Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-06-20 BOARD PF SUPERVISORS TE NTATIVE JlJ NE 20, 2007 1 :00 P.M., ~E AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Closed Session. 3. Certify Closed Session. 4. 2:00 p.m. - Consent Agenda: 4.1 FY 2008 Strategic Initiative Adjustment lor New Positions in the Department of Social Services. 5. 2:05 p.m. - Discussion: Culpeper County, Requ ~st to join the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center. 6. 2:15 p.m. - Work Session: Proffer Policy. 7. 3:30 p.m. - Adjourn. I I ACTIONS Board of Supervi ors Meeting of June 20, 2007 June 26, 2007 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT 1 . Call to Order. . Meeting was called to order at 1 :06 p m. by the Chairman, Mr. Boyd. All BOS membE rs were present. Also present were Bob Tuc~ er, Larry Davis, and MeaQan Hoy. 2. Closed Session. . At 1 :06 p.m., the Board went into clos ~d session to conduct an administrative valuation, and to consult with legal counsel and ~taff regarding specific matters requiring IE ~al advice relatinQ to two inter-jurisdictional aQre ements. 3. Certify Closed Session. . At 2:24 p.m., the Board reconvened ir to open session and certified the closed sessi ~n. 4.1 FY 2008 Strategic Initiative Adjustment fo New Positions in the Department of Social Ser ices. . APPROVED the request of the Dep I3rtment of Clerk: Social Services to hire a child wel jare social worker instead of a child welfare su pervisor in FY 2008. 5. Discussion: Culpeper County, Request tc join the Attachment 1 Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Center. . ADOPTED the attached resolution. Clerk: 6. Work Session: Proffer Policy. Attachment 2 . ADOPTED the attached resolution c intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to i clude the Clerk: Cash Proffer Policy. 7. Adjourn. /mrh Attachment 1 - Resolution to amend and reado pt the service agreement for the Blue Ridge Juvenile I Detention Commission to accep and include the County of Culpeper as a member jurisdiction. Attachment 2 - Proffer Policy Resolution of Inte I1t 1 ATTACHMENT 1 A ESOLUTION TO AMEND AND READO T THE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR THE BLUE RIDGE JUV NILE DETENTION COMMISSION TO ACCEPT AND INCLU E THE COUNTY OF CULPEPER AS A MEMB R JURISDICTION WHEREAS, the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvan a and Greene and the City of Charlottesville (the Original Member Jurisdictions have previously created t e Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention Commission("BRJDC" or the "Commission) and adopted an agreemen dated July 1, 1999 (the "Service Agreement") that established their respective rights and obligatio s regarding the juvenile detention center financed, constructed and operated by BRJDC; and WHEREAS, the County of Culpeper wishes to ecome a Member Jurisdiction of BRJDC, by agreeing to make certain initial payments, and by adopting e Service Agreement and agreeing to be bound by its terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the Original Member Jurisdictions ish to amend the Service Agreement to accept and include the County of Culpeper as a Member Ju isdiction of BRJDC, to indicate the terms and conditions under which that will occur, and to make other c anges made necessary by Culpeper's membership; and WHEREAS, the Commission has recommende approval of Culpeper's membership by the Original Member Jurisdictions and concurs with the ame dments to the Service Agreement; now, therefore be it Resolved by the Blue Ridge Juvenile Detenti n Commission, the Boards of Supervisors of Albemarle, Fluvanna and Greene Counties a d the Council of the City of Charlottesville that: I. The Service Agreement is amended byaddin the following section: Section 2.4 Addition of Cui e er as Membe The County of Culpeper shall become a participating Member Jurisdiction, effective July 1, 2007, or t e earliest date thereafter that the Commission, the governing bodies of the Original Member Jurisdi tions and the Board of Supervisors of Culpeper County all have approved the Service Agreement, as amended to include Culpeper County. Culpeper's continued embership shall be contingent upon the occurrence of all of the following: (a) Approval by the holder of BRJDC's utstanding bonds of the change in Commission membership, as required by the ap licable bond documents, which approval the Commission agrees diligently to pursue. (b) Payment by Culpeper County to BR DC of a one-time, non-refundable "buy-in" amount of Five Hundred Thirty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred Two Dollars ($534,702.00). Four Hundred Twenty Six Thousand Six undred Ninety Six Dollars ($426,696.00) of such amount shall be paid not later than thirty da s after approval of the amended Service Agreement by the Commission and all of the Mem er Jurisdictions. The remaining One Hundred Eight Thousand Six Dollars ($108,006.00 shall be paid not later than two years after such approval date, with interest at five percent (5 0) per annum calculated on the unpaid balance to the date of payment.. The Commission hall establish a separate fund for future expansion and renovation of the detention facility a d shall deposit such payments from Culpeper in that fund, to be held and invested along ith any additional amounts the Commission may identify for such purposes. (c) Reimbursement by Culpeper Count of expenses for professional services incurred by BRJDC in connection with the additi n of Culpeper as a Member Jurisdiction, not to exceed Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000. 0). 2 II. The following Sections of the Service Agree ent are amended and readopted as shown. Section 3.10 Ma'orit Re uired for Com ission Decisions. All actions of the Commission may be taken by a majority of all members' vote , however, that the members representing Albemarle and Charlottesville, or their alternates voting in t e absence of their principal members, shall each have an additional vote. If there is a tie after the asting of such additional votes, the subject motion or proposal shall fail. Section 9.2 Notices. Any notice or other ommunication under or in connection with this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be ffective when delivered in person or sent in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the followi g persons or addresses or to such other persons and addresses as any of such persons may fro time to time specify in writing. ****** If to Culpeper County: County Administrator County of Culpeper 302 N. Main Street Culpeper, VA 22701 III. All other provisions of the Service Agreeme shall remain in force without change. After approval of the foregoing amendments, the Commission an each of the Member Jurisdictions authorizes its chief administrative official to execute a new copy of he Service Agreement incorporating the amendments. 