HomeMy WebLinkAboutCPA200700004 Legacy Document 2007-09-11 (6)Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
i'fRGiNlP
MEMORANDUM
TO: Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee
FROM: Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Analyst
DATE: April 12, 2007
RE: PROFFERS CALCULATIONS FOR VARIOUS CATEGORIES OF
DWELLING UNITS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY.
Background .
At its February 22, 2007 meeting the County's Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee approved a
methodology for estimating the dollar value of proffers that the County could expect for new Single
Family Detached residences (SFD's), Single Family Attached/Townhouse/Condominium (SFA/TH)
dwelling units, Multifamily/Apartment (MF) units, and Mobile Homes (MH's). This memorandum
outlines the methodology that the Committee approved, and lists the dollar values, per dwelling unit,
that this approved methodology currently would render, based on Albemarle's FY 2006/07 adopted
budget. Please note that the dollar figures contained in this memorandum are subject to annual
revision, and that these items represent numbers that the Board of Supervisors could include in a
proffer policy but, by themselves, these dollar figures do not constitute a proffer policy.
As part of its preliminary work, the Committee surveyed proffer models from several Virginia
counties, including Chesterfield, Greene, Hanover, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania, and
Stafford. The Committee determined that these localities expect proffers to cover development -
related capital costs only, as opposed to development -related capital and operating costs. The
Committee learned, also, that the capital categories typically covered in the counties' proffer models
included transportation, schools, and parks/recreation/open space, and public safety. The Albemarle
County Attorney, and outside experts who met with the Committee, noted that a viable proffers
model for Albemarle should include estimates pertaining only to capital costs. The distinction
between capital and operating expenditures is important since the County's current Cost Revenue
Impact Model (CRIM) includes estimates of operating costs along with estimates of debt service on
capital costs in calculating the net fiscal impact of development. This situation suggests that CRIM,
in its present form, would not be suitable as a proffers calculation model for Albemarle.
Attachment A
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Two
With this background information in mind, the Committee labored to establish a methodology that
would estimate the capital costs that various types of dwelling units typically would generate in
Albemarle County. Note that, of all the proffers calculation models that the Committee reviewed,
the Chesterfield County model appeared especially attractive as a framework for the Committee's
efforts, since the methodology behind Chesterfield's model appeared reasonable and, apparently, this
jurisdiction's proffers regime has survived at least one legal challenge. The following section,
therefore, outlines a methodology that the Committee derived in substantial part from the
Chesterfield proffers calculation model.
MethodolgW
The essential task facing the Committee involved the estimation of capital costs and offsetting
revenues. The Committee divided the County's capital costs into the categories of transportation
expenditures and non -transportation expenditures. This bifurcation of costs reflected a commonly -
held sentiment among Committee members that, in the years to come, development -generated
transportation infrastructure expenditures would represent, relative to all other categories of
infrastructure costs, a particularly large portion of the County's capital outlays, especially if the
Commonwealth of Virginia does not provide adequate funding for transportation projects in
Albemarle. The Committee was advised, however, that, for the purposes of proffers calculations, the
County's transportation cost estimates, along with the cost estimates for all other capital categories,
should reflect only items for which Albemarle actually has budgeted dollar amounts. This advice, in
practice, meant that the proffers calculations contained in this memorandum take into account only
items found in the County's currently -adopted Capital Improvements Program/Capital Needs
Assessment (CIP/CNA), Strategic Plan, and Master Plan policy. After determining capital costs, the
Committee then estimated the revenues that help offset these capital costs. The difference between
the County's capital costs and offsetting revenues rendered net cost figures. These net cost figures
equal the dollar value that Albemarle should expect in proffers per dwelling unit.
Transportation Capital Costs
In order to calculate the County's development -related transportation capital costs, the Committee
needed to determine the total dollar value of currently -budgeted projects and then translate these
total transportation expenditures into dollar amounts per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit.
This section recounts the steps that the Committee took to derive unit costs from total costs.
Table I, on the following page, reveals the budgeted expenditures for Albemarle's various
transportation projects through FY 2015/16. Note that many of the items included in the County's
Master Plan policy and CIP/CNA are slated for construction several years into the future and,
consequently, the construction costs that are found in Albemarle's Master Plan policy and CIP/CNA
typically are stated in inflated dollars.' The total inflated cost of the County's budgeted
transportation projects comes to roughly $95,844,000. In FY 2006/07 dollars, however, Albemarle's
budgeted transportation costs come to approximately $82,408,000.2 The Committee made the
Attachment A
Table I
Estimated Net County Cost of Albemarle Transportation Projects that are
Included in the County's CIP/CNA, Strategic Plan, and
Master Plan Policy, through FY 2015/16
Note: The numbers presented here are subject to annual revision. Inflated dollars are calcu-
lated assuming a non -compounded rate of growth of 5% per annum. Deflated dollars rep-
resent costs in 2006 dollars. Some projects, e.g., Southern Parkway have cost estimates
in 2006 dollars but have no firm start/finish dates, so the "inflated" and "deflated" costs, for
the purposes of this table, are the same.
Source: Appendix Table A-1
assumption that this $82,408,000 in capital improvements would accommodate ten years' worth of
new development, both residential and non-residential, in a way that would maintain current levels of
transportation service. In order to calculate unit costs, therefore, the Committee needed to estimate
the total number of new dwelling units and non-residential square footage that the County could
expect to gain over a ten year period, and then had to assign costs to each of these units.
A survey of Albemarle's annual Development Activity Report for each of the years 1984 through
2003 inclusive reveals that, on average, the County experienced the construction of 508 SFD's, 115
SFA/TH's, 197 MF's, and 33 MH's annually between 1984 and 2003. During the course of ten
years, therefore, Albemarle reasonably could expect to gain 5,080 SFD's, 1,150 SFA/TH's, 1,970
MF's, and 330 MH S.3 A study of the volume of non-residential site plan square footage that the
County approved between 1984 and 2003 suggests that, in a ten year period, Albemarle could expect
to gain 2,150,000 square feet of retail space, 1,060,000 square feet of taxable office space, 672,000
Estimated
Estimated
Net County Cost
Net County Cost
Project Name
(in Inflated $)
(in Deflated $)
Eastern Connector (1st Phase)
9,000,000
9,000,000
Georgetown Road
2,750,000
2,750,000
Hillsdale Road Connector
79,000
65,833
Jarmans Gap Road
696,968
696,968
Meadow Creek Parkway (1st Phase)
3,290,429
3,133,742
Revenue Sharing Road Program
10,000,000
10,000,000
Southern Parkway (1st Phase)
6,200,000
6,200,000
Crozet Master Plan
8,990,000
7,991,190
Neighborhood 6 & 7 Master Plan
10,286,100
7,590,000
Pantops Master Plan
11,295,900
9,108,000
Places 29 Master Plan
13,840,200
10,824,000
Rivanna Master Plan
9,221,850
7,260,000
So. Urban Area Master Plan
10,193,700
7,788,000
Total Costs
$95,844,147
$82,407,733
Note: The numbers presented here are subject to annual revision. Inflated dollars are calcu-
lated assuming a non -compounded rate of growth of 5% per annum. Deflated dollars rep-
resent costs in 2006 dollars. Some projects, e.g., Southern Parkway have cost estimates
in 2006 dollars but have no firm start/finish dates, so the "inflated" and "deflated" costs, for
the purposes of this table, are the same.
Source: Appendix Table A-1
assumption that this $82,408,000 in capital improvements would accommodate ten years' worth of
new development, both residential and non-residential, in a way that would maintain current levels of
transportation service. In order to calculate unit costs, therefore, the Committee needed to estimate
the total number of new dwelling units and non-residential square footage that the County could
expect to gain over a ten year period, and then had to assign costs to each of these units.
A survey of Albemarle's annual Development Activity Report for each of the years 1984 through
2003 inclusive reveals that, on average, the County experienced the construction of 508 SFD's, 115
SFA/TH's, 197 MF's, and 33 MH's annually between 1984 and 2003. During the course of ten
years, therefore, Albemarle reasonably could expect to gain 5,080 SFD's, 1,150 SFA/TH's, 1,970
MF's, and 330 MH S.3 A study of the volume of non-residential site plan square footage that the
County approved between 1984 and 2003 suggests that, in a ten year period, Albemarle could expect
to gain 2,150,000 square feet of retail space, 1,060,000 square feet of taxable office space, 672,000
Attachment A
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Four
square feet of industrial space, and 1,590,000 square feet of institutional space.4 These ten year
dwelling unit and non-residential square footage figures appear in the second column of Table H on
the next page. Along with estimated dwelling unit and square footage data, this table contains the
remaining set of information that the Committee needed in order to estimate unit transportation
costs.
