Model Update, Part 2:
Transportation Impact Fees / Cash Proffers
DRAFT Findings
63
2
DRAFTTransportation Overview
Technical Approach
•Demand Factor Calculations
•Vehicle miles of travel
•Components
•Arterial and collector planned capacity improvement projects
Implementation Discussion
•Impact Fees vs. Cash Proffers
64
3
DRAFTLane Mile Inventory
65
4
DRAFTVehicle Trips and Vehicle Miles of Travel
Estimated trip length is used to
project Vehicle Miles of Travel
for the Capital Impact or
Impact Fee calculation.
66
5
DRAFTNonresidential Vehicle Trip Rates
67
6
DRAFTVehicle Trips and VMT Projection
Example: Single Family VMT of 28.69 per Unit =
9.43 VTE x 50% x 5.2 miles x 117%
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) equals one vehicle
(1 trip) traveling one mile. VMT = trips x miles
68
7
DRAFTRoad Plan: Short-Term/Funded Projects
69
8
DRAFTRoad Plan: Long-Term/Unfunded Projects
70
9
DRAFTRoad Methodology
•Plan-based Methodology
•Short- and long-term projects
•County share of cost divided by projected VMTs in out year to derive a cost
per VMT
•Hypothetical Example: $27 million / 2 million VMT in 2033 = ~$14 per VMT
•Resulting cost per VMT used in the calculation of impact fee (or capital
impact) by type of land use
71
10
DRAFTPlan-Based Cost per VMT
Total VMT as the demand factor.
72
11
DRAFTDraft Impact Fee by Land Use
73
12
DRAFT
12
DRAFTImplementation Considerations: Comparison
12
Cash Proffers
•Voluntary
•Negotiated
•Re -Zonings
•Residential (typically)
•Calculated and
collected based on
impact, benefit, and
proportionality
Impact Fees
•Mandatory
•Scheduled
•All new development
(by-right)
•Residential and
Nonresidential
•Calculated based on
impact, benefit, and
proportionality
74
13
DRAFTConsiderations: Impact Fee Requirements
•Virginia Road Impact Fee Requirements (§15.2-2317-15.2327)
•Establish Impact Fee Advisory Committee (can be existing body if it meets requirement
of 40% of membership “representatives from the development, building, or real estate
industries.”
•Establish one or more service areas within the Comprehensive Plan.*
•Adopt a road improvements plan as amendment to Comp Plan and as part of CIP.*
•Hold public hearing on service area, road plan, and proposed impact fees.*
•Adopt road improvements plan and impact fee by ordinance.
•Ordinance to include impact fee schedule, provisions for credits and appeals, 2-year update
requirement, expenditure requirements.
•Funds to be kept in separate account and spent in timely manner:
•Fee revenues to be committed to road projects within 7 years—or can be committed to the
secondary construction program benefiting the service area.
•Refunds required if construction not completed within 15 years. If fee paid is more than actual
cost by 15%, locality recalculates the fees and refunds the difference.
* Technical requirements are being addressed in this current Impact Fee/Capital Impacts study
75
14
DRAFTConsiderations: Revenue Potential
•Assumptions
•Road improvement costs are
allocated to existing development
and new growth therefore impact
fees will not cover 100% of the costs.
•Impact fee revenues are projected
from residential and nonresidential
development at the maximum
amount over 20 years.
•Cash proffer revenue potential
assumes 20% of future residential
growth is not yet approved and
eligible to pay cash proffers. (In other
words, ~80% of projected demand is
already entitled [~12,200 units out of
15,350 units projected over the next
20 years].) Maximum cash proffer
amount per residential unit is
assumed.
76
15
DRAFT
Questions / Discussion
77