1. The Board approves and agrees to be ound by the Service Agreement, including the foregoing amendments, and authorizes its Count Administrator to execute it on behalf of the County. 2. The Board agrees to appropriate suffici nt funds to make the "buy-in" payment and expense reimbursement set forth in Section 2.4 f the amended Service Agreement. 3. In accordance with the appointments m de by the other Member Jurisdictions, the Board appoints Frank T. Bossio, County Admi istrator, as its member of the Commission, and , as alternate mem er, for terms concurrent with their employment by the And be it Resolved by the Board of Supervi rs of Culpeper County that: County. 3 RESOL TION OF INTENT ATTACHMENT 2 WHEREAS, the Board directed the Co nty's Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) to analyze the fiscal impacts of development on the Count's public facilities and infrastructure and make recommendations as to the appropriate cash pr ffers to offset these impacts; and WHEREAS, the Board accepted the ca h proffer methodology recommended by the FIAC to calculate the impacts of residential developmen resulting from rezonings on May 2,2007 on a per dwelling unit basis; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus of th Board at its work session on May 9, 2007 that, with the exception of affordable housing, there is an exp ctation that all new rezonings that include residential development will pay for the equivalent of their ull impact as determined by the cash proffer methodology and as implemented pursuant to a cash proffer olicy; and WHEREAS, such a policy can best be i plemented through amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVE THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good planning practices, th Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle C unty Comprehensive Plan as deemed necessary in order to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT th Albemarle County Planning Commission shall expeditiously hold a public hearing on the Com rehensive Plan amendment proposed by this resolution of intent and forward its recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. 4 COUNTY F ALBEMARLE EXECU IVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2008 Strategic Initiative Adjustment for New Positions in the Department of Social Services SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to approve Child Welfare Social Worker position instead of Child Welfare Supervisor position STAFF CONTACnS): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis; Ms. Ralston LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: June 20, 2007 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No ---- REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Department of Social Services requested eight Str tegic Initiatives for consideration during the FY 2008 Budget process. While the request for these additional positions as ranked very high by OMB and the Leadership Council, not all of them could be funded. At the request of the County Ex cutive's Office, the Department re-prioritized the requests over a two year budget cycle (FY 2008 and FY 2009) based on k own retirements, the timing of hiring processes and anticipated vacancies. The top priorities for FY 2008 included a child elfare supervisor which was one of two positions funded by the Board in its adopted budget. The request for a child welfa e social worker was delayed for reconsideration in the FY 2009 budget cycle. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens DSS Strategic Plan Goal 1: To develop and implement s rategies focused on prevention and early intervention DISCUSSION: After evaluating additional information regarding FY 2009 budget projections and changing workload and priorities within the department, the Department of Social Services belie es its needs can be better served at this time by hiring a child welfare social worker rather than a child welfare supervis r. Therefore, the Department is requesting that it be allowed to hire a child welfare social worker instead of hiring a child welfare supervisor in FY 2008. BUDGET IMPACT: The amount of funding needed for the child welfare social worker position in FY 2008 is approximately $17,000 less than that needed for the approved child welfare supervisor posi ion. The local dollar reduction would be approximately $14,314. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the request of he Department of Social Services to hire a child welfare social worker instead of a child welfare supervisor in FY 2008. COUNTY F ALBEMARLE EXECU IVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Cash Proffer Policy AGENDA DATE: June 20, 2007 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Worksession to establish criteria for a cash proffer policy CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: ~ ( STAFF CONTACnS): Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg ATTACHMENTS: Yes LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: This worksession is to provide the Board an opportuni y to review a draft sh proffer policy and advise staff on any changes desired with the policy. On May 2, 2007, th Board reviewed the report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) and directed staff to begin work on de elopment of a cash proffer policy using this work. (Attachment A) On May 9,2007, the Board reviewed a list of possible is ues to consider with a cash proffer policy and possible adoption processes. After reviewing this information, staff was dir cted to finalize a policy for consideration as quickly as possible and to schedule a June work session