Note that transportation projects do not serve dwelling units and non-residential space per se but,
rather, serve the vehicle trips generated by these categories of development. The third column of
Table II reveals the average number of daily vehicle trips associated with each of the four types of
dwelling units mentioned previously and shows, also, the average number of daily vehicle trips
associated with a thousand square feet of each of the four types of non-residential space that are
contained in the County's Cost Revenue Impact Model.5 The average SFD, for example, generates
9.57 daily vehicle trips, while a thousand square feet of retail space produces, on average, 47.56
vehicle trips.
The fourth column of the Table II shows the estimated total number of daily vehicle trips that ten
years' growth would render for each category of residential and non-residential development. In the
case of SFD's, for example, the County could expect 5,080 new units in a ten year period, and this
type of dwelling unit generates, on average, 9.57 daily vehicle trips. Ten years' worth of growth in
single family detached residences, therefore, renders an expected total of 5,080 x 9.57 = 48,616 daily
vehicle trips. Albemarle, likewise, could expect a total of 2,150,000 square feet of new retail space
during the course of a decade, and a thousand square feet of this type of non-residential space
typically produces 47.56 daily vehicle trips. The equivalent of a decade's worth of retail
development, therefore, produces an expected 2,150 x 47.56 = 102,271 daily vehicle trips.
The sum of the numbers in the fourth column of Table II equals the total number of daily vehicle
trips that would result from a decade's worth of growth in Albemarle. This figure equals 213,149
and is found on the "Total Number of New Daily Vehicle Trips" line of Table H. Recall from Table
I that the County has budgeted a total of $82,407,733 in transportation projects through FY 2015/16.
Recall, also, that the Committee assumed that the transportation projects for which the County has
budgeted through FY 2015/16 would accommodate ten years' worth of growth in a way that would
maintain present levels of transportation service. The cost of Albemarle's budgeted transportation
projects, per daily vehicle trip, therefore, equals $82,407,733/213,149 = $387. This amount is found
on the "Total $ Cost of Projects Per Daily Veh. Trip" line of Table H.
This $387 figure provides the basis for calculating transportation costs per dwelling unit since the
third column of Table H shows, for each of the four categories of residential development, the
average number of daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit. As mentioned previously the typical SFD
generates 9.57 daily vehicle trips, so the County's transportation cost per SFD would be $387 x 9.57
= $3,700. This figure is found in the fifth column of Table II, as are figures for all the other
categories of development.6 As a clarification, this $3,700 number represents the typical SFD's
share of the $82,497,733 in capital costs that the County has budgeted for transportation
improvements. The corresponding transportation cost for an SFA/TH, MF, and MH equals $2,266,
$2,598, and
Attachment A
IF17[al
Albemarle County Estimated Number of New Dwelling Units, Non -Residential
Square Footage, Daily Vehicle Trips, and Total Dollar Cost (Per Dwelling
Unit or Thousand Square Feet of Non -Residential Space) of
County Transportation Projects, by FY 2014/15
Daily Veh. Est. Total No. Total $ Cost
Land Use
Est. No. of
Trips Per Unit
of New Daily
Per D.U. or
Category
New Units
or 1K SF
Veh. Trips
1,000 SF
SFD
5,080
9.57
48,616
$3,700
SFA/TH
1,150
5.86
6,739
$2,266
MF
1,970
6.72
13,238
$2,598
MH
330
4.99
1,647
$1,929
Retail SF
2,150,356
47.56
102,271
$18,388
Tax. Office SF
1,059,698
8.42
8,923
$3,255
Industrial SF
672,473
3.43
2,307
$1,326
Institutional SF
1,587,094
18.53
29,409
$7,164
Total Number of New Daily Vehicle Trips 213,149
Total Est. Cost of Transportation Projs. $82,407,733
Total $ Cost of Projects Per Daily Veh. Trip $387
Note: The total dollar cost per residential dwelling unit or thousand square feet
of non-residential dwelling space is calculated by multiplying the total dollar
cost of projects per daily vehicle trip by the number of daily verhicle trips gener-
ated by the relevant land use type. Dollar figures are in 2006 dollars.
Sources: The estimated number of new residential dwelling units and non-
residential square footage is derived from historical data contained in the County's
various Development Activity Reports. The total estimated dollar cost of transpor-
tation projects is taken from Table I. The number of daily vehicle trips, by land use
type, is taken directly from, or derived from data contained in, Trip Generation,
7th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Attachment A
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Six
$1,929 respectively. Please note that these numbers, along with all of the other cost and revenue
estimates in this memorandum, will undergo revision as Albemarle's adopted budget changes from
year to year.
Non -Transportation Capital Costs
In order to calculate the County's development -related non -transportation capital costs, the
Committee needed to determine the total dollar value of currently -budgeted projects and then
translate these total non -transportation expenditures into dollar amountsper dwelling unit, by type
of dwelling unit. This section recounts the steps that the Committee took to derive unit costs from
total costs.
Table III, on the next two pages, reveals Albemarle's budgeted non -transportation capital costs,
through FY 2014/15, for which the County will pay using borrowed funds. As was the case with
transportation costs, the amounts listed in Table III have been deflated to year 2006 dollars. Note
that the third column of Table III lists an "assumed demand base" for each project. In the County's
current Cost Revenue Impact Model, the dollar amount spent for each capital item in Albemarle's
budget is assumed to vary with changes in some underlying demand base. In the case of
transportation projects, as already noted, costs are assumed to vary with the number of daily vehicle
trips generated by new residential and non-residential development. In the case of non -transportation
capital projects, however, a particular line item's cost is assumed to vary with changes in a relevant
demand base such as population, population plus j obs, elementary school enrollments, middle school
enrollments, high school enrollments, and total school enrollments.
The "$ Grand Total" line in the yellow highlighted area of Table III shows the ten year grand total of
the County's non -transportation capital projects costs. The rest of the lines in this column of the
table show the dollar portion of this grand total that is associated with each of the demand bases
mentioned in the preceding paragraph. The ten year grand total comes to $160,734,339, while the
portion of that grand total that is generated by a decade's worth of growth in population, for example,
equals $51,212,626. The fourth column of the yellow highlighted area of Table III reveals the
expected total number of demand units that will result from a decade's worth of new development in
Albemarle.$ This data furnishes enough information to derive non -transportation capital costs per
demand unit. In the case of the population demand base, for example, the total dollar value of a
decade's worth of capital costs comes to $51,212,626 and the County can expect to add 21,172
people over the course of ten years. The dollar cost per demand unit of this particular demand base,
then, comes to $51,212,626/21,172 = $2,419. The dollar cost per demand unit of elementary school
enrollment (ES), likewise, equals $30,597,549/1,300 = $23,528. A similar exercise renders dollar
values for all of the other line items in the fifth column of the highlighted area, except that the
$18,843 figure that appears on the "$ Grand Total" line of the table reflects the total non -
transportation capital costs per new dwelling unit in Albemarle.
This $18,843 figure represents a straight average and, consequently, does not distinguish the non-
Attachment A
transportation capital costs generated by dwelling units in the four different categories of residential
Table III
Albemarle County Local Government & Schools Division Borrowed
Funds for CIP/CNA Projects, FY 05/06 through FY 14/15
(in 2006 Dollars)
10 Year
Assumed
Item
Amt.
Dem. Base
Courts Expansion
6,441,331
Population
Northern Fire Station
1,636,364
Population & Jobs
Pantops Fire Station
3,981,729
Population & Jobs
Ivy Fire Station
5,717,706
Population & Jobs
Fire Apparatus
11,431,484
Population & Jobs
Crozet Ladder Truck
1,303,200
Population & Jobs
Fire/Police Range
1,469,234
Population & Jobs
COB -McIntire Renovations
3,537,143
Population
Recreational Facilities
1,933,333
Population
Southern Area Park
1,600,997
Population
Crozet Community Park
2,356,765
Population
Northern Park
2,308,800
Population
Northside Library
6,197,391
Population
29 North Library
9,323,153
Population
Crozet Library
5,169,974
Population
Southern Library
5,550,833
Population
Central Library
4,356,888
Population
Scottsville Library
2,436,018
Population
Elementary Site Land Acq.