to finalize policy is ues. (Attachment B) STRATEGIC PLAN: Fund the Future -Develop a comprehensive funding str tegy/plan to address the County's growing needs DISCUSSION: Staff has used the Chesterfield County proffer policy as format to create a draft cash proffer policy. (Attachment C) In developing this draft, staff has focused on FIAC's report, ecognizing the anticipated policy is limited to addressing specific capital improvements (roads, schools, libraries, parks an public safety) and was not intended to address other benefits or impacts of a development proposal. As such, staff belie es a fundamental principle of the cash proffer policy should be addressing those specific impacts and recognizing other impacts or benefits would be considered on a project by project basis outside of the cash proffer policy. In considering thi draft policy, staff has divided the issues into three policy areas: issues agreed upon at the May 9th discussion, consider tion of credits, and a methodology for calculation with credits. Issues Agreed Upon Staff believes the Board agreed to the following at the M y 9th discussion: · The olic should a I to all residential units in a develo ment exce t for affordable housin units. Staff recommends the affordable housing units ex uded from this policy be limited to the units fitting within the County's definition of affordable housing. · The olic should allow for credits for both land nd ublic infrastructure im rovements be ond those otherwise required under County ordinances. This would nclude land and improvements as specified by master plans or the CIP, but also consider other land and improv ments found necessary to address the impacts of the proposed development. Staff recommends land and impr vements beyond those listed in the CIP or master plans only be considered when it is found the project create an immediate need which is better addressed by the land or improvements than by receiving the cash equiv lent. · The olic should allow credits for 0 erational ex enses e. . transit. Staff recommends this credit be limited to operational expenses where it is shown that the roffer would reduce the infrastructure demands covered by the cash proffer policy. For example, transit that Iiminates the need for planned road improvements could be considered an appropriate credit. In that case, he credit would be an amount comparable to the reduction in infrastructure costs. Cash Proffer Policy Credits Staff recommends the cash proffer policy focus on addre sing the impacts listed in FIAC's report and all other impacts or benefits with a proposed development be considered out ide of the cash proffer policy on a project by project basis. As AGENDA TITLE: Cash Proffer Policy June 20, 2007 Page 2 noted above, FIAC addressed five specific public facilitie and did not delve into issues related to operational expenses or other development benefits. Thus, while consideration f other impacts and benefits is still appropriate with a rezoning, staff recommends that the cash proffer policy allow credi s only for land or improvements related to the five specific public facilities. If the County allowed credits for other impact and benefits, the impacts to these public facilities would not be adequately addressed. Under this policy, staff would I mit consideration of proffer credits to land and improvements specifically described in the CIP and master plans or tha otherwise eliminate the need for those land and improvements. While applicants might desire credit for other proffers, st ff recommends that it be considered outside of the cash proffer policy, recognizing consistency with a cash proffer poli y would be only one part of the Board's consideration of any rezoning. Beyond the issue of when land and improvements are c nsidered appropriate for credit with the cash proffer policy, staff noted the following concerns: No increase or small increase in density. Rezoning appl cations occasionally seek the advantage of the design flexibility allowed in the Neighborhood Model zoning district, rathe than to rezone to increase density, or simply seek to amend past approvals with no increase in density. Staff recommends the Board limit this credit to development where there is a minimal increase in density and, in those cases, allow staff to us the estimated density increase resulting from a rezoning as the appropriate units for the cash proffer policy. Small / Infill Development. The cash proffer policy can cr ate a challenge for small, infill types of development. While the County's Comprehensive Plan encourages better utilizat on of the Development Areas, the challenging economics of the typical small project and the cash proffer policy could fu her hinder that type of development. For example, if a rezoning application was to rezone a lot with an existing house to 1I0w three lots, only two new lots are being created, but the cash proffer policy would be applied to three lots. Staff reco mends the cash proffer policy should not be applied to existing dwellings that will remain. Priority Areas. By Board policy, there is recognition that he CIP will focus on priority areas established with master plans and proposed rezonings outside of those priority area could require significant improvements that are not currently planned for funding. Staff recommends the Board keep consideration of priority areas outside of the cash proffer policy and weigh the additional impacts of projects outside of riority areas on a project by project basis. Calculation of Credits Following the example of Chesterfield County and othe s, staff recommends the credit for improvements be based on staff's estimate of what it would cost the County to cons ruct the improvements, and the credit for land be based on the assessed value of the land being contributed. In those ases where the applicant believes the improvement cost to be significantly higher than staff's estimate, staff would atte pt to resolve the differences with the applicant. If staff and the applicant failed to reach resolution, the Board would the consider both estimates and decide how to proceed. BUDGET IMPACT: This policy is intended to offset the infrastructure needs created by new residential development. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Staff recommends the Board adopt the att hed resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the Cash Proffer Policy. 2. Staff recommends the Board review the dr ft Cash Proffer Policy and note any changes or additions that should be made to the policy before it is adv rtised for public hearing as a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 3. Staff recommends the Board advise the Pia ning Commission to expeditiously forward the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Board, noting any 0 tstanding issues as well as a recommendation. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Proffer Re ort from the Fiscal 1m act A visor Committee Attachment B - Memo on Cash Proffer Issues, Board R Attachment C - Draft Cash Proffer Policy Attachment D - Resolution of Intent Attachment A COUNTY F ALBEMARLE EXECU IVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Proffers Report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2007 ACTION: X INFORMATION: SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approve Proffers Methodology and Dollar Amounts CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, S. Allshouse ATTACHMENTS: Yes LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has expressed a desire to est blish a proffer policy that would allow developers to address the impacts associated with new development and that woul provide clear guidance to the development community about the monetary value of proffers, per dwelling unit, by type of welling unit, that the County would consider reasonable. The County's Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee was charged with deriving a methodology for estimating the gross proffer dollar .mounts that the County could expect per Si gle Family Detached (SFD) residence, Single Family ttached/Townhouse/Condominium (SFAlTH) unit, Multfamily/Apartment (MF) dwelling, and Mobile Home (MH). As part of its preliminary work, the Committee surve ed proffer models from several Virginia counties, including Chesterfield, Greene, Hanover, Loudoun, Prince Willia ,Spotsylvania, and Stafford. The Committee determined that these localities expect proffers to cover development-rei ted capital costs only, as opposed to development-related capital and operating costs. The Committee learned, also, tha the capital categories typically covered in the counties' proffer models included transportation, schools, and parks/rec eation/open space, and public safety. The Albemarle County Attorney, and outside experts who met with the Committ e, noted that a viable proffers model for Albemarle should include estimates pertaining only to capital costs. The distinctio between capital and operating expenditures is important since the County's current Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRI ) includes estimates of operating costs along with estimates of debt service on capital costs in calculating the net fiscal i pact of development. This situation suggests that CRIM, in its present form, would not be suitable as a proffers calcul ion model for Albemarle. With this background information in mind, the Committ e labored to establish a methodology that would estimate the capital costs that the various types of dwelling units typi ally 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 metho ology behind Chesterfield's model appeared reasonable and this jurisdiction's proffers regime has survived at least one I gal challenge. At the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee's February 22, 007 meeting the Committee adopted a methodology to estimate the proffer dollar amount per dwelling unit, by type of dwe ling unit. This adopted methodology followed substantially from the Chesterfield proffer calculation model. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal Five - Fund the County's Future Needs ISCUSSION: he attached memorandum outlines the methodology t at the Committee adopted, and discusses in detail the proffer amounts, per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, that this methodology currently would render. The basic methodological approach that the Committee adopted in Ives five steps: (1) the calculation of the County's total budgeted AGENDA ITEM: Proffers Report from the Fiscal Impact Advisory Comm ttee May 2, 2007 .age 2 transportation capital costs; (2) the translation of these otal transportation costs into costs per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit; (3) the calculation of the County's total bud eted non-transporlation capital costs; (4) the translation of these total non-transporlation costs into costs per dwelling uni , by type of dwelling unit; and (5) the estimation of the revenues, per dwelling unit, by type of dwelling unit, that would hel offset the capital costs that were estimated in (2) and (4). The resulting net cost figures for each category of dwelling u it represent the cash, or dollar value of the in-kind contribution, that the County would expect the developer to proffer pe unit to address the impacts of the proposed development. These dollar amounts are derived, in part, by assuming a debt ervice level of 10%. The dollar figures per dwelling unit are as follows: SFD -- $14,241; SFAlTH -- $9,441; MF -- $11,435; and MH -- $17,717. Please note that these numbers could be included in a p ffer policy but, by themselves, these numbers do not represent a proffer policy. A cash proffer policy establishes the gui elines for determining the maximum reasonable per-unit cash proffer that would address the impacts resulting from a p rticular rezoning. The policy must be grounded in, and consistent with, the Comprehensive Plan; is typically adopted as an mendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and must be compliant with the state enabling authority. The policy sets forth th assumptions and methodology for computing the cash proffer contributions, and declares the types of rezonings that w uld be subject to the policy. Proffers typically are applicable only to residential uses, but could be applied to commercial a d industrial uses as well. The policy delineates the impacts that would be addressed by the cash proffer (e.g., capital i provements such as roads, schools, libraries, parks and fire .tations, but not operational costs, since the theory is tha taxes and fees will pay for such costs). The policy, additionally, rovides guidelines about (1) circumstances that would r duce or exempt the per-unit cash proffer (e.g., affordable housing units, development of exceptional design, or units al owed by-right under the pre-existing zoning); (2) off-setting contributions by the owner (e.g., the dedication of land or constructing in-kind improvements); (3) how the value of the off- sets are determined; and (4) unique circumstances that itigate the project's impact on public facilities (e.g., age-restricted housing projects that would have little or no impact on s hools). Other issues that should be addressed by the policy inclu e the procedure for evaluating proffers (e.g., the role of staff and the Planning Commission), how often the policy is up ated with a new fiscal analysis, and how the policy or future amendments will be applied to pending applications. In dition, the policy will need to address cash proffers for affordable housing that occur when a developer volunteers to proffe cash in lieu of providing affordable units that are consistent with the affordable housing policy in the Comprehensive Plan Addressing additional impacts with cash proffers may become legally more defensible if the County adopts new proffer authority available to it effective July 1 st. BUDGET IMPACT: The adoption of the attached proffers methodology and n mbers, along with the adoption of a formal proffer policy, would generate substantial amounts of new revenue that would elp the County mitigate the fiscal impacts of new development. The total amount of revenue that the County could expec , in any given year, from the proffers numbers listed above would depend upon several factors, including the volume of ne construction in the County in that year, and the way in which the County's formal proffer policy would apply the per-unit d liar figures to specific residential developments. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt t e proffers methodology and the resulting proffer values that are contained in the attached memorandum and direct staff 0 begin the process of developing a complete proffer policy. De Attachment B ment To: Bob Tucker, County Executive Tom Foley, Asst. County Executive Mark Graham, Director of Commu ity Development From: Date: 06 May 2007 Subject: Proffer Policy In response what staff heard at the May 2nd Board eeting, we have attempted to list the questions that would need to be addressed with a proffer policy. Please ecognize this is an attempt to very quickly compile a list of issues and we cannot claim this is an exhaustive lis. With more time and careful analysis, it is possible other issues important to this policy could be discovered. We have attached a list of those identified policy issues. Next, we heard an interest in an accelerated proces with the goal of completing this policy as quickly as possible and an interest in assuring various interest groups a e given the opportunity for meaningful participation in the process. Recognizing those goals can conflict, we ave attached two drafts of possible schedules for consideration. Based on the advice of the County orney, both schedules assume this policy should be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Neithe schedule should be considered a "take it or leave it", but simply provide the Board some ideas as to how the rocess could be arranged. · The first schedule simply looks at how qui kly could the County incorporate a proffer policy into the Comprehensive Plan without consideration for anything beyond the need for the Board to advise staff on policy issues and the legal requirements wi h an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This process would rely on staff to very quickly complet an analysis and draft the language. This would require several key staff to put aside current work n other initiatives and make this policy their primary focus for the next several months. Additionally, pub ic input would be limited to the public hearings, after the policy has been drafted. This also anticipa es both the Board and Planning Commission would quickly resolve any issues without deferring a reco endation or decision. Staff notes that public participation is minimal in this process, which combine with the quick turnaround, increases the likelihood of issues being discovered after the fact. · The second schedule proposes a process were we take a little more time on the front end for analysis, the public has an opportunity to participate before the policy language is proposed, and both the Planning Commission and Board would have more t me for deliberations. While this process is not the "drop everything" described above, it does assum this will be a priority effort and that will require some reprioritization of staff s work program. ose impacts are being evaluated with the presumption that work Board's Strategic Plan (e.g. master pI ns, Rural Areas implementation) should remain on schedule, but all other items would be considered a I wer priority than the proffer policy. Cc: Larry Davis, County Attorney Wayne Cilimberg, Community Developme t Attachment I: Policy issues to consider Attachment 2: Policy schedules Attachment 1 Policy ssues to Consider 1. Is there an expectation that all new re-zoni gs will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as determined by the cash proffer calculation ? Put another way, is it the Board's policy t expect that all new development will pay its own way to the extent possible under the law? (Also, see 3 and #4 below) 2. Is there a size of development below whic the policy will not apply? For example, would this policy be applied 0 an in-fill project which divides one lot into two? 3. Does the policy apply to the total develop ent proposed in the re-zonings or only the additional development above what is by-right? For example, Belvedere was over 800 unit but had the same density possible without rezoning the property. What if the rezoning only adds 10% to the by-right density? Not providing a credit for the by- right could create a disincentive for rezoni g to a better form, but all of the units create a demand for infrastructure. 