1,620,833
Elem. School Enroll.
Henley Addition/Renovation
1,000,000
Middle School Enroll.
Murray High School Renovations
149,000
High School Enroll.
Cale Addition
2,726,667
Elem. School Enroll.
Elementary #17
12,010,712
Elem. School Enroll.
ADA Structural Changes
133,192
Total School Enroll.
Monticello High School Audit.
5,305,714
High School Enroll.
Monticello HS Aux. Gym.
1,999,000
High School Enroll.
WAHS Audit. Moveable Wall
371,429
High School Enroll.
Bldg. Svcs. Office/Warehouse
3,495,968
Total School Enroll.
Additional High School Capacity
7,255,157
High School Enroll.
WAHS Window Replacement
381,818
High School Enroll.
Wide Area Network Upgrade
1,020,000
Total School Enroll.
Schools Maint./Rept. -- Financed
19,193,031
Total School Enroll.
Veh. Maint. Fac. -- Emerg. Gen.
165,000
Total School Enroll.
Jouett-Greer Site Reconfig.
652,381
Elem. + Middle School Enroll.
Red Hill Elem. -- Add./Renov.
3,063,659
Elem. School Enroll.
Attachment A
Table III (Cont.)
Sources: Dollar amounts for CIP projects are taken from Table A-4. The number of new dwelling or demand
units is derived from Table II and from the population, job, and pupil enrollment generation factors contained
in the County's Cost Revenue Impact Model.
10 Year
Assumed
Item
Amt.
Dem. Base
Scottsville Add./Renovation
2,221,341
Elem. School Enroll.
Gym. HVAC/Light Replacement
2,608,074
Total School Enroll.
Greer Elem. School Renov.
4,446,400
Elem. School Enroll.
Henley Aux. PE/Meeting Space
702,667
Middle School Enroll.
Elementary#18
1,071,429
Elem. School Enroll.
Albemarle HS Add./Renovation
8,952,016
High School Enroll.
Additional Elem. Capacity
3,436,508
Elem. School Enroll.
No. of Dw.
$ Per Dwell.
Units or
Unit or
Dem. Units
Dem. Unit
$ Grand Total
160,734,339
Est. 10 Year No. of Dwell. Uts.
8,530
$18,843
$ Total Based on Population
51,212,626
Est. 10 Year Population
21,172
$2,419
$ Total Based on Pop. & Jobs
25,539,717
Est. 10 Year Pop. + Jobs
34,531
$740
$ Total Based on ES Enroll.
30,597,549
Est. 10 Year ES Enroll.
1,300
$23,528
$ Total Based on ES + MS Enr.
652,381
Est. 10 Year ES + MS Enroll.
2,048
$319
$ Total Based on MS Enroll.
1,702,667
Est. 10 Year MS Enroll.
748
$2,277
$ Total Based on HS Enroll.
24,414,134
Est. 10 Year HS Enroll.
822
$29,719
$ Total Based on Total S Enroll.
26,615,265
Est. 10 Year Total Enroll.
2,870
$9,274
Sources: Dollar amounts for CIP projects are taken from Table A-4. The number of new dwelling or demand
units is derived from Table II and from the population, job, and pupil enrollment generation factors contained
in the County's Cost Revenue Impact Model.
Attachment A
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Nine
development. This dollar amount, in other words, is not specific enough for the purposes of proffers
calculations and is presented for informational purposes only. The next step in the calculation of
proffers amounts, therefore, involves translating the dollar amounts per demand unit that are found in
Table III into dollar amounts per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit.
Table IV, on the next four pages, accomplishes this task. Note that Table IV consists of four
sections. Each page of the table pertains to one of the four categories of residential development in
Albemarle. In order to understand the information contained in Table IV, think of a dwelling unit as
being a "basket" of demand units. In the case of an SFD, for example, as shown in the "Dem. Units
Per DU" column of the table, this "basket" contains 2.19 population demand units, 2.19 population
plus jobs demand units, 0.1637 elementary school enrollment demand units, 0.1100 middle school
enrollment demand units, 0.2737 elementary plus middle school enrollment demands units, 0.1300
high school enrollment demand units, and 0.4037 total school enrollment demand units. Each of
these demand units, when multiplied by the corresponding dollars per demand unit ("$ Per Dem
Unit") from Table III, produces the relevant dollar amount per dwelling unit that is generated by the
demand base under examination. This amount is found in the "$ per DU" column of the table.
Consider the case of the population demand base in an SFD. Each SFD is assumed to contain 2.19
people and, from Table III, we know that each SFD resident generates, on average, $2,419 in non -
transportation capital costs. (This $2,419 amount appears again in the "$ Per Dem. Unit" column of
Table IV). This situation means that the population demand units in the typical SFD generate a total
of 2.19 x $2,419 = $5,297 in non -transportation capital expenditures. Similarly, the population
portion of the population plus jobs demand base in an SFD renders $1,620 in non -transportation
capital costs, while the corresponding elementary school enrollment demand base figure comes to
$3,852. Note that the sum of the dollar amounts associated with the demand bases in an SFD comes
to $18,714. This amount is found in the "Gross Total for Debt -Financed Infrastructure" line of the
SFD section of Table IV and represents the total non -transportation infrastructure costs produced by
a new SFD. Corresponding amounts for the other three categories of residential development are
found on the same line of the SFA/TH, MF, and MH pages of the table.
Now, in order to calculate the total capital costs generated by a dwelling unit in a particular category
of residential development, we simply add the dollar value of the unit's non -transportation capital
costs to the dollar value of the unit's transportation capital costs. Recall that Table II shows this
latter figure in the "Total $ Cost Per D.U. or 1,000 SF" column. This transportation dollar amount is
listed again, in Table IV, on the "Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure" line on each of the
dwelling unit category pages of Table IV. In the case of an SFD the dwelling unit's non -
transportation capital costs total $18,714, while the dwelling unit's transportation capital costs come
to $3,700. The total capital expenditures associated with an SFD, therefore, equal $18,714 + $3,700
= $22,414. Table IV lists this last amount on the "Gross Total Cost Per SFD" line of the SFD page.
The dollar amounts of $15,506, $13,746, and $20,584 appear on the corresponding lines on the
SFA/TH, MF, and MH pages of the table.
Attachment A
Table IV
Albemarle County Debt -Financed & Transportation CIP/CNA/Strategic
Plan Infrastructure Net Costs, by Dwelling Unit Type
Dwelling
10% of Tx.
Unit
Dem. Units
$ Per
Rev. ($)
(DU) Type
Demand Base
Per DU
Dem. Unit
Per DU
Year
Per DU
SFD
Population
2.19
2,419
5,297
1
427
Pop. Port. of Pop.+Jobs
2.1900
740
1,620
2
446
ES Enrollment
0.1637
23,528
3,852
3
466
ES+MS Enrollment
0.2737
319
87
4
487
MS Enrollment
0.1100
2,277
250
5
509
HS Enrollment
0.1300
29,719
3,863
6
531
Total Enrollment
0.4037
9,274
3,744
7
555
8
580
Gross Total for Debt -Financed Infrastructure
$18,714
9
606
10
633
Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure
$3,700
11
661
12
691
Gross Total Cost Per SFD
$22,414
13
721
14
754
15
787
16
823
17
859
18
898
19
938
20
980
Total $13,350
NPV $8,173
Net Total $ Per SFD (@ 10%) = Proffer Amt. $14,241
Attachment A
Table IV (Cont.)
Dwelling
10% of Tx.
Unit
Dem. Units
$ Per
Rev. ($)
(DU) Type
Demand Base
Per DU
Dem. Unit
Per DU
Year
Per DU
SFA/TH
Population
1.89
2,419
4,572
1
317
Pop. Port. of Pop.+Jobs
1.8900
740
1,398
2
332
ES Enrollment
0.1238
23,528
2,913
3
347
ES+MS Enrollment
0.1938
319
62
4
362
MS Enrollment
0.0700
2,277
159
5
379
HS Enrollment
0.0600
29,719
1,783
6
396
Total Enrollment
0.2538
9,274
2,354
7
414
8
433
Gross Total for Debt -Financed
Infrastructure
$13,240
9
453
10
474
Gross Total for Transportation
Infrastructure
$2,266
11
495
12
518
Gross Total Cost Per SFA/TH
$15,506
13
541
14
566
15
592
16
619
17
647
18
677
19
708
20
740
Total
$10,011
NPV
$6,066
Net Total $ Per SFA/TH (@10%) = Proffer Amt. $9,441
Attachment A
Table IV (Cont.)