4. Are dwelling units that meet the County's efinition of "affordable" exempt from the policy and the value of affordable housing provided excl sive of the cash proffer amount? Each affordable unit creates a demand for' frastructure, but the cash proffer amount can increase the difficulty of providing this affordable unit. 5. Should "credits" against the calculated cas amount be provided for: · Affordable units in excess of the Coun ' s policy (currently l5%)? · Proffers for land/facilities on the devel pment site that are called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site in the dev lopment) · Proffers for land/facilities off of the de elopment site that are called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site n another piece of property) · Proffers for services or other recomme dations in the Comp Plan not otherwise anticipated in the CIP (e.g. transit)? · Comprehensive Plan consistency (e.g. onsideration of projects in a designated priority area)? · Other design issues (e.g. LEED certifi d structures, public space in developments)? · Conservation Easements that capture evelopment Rights? (For each of the above that are anticipated s quantifiable credits, staff will need to prepare a methodology for the Board's consideration) 6. Which of the following are considered non credit conditions: · Proffers for land/facilities that are not aIled for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. parkland not in CIP) · Impacts occasioned by the developmen and not included in the cash proffer calculations? (e.g. road improvements beyond the CIP and Co p Plan which are necessitated by this development) 7. How should inflation factors be addressed i the proffer policy? (e.g. indexed from approval dates)? Cou De artment of Attachment B ment Board of Supervisors' Response to Cash roffer Policy Questions Posed at May 9, 2007 Work Session 1. Is there an expectation that all new re-zoni gs will pay for the equivalent of their full impact as determined by the cash proffer calculation ? Put another way, is it the Board's policy to expect that all new development will pay its own way to the extent possible under the law? (Also, see 3 and #4 below) It was the consensus of the Board that, w th the exception of affordable housing, this is the expectation. The Board advised staff to e the four different per unit rates accepted as part of the Board's May 2, 2007 action on the cash roffer methodology recommended by the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee to calculate the imp t of re-zonings. When the number of unit types is not specified in a re-zoning, the Board advise staff to use the Single Family Detached rate for the total number of dwelling units. 2. Is there a size of development below whic the policy will not apply? For example, would this policy be applied 0 an in-fill project which divides one lot into two? The Board decided to consider this furthe at its next work session. 3. Does the policy apply to the total develop ent proposed in the re-zonings or only the additional development above what is by-right? For example, Belvedere was over 800 unit but had the same density possible without rezoning the property. What if the rezoning only adds 1 % to the by-right density? Not providing a credit for the by- right could create a disincentive for rezoni g to a better form, but all of the units create a demand for infrastructure. The Board decided to consider this furthe at its next work session. 4. Are dwelling units that meet the County's efinition of "affordable" exempt from the policy and the value of affordable housing provided exclu ive of the cash proffer amount? Each affordable unit creates a demand for i frastructure, but the cash proffer amount can increase the difficulty of providing this affordable unit. It was the consensus of the Board that su units will be exempt. 5. Should "credits" against the calculated cas amount be provided for: · Affordable units in excess of the Coun 's policy (currently 15%)? It was the consensus of the Board to allow such a credit. · Proffers for land/facilities on the devel ment site that are called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site in the deve opment) It was the consensus of the Board to allow such a credit. · Proffers for land/facilities off of the de elopment site that are called for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. school site n another piece of property) It was the consensus of the Board to allow such a credit. · Proffers for services or other recommendations in the Comp Plan not otherwise anticipated in the CIP (ex. transit)? It was the consensus of he Board to allow such a credit. · Comprehensive Plan consistency (e.g. bonsideration of projects in a designated priority area)? The Board decided to consider this furthe at its next work session. · Other design issues (e.g. LEED certifi d structures, public space in developments)? The Board decided to consider this further at its !text work session. · Conservation Easements capture Deve opment Rights? The Board decided to consider this further at its next work session. (For each of the above that are anticipated lis quantifiable credits, staff will need to prepare a methodology for the Board's consideration.) 6. Which of the following are considered non credit conditions: · Proffers for land/facilities that are not aIled for in the Comp Plan or identified in the CIP? (e.g. parkland not in CIP) It was the conse IJsus of the Board to allow such a credit on a case-by-case basis. · Impacts occasioned by the developmer t and not included in the cash proffer calculations? (e.g. road improvements beyond the CIP and Co Inp Plan which are necessitated by this development) It was the consensus of the Board to allow s Itch a credit on a case-by-case basis. 