Dwelling
10% of Tx.
Unit
Dem. Units
$ Per
Rev. ($)
DU Type
Demand Base
Per DU
Dem. Unit
Per DU
Year
Per DU
MF
Population
1.63
2,419
3,943
1
242
Pop. Port. of Pop.+Jobs
1.6300
740
1,206
2
252
ES Enrollment
0.1315
23,528
3,094
3
264
ES+MS Enrollment
0.1715
319
55
4
276
MS Enrollment
0.0400
2,277
91
5
288
HS Enrollment
0.0300
29,719
892
6
301
Total Enrollment
0.2015
9,274
1,869
7
315
8
329
Gross Total for Debt -Financed
Infrastructure
$11,148
9
344
10
360
Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure
$2,598
11
376
12
393
Gross Total Cost Per MF
$13,746
13
411
14
429
15
449
16
469
17
490
18
512
19
535
20
560
Total $3,347
NPV $2,311
Net Total $ Per MF (@10%) = Proffer Amt. $11,435
Attachment A
Table IV (Cont.)
Dwelling
10% of Tx.
Unit
Dem. Units
$ Per
Rev. ($)
(DU) Type
Demand Base
Per DU
Dem. Unit
Per DU
Year
Per DU
MH
Population
2.19
2,419
5,297
1
299
Pop. Port. of Pop.+Jobs
2.1900
740
1,620
2
312
ES Enrollment
0.2044
23,528
4,809
3
325
ES+MS Enrollment
0.2944
319
94
4
339
MS Enrollment
0.0900
2,277
205
5
353
HS Enrollment
0.1000
29,719
2,972
6
368
Total Enrollment
0.3944
9,274
3,658
7
384
8
400
Gross Total for Debt -Financed
Infrastructure
$18,655
9
417
10
435
Gross Total for Transportation Infrastructure
$1,929
11
454
12
473
Gross Total Cost Per MH
$20,584
13
493
14
514
15
536
16
559
17
583
18
607
19
633
20
660
Total
$4,086
NPV
$2,867
Net Total $ Per MH (@10%) = Proffer Amt. $17,717
Notes: (a) Albemarle County policy places a ceiling of 10% on general fund and school fund
revenues for debt service; Currently, the debt service percentage stands at roughly 6%; and
(b) tax revenues are assumed to increase annually by 4.47% for an SFD; 4.56% for an SFA/TH;
4.52% for an MF; and 4.26% for an MH.
Sources: Demand unit and tax revenue per DU are taken from the Cost Revenue Impact
Model; Dollars per Demand Unit are taken from Table III; Gross totals for transportation
infrastructure come from Table II; Assumptions about the rate of increase in tax revenue
come from Table A-5; and the 10% debt service figure comes from the policy note found
in the Albemarle County FY 06/07 Adopted Budget, p. 214.
Attachment A
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Fourteen
Revenues
In order to estimate the net capital costs generated by the typical dwelling unit in each of the four
categories of residential development, the Committee determined the net present value of a portion
of the revenue that the typical dwelling unit in each category would generate over the course of
twenty years, and then subtracted this amount from the relevant total capital cost in order to obtain
the cash, or in-kind contribution, proffer amount that the County should expect per dwelling unit.
Note that the total capital cost amounts discussed in the last section reflect gross capital
expenditures. The Chesterfield proffers model recognizes that the capital expenditures associated
with a new dwelling unit are offset, to a certain degree, by the tax revenues generated by that
dwelling unit. In the case of the Chesterfield model, however, the only tax revenue that the model
takes into consideration, apparently for the sake of simplicity, is real property tax revenue. In the
Case of Albemarle, however, the Cost Revenue Impact Model has estimates for fourteen different
federal, state, and local revenue streams associated with a dwelling unit in each of the four residential
categories. Table A-5 in the Appendix of this memorandum reveals the details of these revenue
streams. In the case of an SFD, the typical dwelling unit generates $4,269 in annual revenue for
Albemarle, while the typical SFA/TH renders a corresponding amount of $3,171 to the County. An
MF, meanwhile, generates an average of $2,416 each year for Albemarle, while the typical MH
produces $2,989 in annual revenue to the County.
The Chesterfield model assumes that Chesterfield will engage in debt financing in order to pay for
the capital expenditures associated with a new dwelling unit and that the term of borrowing will
equal twenty years. The Chesterfield model also assumes that, in each of the twenty years in
question, Chesterfield will apply toward the service on this debt some fixed percentage of the
revenues generated by the new dwelling unit and that the remainder of the revenues generated by the
new dwelling unit will help fund operating costs associated with the unit. Note that, in this scheme,
the revenues generated by the dwelling unit are assumed to increase annually by some fixed
percentage. The Chesterfield model then totals the twenty years' worth of revenues that would be
applied toward debt service and calculates the net present value of this sum. This last amount
subsequently is subtracted from the gross dollar cost of the capital projects that are generated by the
dwelling unit. This difference equals the net capital expenditure associated with the dwelling unit,
and represents the cash amount, or dollar value of the in-kind contribution, that Chesterfield would
expect the developer to proffer for the dwelling unit in question. The Committee decided to follow
this methodology in order to calculate Albemarle's proffers amounts.
In practical terms, this methodology presents something of a dilemma, since Albemarle's current
debt service level, as a percentage of general fund and school revenues, stands at roughly 6%. The
County's debt service policy, however, would allow this debt service level to rise to as much as 10%.
In order to calculate the dollar value of the development -related revenues that would be applied to
debt service, the Committee elected to use the 10% figure. The dollar amounts that result annually
from the use of this 10% figure are shown in the last column on each page of Table IV. In the case
Attachment A
Proffers Calculations
April 12, 2007
Page Fifteen
of an SFD, as previously mentioned, the Committee determined that this type of dwelling unit
typically renders $4,269 in revenue to the County. In Year 1, then, if we assume that the debt service
payment will equal 10% of this revenue, then this payment amount comes to $427. This number
appears on the first line of the "10% of Tx. Rev. ($) Per DU" column of Table IV.
In subsequent years, this dollar number rises since the volume of revenue associated with an SFD is
assumed to increase by a fixed annual percentage. The same situation applies to the three other
categories of residential development.9 At the end of twenty years, 10% of the sum of the annual
revenues generated by an SFD equals $13,350. Note that, assuming that revenues grew at a rate of
4.47% per annum for twenty years, the net present value (NPV) of $13,350 equals $8,173. This
NPV amount is found on the "NPV" line of the SFD page of Table IV. The subtraction of this
figure from $22,414 (the total present-day value of the capital costs associated with an SFD)
renders $14,241. This figure represents the estimate of the cash amount, or dollar value of the
in-kind contribution, that Albemarle would expect a developer to proffer per SFD. The
corresponding number for an SFA/TH equals $9,441; the figure for an MF equals $11,435; and
for an MH, the number comes to $17,717.
Conclusions
The Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee has derived, for each of the four categories of residential
development in Albemarle County, a set of dollar figures that the Board of Supervisors could include
in a proffers policy. The BOS should be aware that these dollar values pertain only to FY 2006/07
and that, once the County has adopted a new budget, the cost and revenue figures presented in this
memorandum will change. As a matter of practice, the County's proffers numbers should be updated
annually, as soon as the BOS adopts a new budget. The BOS should be aware, also, that the capital
cost estimates contained in the transportation section of this memorandum reflect very preliminary
numbers since the County does not yet have a clear idea of how much money several of the
transportation projects listed on Table I will end up costing the County in coming years and,
likewise, Albemarle does not yet have a clear idea of the extent to which the Commonwealth of
Virginia will continue to fund roads in the County. Another issue which the BOS should keep in
mind involves House Bill 2500, which Governor Kaine recently signed into law. This item likely
will give the County additional flexibility with respect to the County's ability to collect growth -
related monies from the development community. Presently, however, Albemarle has only a very
preliminary understanding of the implications of the new law and, in any case, according to the
County Attorney, Albemarle would have to adopt a zoning text amendment in order to take
advantage of the newly enabled authority granted by the law.
SAA/saa
Attachment A
ENDNOTES
1. Albemarle currently uses a construction cost inflation rate of five percent per annum, non -
compounded, so a project that would cost $1,000,000 to build this fiscal year is assumed to cost
$1,050,000 if the item were to be built next year, $1,100,000 if it were to be constructed two years
from now, etc.
2. The transportation costs listed in this paragraph reflect net transportation costs to Albemarle, i.e.,
the total cost of the County's transportation projects minus any outside funding that the County
presently expects to receive from other levels of government.
3. These ten year figures represent the gross increase in the number of dwelling units that the
County could expect to experience over the course of a decade. The Committee made the
assumption that there would be no loss of dwelling units during this time period, i.e., that the gross
increase in the number of dwelling units equals the net increase in the number of dwelling units. The
Committee should be aware that, as an alternative to using the "averages" approach in estimating the
number of dwelling units that the County could expect to gain during a ten year period, the
Committee could have used a "trend line" approach. This latter methodology represents a more
sophisticated level of analysis than does the "averages" approach, and likely will be incorporated into
Albemarle's proffer calculation model in the future.
4. See Appendix Table A-2 for details about the methodology behind these estimated non-residential
numbers. Note that, in the case of non-residential square footage, the Committee made the same
assumption regarding gross increases versus net increases that the Committee made with respect to
residential dwelling units. Please note that the "trend line" approach mentioned in Endnote 3 also
could be used to estimate the number of square feet of non-residential space that the County could
expect to gain during the course of a decade.
5. Average daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, were taken directly from
Trip Generation, 7t' Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Please see
Appendix Table A-3 for details about the derivation of the average daily vehicle trips per thousand
square feet of non-residential space, by type of non-residential space.
6. Table II presents the transportation costs per thousand square feet of each of the four categories of
non-residential space for informational purposes only. The Committee's task involved estimating
proffers amounts for dwelling units only, not for dwelling units and non-residential space.
7. See Table A-4 for the inflated dollar amounts and proposed timing of each project.
8. The total number of new demand units was calculated from the following information. Recall
that Table H shows the number of new dwelling units and non-residential square footage that the
County can expect to experience over the course of a decade. Note that Albemarle's Cost Revenue
Impact Model contains assumptions about the number of demand units, by type, that is generated by
the typical dwelling unit in a particular category, or the typical thousand square feet of a particular
category of non-residential space. These CRIM assumptions are shown on the next page.
ENDNOTES (Cont.)
8. (Cont.)
Attachment A
In order to estimate the number of new demand units in, say, the category of population, the relevant
equation is:
P = [(5,080 x 2.69) + (1,150 x 2.33) + (1,970 x 2.00) + (330 x 2.69)] = 21,172
where 5,080 equals the ten year expected number of SFD's; 1,150 is the corresponding number of
SFA/TH's; 1,970 is the corresponding figure for MF's; and 330 equals the ten year expected number
of MH's. A similar exercise yields the figures shown on each of the other lines in the fourth column
in the yellow highlighted area of Table 111, with the exception of the entry on the "$ Grand Total"
line, which shows simply the total number of new dwelling units, not new demand units, that the
County can expect to gain during the course of a decade.
9. The rate of the annual increase in the volume of revenue generated by a dwelling unit varies,
however, among the different dwelling unit categories. This phenomenon results from differences in
the relative size of the various revenues in each of the four dwelling unit categories. Please see
Table A-5 for additional details. Note that, in the case of an SFD, revenue growth is estimated to
equal 4.47% per annum, while revenue growth for an SFA/TH is calculated to come to 4.56% per
annum. The respective figures for MF's and MH's are 4.52% and 4.26%.
Total
Total
Total No.
ES Enroll.
MS Enroll.
HS Enroll.
Enroll.
Pop.
of Jobs
SF Detached (SFD)
0.1637
0.11
0.13
0.4037
2.69
N/A
SF Attached/TH (SFA/TH)
0.1238
0.07
0.06
0.2538
2.33
N/A
Multifamily (MF)
0.1315
0.04
0.03
0.2015
2.00
N/A
Mobile Homes (MH)
0.2044
0.09
0.10
0.3944
2.69
N/A
Retail (1,000 SF)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.263
Taxable Office (1,000 SF)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.464
Institutional (1,000 SF)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.481
Industrial (1,000 SF)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.717
In order to estimate the number of new demand units in, say, the category of population, the relevant
equation is:
P = [(5,080 x 2.69) + (1,150 x 2.33) + (1,970 x 2.00) + (330 x 2.69)] = 21,172
where 5,080 equals the ten year expected number of SFD's; 1,150 is the corresponding number of
SFA/TH's; 1,970 is the corresponding figure for MF's; and 330 equals the ten year expected number
of MH's. A similar exercise yields the figures shown on each of the other lines in the fourth column
in the yellow highlighted area of Table 111, with the exception of the entry on the "$ Grand Total"
line, which shows simply the total number of new dwelling units, not new demand units, that the
County can expect to gain during the course of a decade.
9. The rate of the annual increase in the volume of revenue generated by a dwelling unit varies,
however, among the different dwelling unit categories. This phenomenon results from differences in
the relative size of the various revenues in each of the four dwelling unit categories. Please see
Table A-5 for additional details. Note that, in the case of an SFD, revenue growth is estimated to
equal 4.47% per annum, while revenue growth for an SFA/TH is calculated to come to 4.56% per
annum. The respective figures for MF's and MH's are 4.52% and 4.26%.
Attachment A
APPENDIX
Attachment A
Table A-1 -- Albemarle County Transportation Infrastructure Costs
(Supporting Documentation for Table 1)
Inflated Transportation Cost Estimates -- Master Planned Areas
Total Cost FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16
Crozet MP
$8,990,000
740,000 1,340,000 1,622,500 2,587,500
2,700,000
1,475,000
2,250,000
2,250,000
0
Pantops MP
11,295,900
217,800 1,669,800
3,960,000
3,300,000
$9,108,000
267,300 924,000
957,000
Places 29 MP
13,840,200
455,400
2,534,400
4,950,000
3,432,000
554,400
1,914,000
Rivanna MP
9,221,850
113,850
1,346,400
3,712,500
3,432,000
138,600
478500
So. Urban MP
10,193,700
396,000
237,600
1,815,000
4,290,000
3,564,000
287100
Neighborhood 6&7 MP
10,286,100
1,122,000
2,970,000
247,500
1,887,600
4,455,000 3,696,000
330,000
Total MP Costs $63,827,750
Deflated Transportation Cost Estimates -- Master Planned Areas
Total Cost FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16
Crozet MP
$7,991,190
740,000
1,276,190
1,475,000
2,250,000
2,250,000
0
0
0
0
0
Pantops MP
$9,108,000
0
0
198,000
1,452,000
3,300,000
2,640,000
0
198,000
660,000
660,000
Places 29 MP
$10,824,000
0
0
0
396,000
2,112,000
3,960,000
2,640,000
0
396,000
1,320,000
Rivanna MP
$7,260,000
0
0
0
99,000
1,122,000
2,970,000
2,640,000
0
99,000
330,000
So. Urban MP
$7,788,000
0
0
0
0
198,000
1,452,000
3,300,000
2,640,000
0
198,000
Neighborhood 6&7 MP
$7,590,000
0
0
0
0
0
198,000
1,452,000
3,300,000
2,640,000
0
Total MP Costs $50,561,190
Attachment A
Table A-1 (Cont.)
Inflated Transportation Cost Estimates -- Other Transportation
Total Cost FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16
Hillsdale Rd. Connector $79,000 79,000
East. Connector (1st Phase) 9,000,000
Georgetown Road 2,750,000
Revenue Sharing Rd. Prog. 10,000,000
Jarmans Gap Road 696,968
Meadowcreek Parkway (1st Ph.) 3,290,429 3,290,429
Southern Parkway (1st Ph.) 6,200,000
Total Other Costs $32,016,397
Deflated Cost Estimates -- Other Transportation
Total Cost FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16
Hillsdale Rd. Connector
$65,833
0
0
0
0
65,833
0
0
0
0
East. Connector (1st Phase)
9,000,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Georgetown Road
2,750,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Revenue Sharing Rd. Prog.
10,000,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jarmans Gap Road
696,968
Meadowcreek Parkway (1 st Ph.)