7. How should inflation factors be addressed n the proffer policy? (e.g. indexed from approval dates) It was the consensus of the Board that infla ion factors should be included with proffers for cash. The Board advised that a standard index such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI) or Marshall and Swift be used, but that they would refine this fu'rfher at their next work session. · It was also the consensus of the Board thl t County assessed values be used to determine the value of proffered land and that costs to the Co un Iv be used to determine the value of proffered improvements. · The Board asked that the Planning Com,,'r1ission be invited to the next work session once it is scheduled. Attachment C ALBEMA COUNTY, VIRGINIA CASH PROFFER PO ICY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES A. General Guidelines 1. It is the policy of the County that the ower of property that is rezoned for residential use shall provide cash proffers equivalent to the val of the public facilities deemed necessary to serve the proposed development on the property. 2. Pursuant to this policy, staff will (i) calc late the annual net cost of public facilities, (ii) calculate the fiscal impact of a rezoning re est that permits residential uses and (iii) administer the collection and expenditure of proffered unds. The Board will accept cash proffers for rezoning requests that permit residential uses in acco dance with this policy. However, the Board may also accept cash, land or in- kind improvements in accordance with county and state law. 3. This cash proffer policy must meet a "re sonableness" test, which requires the Board to determine for each rezoning whether the ount proffered is related both in nature and extent to the projected impacts ofthe proposed devel pment on public facilities. Through this policy, staff will be able to recommend a maximum pro fer in each case that meets this test of reasonableness. 4. Staff determines the cost of public facilit es generated by new growth by relying on the assumption that any revenue derived from owth (residential and commercial real estate taxes, sales taxes, fees, etc.) will pay the normal 0 erating costs for services to residents of new developments and a percentage ofthe Coun y's Capital Improvements Program (CIP). State and County laws permit the Board to accept cas proffers to fund the public facility needs generated by any new residential development. 5. In determining the net cost per dwelling nit of a public facility, staff relies on countywide averages, where possible. In addition, staff ill consider the five components described in section (B)(l) below, as well as any other unique ci cumstances of which staffis aware, related to an individual zoning case. 6. To determine how and where a cash prof er contribution will be spent, the County is divided into geographic or service districts. For faci ities which have a countywide service district, (parks, libraries and public safety), the proffer may be spent countywide. 7. The following public facilities will be fu ded by cash proffers: schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety. The County doe not currently calculate a proffer value to fund public facilities such as water and sewer improve ents, jails, landfills and other government facilities. 8. A development proposal's impact on pub ic facilities will be evaluated based on the gross number of proposed dwelling units. When c lculating the gross number of dwelling units, staff will: a.) use the upper end ofthe density range al wed by the rezoning; and b.) not give credits for those dwelling units ermitted under existing conditions of zoning or agricultural lots, and will not consider the tr sferring of allowable units from other properties. The Board may consider development prop sals that include substantial upgrades to current design/development standards and ordinanc requirements as justification for accepting reduced cash proffer payments for the pre-existing 1 t yield. Pre-existing lot yields will be calculated using DRAFT: June 18,2007 Page 1 of3 average actual recorded lot yields provided the applicant has not otherwise submitted documentation indicating higher lot yields n conformance with existing ordinances and reflective of site specific physical features. 9. A development proposal's fiscal impact n public facilities shall be established under the cash proffer policy in effect on the date of the la t public hearing prior to the Board of Supervisors' decision on the rezoning. B. Methodology and Policy Terms 1. There are five "components" involved in calculating what a new dwelling unit will cost the County in terms of providing public faciliti s. The components are as follows: a. Demand generators - Staff uses the avera e for single family detached (SFD), Single Family Attached / Townhouse/Condominium (SF TH) and Multi-Family/Apartment (MF) to determine the number of persons per dwelling unit, th number of students per dwelling unit (for elementary, middle and high schools) and the number 0 daily vehicle trips per dwelling unit to calculate demand generators (population, population ortion of population plus jobs, pupils, and daily vehicle trips) associated with a new dwelli unit. b. Service levels - Staff assumes that the pu lic facilities contained in the County's ClP/Capital Needs Assessment (CNA) and Strategic PI will accommodate ten years' worth of new development in a manner that will maintain present levels of service. Service levels are calculated on a per-person, per-pupil, and per-daily ve icle trip basis. (Service levels are calculated annually). c. Gross cost of public facilities. - Staff calc lates the gross cost of public facilities. The term gross cost is used because a credit (describe in (d) below) for anticipated future revenues from a new dwelling unit will be applied against th gross cost. For example, to calculate the gross cost of park facilities, the average persons per dwel ing unit is multiplied by the County's per-capita CIP/CNA/Strategic Plan amount for park fa ilities. d. Credits - Staff calculates a credit to appl against the gross cost for each public facility. The County has issued and plans to continue to i sue general obligation bonds to finance the construction of public facilities. New devel pment will generate real estate, and other, taxes to the County and staff assumes that a percentage f these taxes will go to help retire this debt. So that new dwelling units are not paying twice (on e through payment of a cash proffer and again through real estate taxes) a credit is comput d. For FY 08, that percentage is assumed to be 6%. e. Net cost - Staff calculates the net cost per public facility or maximum cash proffer. This is the gross cost [(B)(1)(c)] per public facility mi s the applicable credit [(B)(l)(d)] per public facility. 