3,133,742
0
3,133,742
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Southern Parkway (1st Ph.)
6,200,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Other Costs $31,846,543
0
0
0
0
0
0
Attachment A
Table A-1 (Cont.)
Note: Albemarle County assumes a non -compounded inflation rate of 5% per annum for CIP/CNA/Strategic Plan infrastructure costs. Deflated costs are in 2006 dollars.
Sources: Dollar figures and start/stop dates for Master Planned area projects, Georgetown Road, Eastern Connector, Jarmans Gap Road, Meadowcreek Parkway, and Southern
Parkway come from the "Master Plan Cost Scenarios" spreadsheet supplied by Andy Bowman, Management Analyst, January 2007. Hillsdale Road Connector and Revenue
Sharing Road Program numbers and start/stop dates come from the Albemarle County FY 06/07 Adopted Budget, p. 205.
Attachment A
Table A-2
Estimated Total Square Footage of Non -Residential Space in
Albemarle County (1983-2003) & Estimated Ten
Year Supply of Non -Residential Space
Retail Tax. Office Industrial Institutional
Year SF SF SF SF Total SF
1983
1,573,000
177,000
2,240,000
2,125,000
6,115,000
1984
1,681,000
177,000
2,275,000
2,138,000
6,271,000
1985
1,808,000
270,000
2,445,000
2,153,000
6,676,000
1986
1,932,000
395,000
2,505,000
2,323,000
7,155,000
1987
2,176,000
454,000
2,660,000
2,412,000
7,702,000
1988
2,584,000
504,000
2,886,000
2,417,000
8,391,000
1989
3,521,000
605,000
3,026,000
3,167,000
10,319,000
1990
3,734,000
735,000
3,116,000
3,210,000
10,795,000
1991
4,006,000
760,000
3,116,000
3,347,000
11,229,000
1992
4,072,000
760,000
3,116,000
3,422,000
11,370,000
1993
4,087,000
950,000
3,171,000
3,521,000
11,729,000
1994
4,109,000
1,025,000
3,241,000
3,614,000
11,989,000
1995
4,178,000
1,238,000
3,241,000
3,635,000
12,292,000
1996
4,294,000
1,318,000
3,266,000
3,830,000
12,708,000
1997
4,451,000
1,479,000
3,266,000
3,914,000
13,110, 000
1998
4,652,219
1,716,708
3,290,000
4,093,757
13,752,684
1999
4,851,503
1,989,368
3,312,510
4,109,717
14,263,098
2000
4,968,326
2,249,268
3,312,510
4,281,088
14,811,192
2001
5,550,755
2,296,396
3,504,050
5,000,310
16,351,511
2002
5,664,335
2,296,396
3,524,950
5,289,208
16,774,889
2003
5,873,712
2,296,396
3,584,945
5,299,188
17,054,241
20 Yr. Avg. Grth.
215,036
105,970
67,247
158,709
546,962
Est. 10 Yr. SF 2,150,356 1,059,698 672,473 1,587,094 5,469,621
Sources: Figures for 1997 are taken from the FY 97/98 version of the Albemarle County
Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM); Figures for previous and subsequent years were de-
rived using site plan approval data from the various editions of the Albemarle County
Development Activity Report for the years 1984 through 2003 inclusive.
Methodology: Figures for each of the years 1983 through 1996 inclusive and 1998
through 2003 inclusive were estimated by taking the total square footage of the subse-
quent or previous year, and subtracting or adding to that number the site plan square
footage that the County approved in that subsequent or previous year. The number of
square feet for 1997 is assumed to be the total for the end of calendar year 1997. The
number of square feet for 1996, then, was estimated by taking the 1997 figure and
subtracting from it the number of square feet of space that the County approved in
1997. The number of square feet for 1998, likewise, was calculated as equaling the 1997
figure plus the number of square feet that the County approved in 1998.
Attachment A
Table A-3
Average Daily Vehicle Trip Generation per 1,000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area
(By ITE Land
Use Code)
ITE
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Land Use
Trip
Trip
Trip
No. or Wt.
Code
Land Use Type -- Retail
Generation
Generation
Generation
Average
437
Bowling Alley
33.33
N/A
N/A
33.33
443
Movie Theater without Matinee
78.06
99.28
81.90
81.64
491
Racquet/Tennis Club
14.03
21.35
17.40
15.56
492
Health/Fitness Club
32.93
20.87
26.73
30.32
493
Athletic Club
43.00
38.46
36.77
41.46
630
Clinic
31.45
N/A
N/A
31.45
720
Medical -Dental Office Building
36.13
8.96
1.55
27.31
812
Building Materials and Lumber Store
45.16
51.60
24.50
43.13
813
Free -Standing Discount Superstore
49.21
57.50
46.98
50.08
814
Specialty Retail Center
44.32
42.04
20.43
40.58
815
Free -Standing Discount Store
56.02
71.19
54.90
58.03
816
Hardware/Paint Store
51.29
82.52
68.65
58.23
817
Nursery/Garden Center
36.08
72.71
58.46
44.51
818
Nursery/Wholesale
39.00
29.90
26.47
35.91
820
Shopping Center
42.94
42.97
25.24
40.42
823
Factory Outlet Center
26.59
40.97
26.16
28.58
841
New Car Sales
33.34
21.03
10.48
28.32
843
Automobile Parts Sales
61.91
N/A
N/A
61.91
848
Tire Store
24.87
N/A
N/A
24.87
849
Tire Superstore
20.36
19.03
N/A
20.14
850
Supermarket
102.24
177.59
166.44
122.18
851
Convenience Market (Open 24 Hrs.)
737.99
863.10
758.45
758.79
853
Convenience Market with Gas Pumps
845.60
1,448.33
1,182.08
979.77
854
Discount Supermarket
96.82
117.03
102.54
100.52
860
Wholesale Market
6.73
1.59
2.30
5.36
861
Discount Club
41.80
53.75
33.67
42.35
862
Home Improvement Superstore
29.80
45.67
N/A
32.45
863
Electronics Superstore
45.04
N/A
N/A
45.04
869
Discount Home Furnishing Superstore
47.81
70.01
N/A
51.51
870
Apparel Store
66.40
N/A
N/A
66.40
879
Arts and Crafts Store
56.55
N/A
N/A
56.55
880
Pharm./Drug. w/o Drive -Through Window
90.06
N/A
N/A
90.06
881
Pharm./Drug. w/ Drive -Through Window
88.16
N/A
N/A
88.16
890
Furniture Store
5.06
4.94
4.64
4.98
911
Walk-in Bank
156.48
13.70
8.33
114.92
912
Drive-in Bank
246.49
71.21
22.15
189.40
931
Quality Restaurant
89.95
94.36
72.16
88.04
932
High -Turnover (Sit -Down) Restaurant
127.15
158.37
131.84
132.28
933
Fast -Food Rest. w/o a Drive -Through Wind.
716.00
696.00
500.00
682.29
934
Fast -Food Rest. w/ a Drive -Through Wind.
496.12
722.03
542.72
535.05
Median 47.56
Attachment A
ITE
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Land Use
Trip
Trip
Trip
No. or Wt.
Code
Land Use Type -- Taxable Office
Generation
Generation
Generation
Average
710
General Office Building
11.01
2.37
0.98
8.34
714
Corporate Headquarters Building
7.98
N/A
N/A
7.98
715
Single Tenant Office Building
11.57
N/A
N/A
11.57
750
Office Park
11.42
1.64
0.76
8.50
760
Research and Development Center
8.11
1.90
1.11
6.22
770
Business Park
12.76
2.56
1.29
9.66
Median 8.42
ITE
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Land Use
Trip
Trip
Trip
No. or Wt.
Code
Land Use Type -- Industrial
Generation
Generation
Generation
Average
030
Truck Terminal
9.85
1.89
1.02
7.45
110
General Light Industrial
6.97
1.32
0.68
5.26
120
General Heavy Industrial
1.50
N/A
N/A
1.50
130
Industrial Park
6.96
2.49
0.73
5.43
140
Manufacturing
3.82
1.49
0.62
3.03
150
Warehousing
4.96
1.22
0.79
3.83
151
Mini -Warehouse
2.50
2.33
1.78
2.37
Median 3.43
ITE
Weekday
Saturday
Sunday
Weekday
Land Use
Trip
Trip
Trip
No. or Wt.
Code
Land Use Type -- Institutional
Generation
Generation
Generation
Average
520
Elementary School
14.49
N/A
N/A
14.49
522
Middle School/Junior High School
13.78
N/A
N/A
13.78
530
High School
12.89
4.37
1.79
10.09
540
Junior/Community College
27.49
11.23
1.21
21.41
560
Church
9.11
10.37
36.63
13.22
561
Synagogue
10.64
5.91
22.50
11.66
565
Day Care Center
79.26
6.21
5.83
58.33
590
Library
54.00
46.55
25.49
48.86
610
Hospital
17.57
11.37
10.34
15.65
620
Nursing Home
6.10
N/A
N/A
6.10
730
Government Office Building
68.93
N/A
N/A
68.93
731
State Motor Vehicles Department
166.02
9.46
6.74
120.90
732
U.S. Post Office
108.19
48.69
28.81
88.35
733
Government Office Complex
27.92
N/A
N/A
27.92
Median
18.53
Attachment A
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 7th Edition.
Table A-4 -- Albemarle County Debt -Financed Non -Transportation Infrastructure Costs
(Supporting Documentation for Table III)
Inflated Cost Estimates -- Local Government CIP/CNA Projects
Item
Courts Expansion
Northern Fire Station
Pantops Fire Station
Ivy Fire Station
Fire Apparatus
Crozet Ladder Truck
Fire/Police Range
COB -McIntire Renovations
Recreational Facilities
Southern Area Park
Crozet Community Park
Northern Park
Northside Library
29 North Library
Crozet Library
Southern Library
Central Library
Scottsville Library
Total Cost
$7,558,000
1,712,000
4,326,000
6,555,000
13,577,000
1,629,000
1,634,000
3,655,000
2,030,000
2,154,000
2,859,000
3,032,000
7,081,000
12,601,000
5,473,000
7,921,000
5,644,000
3,386,000
Total Loc. Govt. Costs $92,827,000
FY O6 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11
1,450,000 625,000 3,915,000 1,568,000
880,000 832,000
842,000 390,000 1,970,000 1,124,000
1,634,000 801,000 4,120,000
1,291,000 2,265,000 966,000 854,000 2,402,000 2,356,000
1,629,000
584,000 1,050,000
1,180,000 2,475,000
2,030,000
1,000,000
1,012,000 6,069,000
424,000 3,603,000 1,446,000
Attachment A
FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15
1,296,000 1,437,000 710,000
191,000 1,963,000
1,859,000
1,061,000 1,971,000
369,000 1,347,000 8,195,000 2,690,000
686,000 2,153,000 5,082,000
772,000 4,577,000 295,000
419,000 373,000 1,967,000 627,000
Attachment A
Table A-4 (Cont.)
Deflated Cost Estimates -- Local Government CIP/CNA Projects
Item Total Cost FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15
Courts Expansion
$6,441,331
0
1,380,952
0
543,478
3,262,500
1,254,400
0
0
0
0
Northern Fire Station
1,636,364
880,000
0
756,364
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pantops Fire Station
3,981,729
842,000
371,429
1,790,909
977,391
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ivy Fire Station
5,717,706
0
1,556,190
728,182
0
3,433,333
0
0
0
0
0
Fire Apparatus
11,431,484
1,291,000
2,157,143
878,182
742,609
2,001,667
1,884,800
0
960,000
1,026,429
489,655
Crozet Ladder Truck
1,303,200
0
0
0
0
0
1,303,200
0
0
0
0
Fire/Police Range
1,469,234
0
556,190
0
913,043
0
0
0
0
0
0
COB -McIntire Renovations
3,537,143
1,180,000
2,357,143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recreational Facilities
1,933,333
0
1,933,333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Southern Area Park
1,600,997
0
0
0
0
0
0
146,923
1,454,074
0
0
Crozet Community Park
2,356,765
0
0
0
869,565
0
1,487,200
0
0
0
0
Northern Park
2,308,800
0
0
0
0
0
848,800
0
1,460,000
0
0
Northside Library
6,197,391
0
0
920,000
5,277,391
0
0
0
0
0
0
29 North Library
9,323,153
0
0
0
0
0
295,200
1,036,154
6,070,370
1,921,429
0
Crozet Library
5,169,974
424,000
3,431,429
1,314,545
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Southern Library
5,550,833
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
508,148
1,537,857
3,504,828
Central Library
4,356,888
0
0
0
0
0
617,600
3,520,769
218,519
0
0
Scottsville Library
2,436,018
0
0
0
0
0
0
322,308
276,296
1,405,000
432,414
Total Loc. Govt. Deft. Costs $76,752,342
Inflated Cost Estimates -- Schools Division CIP/CNA Projects
Item
Elementary Site Land Acq.
Henley Addition/Renovation
Murray High School Renovations
Cale Addition
Elementary#17
ADA Structural Changes
Monticello High School Audit.
Monticello HS Aux. Gym.
WAHS Audit. Moveable Wall
Bldg. Svcs. Office/Warehouse
Additional High School Capacity
WAHS Window Replacement
Wide Area Network Upgrade
Schools Maint./Rept. -- Financed
Veh. Maim. Fac. - Emerg. Gen.
Jouett-Greer Site Reconfig.
Red Hill Elem. - Add./Renov.
Scottsville Add./Renovation
Gym. HVAC/Light Replacement
Greer Elem. School Renov.
Henley Aux. PE/Meeting Space
Elementary #18
Albemarle HS Add./Renovation
Additional Elem. Capacity
Total Schools Division Costs
Attachment A
Table A-4 (Cont.)
Total Cost
FY O6
FY 07
FY O8
FY 09
FY 10
FY 11
FY 12
FY 13 FY 14 FY 15
$2,025,000
25,000
2,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
149,000
149,000
2,863,000
2,863,000
15,600,000
950,000
14,000,000
650,000
145,000
50,000
15,000
20,000
20,000
40,000
5,531,000
800,000
4,731,000
11999,000
1,999,000
390,000
390,000
3,984,000
800,000
3,184,000
9,756,000
1,000,000
8,756,000
420,000
420,000
1,122,000
1,122,000
22,151,000
3,423,000
3,301,000
4,904,000
1,639,000
1,466,000
1,672,000
720,000
1,501,000 1,750,000 1,775,000
165,000
165,000
675,000
200,000
475,000
3,659,000
400,000
3,259,000
2,646,000
451,000
2,195,000
3,179,000
198,000
1,533,000
1,448,000
5,533,000
600,000
4,933,000
870,000
200,000
670,000
11500,000
1,500,000
10,263,000
700,000
9,563,000
4,800,000
300,000 4,500,000
$100,425,000
Attachment A
Table A-4 (Cont.)
Deflated Cost Estimates -- Schools Division CIP/CNA Projects
Item Total Cost FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15
Elementary Site Land Acq.
$1,620,833
0
0
0
0
20,833
1,600,000
0
0
0
0
Henley Addition/Renovation
1,000,000
1,000,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Murray High School Renovations
149,000
149,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cale Addition
2,726,667
0
2,726,667
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Elementary#17
12,010,712
0
0
0
0
0
760,000
10,769,231
481,481
0
0
ADA Structural Changes
133,192
50,000
14,286
18,182
17,391
33,333
0
0
0
0
0
Monticello High School Audit.
5,305,714
800,000
4,505,714
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Monticello HS Aux. Gym.
1,999,000
1,999,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WAHS Audit. Moveable Wall
371,429
0
371,429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cale Addition
3,495,968
0
0
727,273
2,768,696
0
0
0
0
0
0
Additional High School Capacity
7,255,157
0
0
0
0
0
0
769,231
6,485,926
0
0
WAHS Window Replacement
381,818
0
0
381,818
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Wide Area Network Upgrade
1,020,000
0
0
1,020,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Schools Maint./Rept.--Financed
19,193,031
3,423,000
3,143,810
4,458,182
1,425,217
1,221,667
1,337,600
553,846
1,111,852
1,250,000
1,267,857
Veh. Maint. Fac. -- Emerg. Gen.
165,000
165,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Jouett-Greer Site Reconfig.
652,381
200,000
452,381
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Red Hill Elem. -- Add./Renov.
3,063,659
0
0
0
347,826
2,715,833
0
0
0
0
0
Scottsville Add./Renovation
2,221,341
0
0
0
392,174
1,829,167
0
0
0
0
0
Gym. HVAC/Light Replacement
2,608,074
0
0
0
172,174
1,277,500
1,158,400
0
0
0
0
Greer Elem. School Renov.
4,446,400
0
0
0
0
500,000
3,946,400
0
0
0
0
Henley Aux PE/Meeting Space
702,667
0
0
0
0
166,667
536,000
0
0
0
0
Elementary#18
1,071,429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,071,429
Albemarle HS Add./Renovation
8,952,016
0
0
636,364
8,315,652
0
0
0
0
0
0
Additional Elem. Capacity
3,436,508
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222,222
3,214,286
0
Total Schools Div. Dell. Costs $83,981,995
Grand Total of Deflated Costs $160,734,337
Attachment A
Table A-4 (Cont.)
Note: Albemarle County assumes a non -compounded inflation rate of 5% per annum for CIP/CNA/Strategic Plan infrastructure costs. Deflated costs are in 2006 dollars.
Source: Derived from the Albemarle County FY 06/07 Adopted Budget, pp. 202 & 203, and Conversations with Brenda Neitz, Budget Analyst.
Attachment A
Table A-5
Assumed Twenty Year Annual Increase (%) in Albemarle
County Revenue Streams, per Dwelling Unit
$4,268.99 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
4.47% Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
SFD
20 Yr.
Wt. Avg.
Current $
% of
Assumed
Assumed
Amt. Per
Tot. Curr. $
Annual
Ann. Inc.
Dwell. Unit
Amt. Per DU
Revenue Stream
Increase
2.12%
$1,811.87
42.44%
Residential Real Property Tax
5.00%
0.82%
530.48
12.43%
Residential Personal Property Tax
6.58%
0.07%
129.75
3.04%
Cons. Utility Tax -- Residential
2.22%
0.00%
4.99
0.12%
Ut. Company Licenses
3.00%
(a)
0.04%
52.87
1.24%
Motor Vehicle Licenses
3.00%
(a)
0.01%
33.27
0.78%
Permits & Fees
1.78%
0.01%
8.37
0.20%
Fines & Forfeitures
3.00%
0.05%
26.19
0.61%
Charges for Services
8.86%
0.11%
165.19
3.87%
State Aid
2.74%
0.15%
105.69
2.48%
Categorical Aid -- Federal
5.96%
0.02%
9.55
0.22%
Hotel/Motel/Room Tax
7.30%
0.06%
26.87
0.63%
Delinquent RE/Penalties
9.04%
0.91%
1,288.79
30.19%
State Aid to Schools
3.00%
(a)
0.11%
75.12
1.76%
Meals Tax
6.46%
$4,268.99 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
4.47% Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
SFA/TH
20 Yr.
Wt. Avg.
Current $
% of
Assumed
Assumed
Amt. Per
Tot. Curr. $
Annual
Ann. Inc.
Dwell. Unit
Amt. Per DU
Revenue Stream
Increase
2.10%
$1,334.74
42.09%
Residential Real Property Tax
5.00%
0.95%
457.81
14.44%
Residential Personal Property Tax
6.58%
0.09%
129.75
4.09%
Cons. Utility Tax -- Residential
2.22%
0.00%
4.31
0.14%
Ut. Company Licenses
3.00%
(a)
0.04%
45.62
1.44%
Motor Vehicle Licenses
3.00%
(a)
0.02%
28.71
0.91%
Permits & Fees
1.78%
0.01%
7.22
0.23%
Fines & Forfeitures
3.00%
0.06%
22.60
0.71%
Charges for Services
8.86%
0.12%
142.56
4.50%
State Aid
2.74%
0.17%
91.21
2.88%
Categorical Aid -- Federal
5.96%
0.02%
8.24
0.26%
Hotel/Motel/Room Tax
7.30%
0.07%
23.19
0.73%
Delinquent RE/Penalties
9.04%
0.77%
810.24
25.55%
State Aid to Schools
3.00%
(a)
Attachment A
Table A-5 (Cont.)
$3,171.04 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
4.56% Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
SFA/TH
20 Yr.
Wt. Avg.
Current $
% of
Assumed
Assumed
Amt. Per
Tot. Curr. $
Annual
Ann. Inc.
Dwell. Unit
Amt. Per DU Revenue Stream
Increase
0.13%
64.83
2.04% Meals Tax
6.46%
$3,171.04 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
4.56% Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
$2,415.74 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
4.52% Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
MF
20 Yr.
Wt. Avg.
Wt. Avg.
Current $
% of
Assumed
Assumed
Amt. Per
Assumed
Amt. Per
Tot. Curr. $
Ann. Inc.
Annual
Amt. Per DU
Ann. Inc.
Dwell. Unit
Amt. Per DU
Revenue Stream
Increase
Residential Real Property Tax
1.80%
$869.70
36.00%
Residential Real Property Tax
5.00%
6.58%
1.08%
394.83
16.34%
Residential Personal Property Tax
6.58%
0.01%
0.12%
129.75
5.37%
Cons. Utility Tax -- Residential
2.22%
52.87
0.00%
3.72
0.15%
Ut. Company Licenses
3.00%
(a)
0.05%
39.35
1.63%
Motor Vehicle Licenses
3.00%
(a)
0.02%
24.76
1.02%
Permits & Fees
1.78%
0.01%
6.23
0.26%
Fines & Forfeitures
3.00%
0.07%
19.49
0.81%
Charges for Services
8.86%
0.14%
122.95
5.09%
State Aid
2.74%
0.19%
78.66
3.26%
Categorical Aid -- Federal
5.96%
0.02%
7.11
0.29%
Hotel/Motel/Room Tax
7.30%
0.07%
20.00
0.83%
Delinquent RE/Penalties
9.04%
0.80%
643.28
26.63%
State Aid to Schools
3.00%
(a)
0.15%
55.91
2.31%
Meals Tax
6.46%
$2,415.74 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
4.52% Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
MH
20 Yr.
Wt. Avg.
Current $
% of
Assumed
Assumed
Amt. Per
Tot. Curr. $
Annual
Ann. Inc.
Dwell. Unit
Amt. Per DU
Revenue Stream
Increase
0.94%
$561.68
18.79%
Residential Real Property Tax
5.00%
1.17%
530.48
17.75%
Residential Personal Property Tax
6.58%
0.10%
129.75
4.34%
Cons. Utility Tax -- Residential
2.22%
0.01%
4.99
0.17%
Ut. Company Licenses
3.00% (a)
0.05%
52.87
1.77%
Motor Vehicle Licenses
3.00% (a)
Attachment A
Table A-5 (Cont.)
$2,989.12 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
4.26% Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
Notes: Twenty year assumed annual rates of increase are extrapolated from available projections for
the County's current five year financial forecast.
(a) No projection exists for growth in this revenue stream in the current financial forecasting model;
the author of this table assumes that the revenue per dwelling unit will increase with his expected
annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI -U).
Source: Non -footnoted items are derived from e-mail correspondance with Laura Vinzant, Senior
Budget Analyst, Febrary 16, 2007.
MH
20 Yr.
Wt. Avg.
Current $
% of
Assumed
Assumed
Amt. Per
Tot. Curr. $
Annual
Ann. Inc.
Dwell. Unit
Amt. Per DU
Revenue Stream
Increase
0.02%
33.27
1.11%
Permits & Fees
1.78%
0.01%
8.37
0.28%
Fines & Forfeitures
3.00%
0.08%
26.19
0.88%
Charges for Services
8.86%
0.15%
165.19
5.53%
State Aid
2.74%
0.21%
105.69
3.54%
Categorical Aid -- Federal
5.96%
0.02%
9.55
0.32%
Hotel/Motel/Room Tax
7.30%
0.08%
26.87
0.90%
Delinquent RE/Penalties
9.04%
1.26%
1,259.10
42.12%
State Aid to Schools
3.00% (a)
0.16%
75.12
2.51%
Meals Tax
6.46%
$2,989.12 Total Current Rev. $ Amount per DU
4.26% Total Weighted Assumed Ann. Rate of Growth
Notes: Twenty year assumed annual rates of increase are extrapolated from available projections for
the County's current five year financial forecast.
(a) No projection exists for growth in this revenue stream in the current financial forecasting model;
the author of this table assumes that the revenue per dwelling unit will increase with his expected
annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI -U).
Source: Non -footnoted items are derived from e-mail correspondance with Laura Vinzant, Senior
Budget Analyst, Febrary 16, 2007.