2. There must be a reasonable relationship b tween the rezoning itself and the need for a public facility. In order to ensure that money proff, red by an applicant is used to fund the public facilities reasonably related to the development, geo aphic service areas or districts are established across the County. a. Since parks, libraries, and public safety f: districts for these facilities are determined t on a countywide basis to determine their im fund these facilities countywide. DRAFT: June 18, 2007 ilities serve the entire County, the geographic service be countywide. Rezoning requests can be analyzed act on these facilities and proffers may be spent to Page 2 of3 b. Rezoning requests can be analyzed on a ountywide basis to determine their impact on schools. In order to ensure that money proffered by applicant is used to fund the public facilities reasonably related to the development, the ounty is divided into three geographic service districts corresponding to the attendance zones of hi h schools. District one corresponds to the attendance zone for Albemarle High School, District t 0 corresponds to the attendance zone for Western Albemarle High School, and District three orresponds to the attendance zone for Monticello High School. Funds collected from a developme t within a District will be spent on school improvements within that District or for an school improvement that provides relief for the District the development is in. c. With respect to transportation, the fiscal' pact of rezoning requests can be analyzed on a countywide basis, with money collected fro a rezoning expended on transportation projects in the County's CIP/CNA, Strategic Plan, or DOT Six Year Improvement Plan that relate to the impacts resulting from the rezoning. 3. In some instances, a rezoning applicant ay wish to mitigate the development's calculated impact on public facilities by dedicating pr perty or doing in-kind improvements in lieu of all or a portion of the cash proffer. The value of d nated land generally will be based on the current assessed value ofthe specifically proffered roperty (not the assessed value of the property as a whole), not to exceed the cost per acre used in the calculation of the proffer. The value of improvements shall be the estimated cost a if constructed by a governmental entity. If the dedication or in-kind improvement does no fully mitigate the development's calculated impact on public facilities, then the dedication and/or mprovement's value may be applied as a credit against the development's calculated impact on the applicable public facility. The credit cannot exceed the development's calculated impact on the ap licable public facility. Credit for transportation may be allowed for off-site land dedication or impr vements, as recommended by the Department of Facilities Management. 4. The County will continue to consider an unique circumstances about a proposed development that: (i) mitigate the development's projecte impact on public facilities; and (ii) create a demonstrable reduction in capital facility n eds. Unique circumstances may include, but not be limited to, such projects like an age-restrict d housing projects. Either the County, the zoning applicant or any other person may identify uch mitigating circumstances. 5. Payment of the cash proffer for residenti 1 development must occur prior to release of a building permit. Timing for dedication of p perty or in-kind improvements should be specified in the proffer. Cash proffer contributions rece ved under this policy must be used for projects identified in the CIP/CNA, and/or Strategic Ian. 6. Cash proffer contributions shall be used t fund schools, transportation, parks, libraries and public safety public facilities. The contribut ons shall be expended in accordance with state law. 7. Adjustments to the cash proffer amount ay be considered every fiscal year. Staff will re- compute net costs based on the current met odology and recommend adjustments. 8. The maximum cash proffer that the Boar rezoning applicants is $17,500.00 per SFD; adjusted according to the Marshall and Swi year. DRAFT: June 18, 2007 will accept for public facilities from residential 11,900 per SFA/TH; and $12,400 per MF unit, to be Building Cost Index annually effective July 1 of eache Page 3 of3 Attachment D RESOLU ION OF INTENT WHEREAS, the Board directed th County's Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) to analyze the fiscal impacts of developme t on the County's public facilities and infrastructure and make recommendations as to the appro riate cash proffers to offset these impacts; and WHEREAS, the Board accepted th cash proffer methodology recommended by the FIAC to calculate the impacts of residential development resulting from rezonings on May 2, 2007 on a per dwelling unit basis; and WHEREAS, it was the consensus fthe Board at its work session on May 9,2007 that, with the exception of affordable housing, t re is an expectation that all new rezonings that include residential development will pay fo the equivalent of their full impact as determined by the cash proffer methodology and as imple ented pursuant to a cash proffer policy; and WHEREAS, such a policy can best be implemented through amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan. L VED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good pI ing practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of i tent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan as deemed necessary in order to achie e the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED T AT the Albemarle County Planning Commission shall expeditiously hold a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan amendment proposed by this resolution of intent and forward its reco mendation to the Board of Supervisors. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify t at the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of upervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a meeting eld on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Boyd Mr. Domer Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant