Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTA200800002 Legacy Document 2009-01-05COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Fees — Subdivision Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed changes in Subdivision Ordinance fees STAFF CONTACT(S): Graham, Fritz LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: January 13, 2009 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On October 7, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewed a staff recommendation for revising the fees associated with the Subdivision Ordinance. (Attachment 1) Based on that review, the Planning Commission requested staff to: 1. Consider the notice provisions of the ordinance and determine if there are opportunities to either have the applicants handle the notices or directly recover the cost of the notices. 2. Consider fees based on 100% cost recovery and provide information on a 75% cost recovery. The Planning Commission would then consider which percentage they would recommend to the Board. 3. Mr. Loach asked that the ordinance include the ability to outsource reviews with a cost recovery mechanism. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal Three: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs. DISCUSSION: 1. Notices - Staff started its consideration of the notice issue by performing a simple survey of similar localities to determine if others used similar notice provisions (Attachment 2). Staff found that there are few localities that use notices with subdivisions and none appear to do so as extensively as Albemarle County. Of those that do, none used applicant prepared notices. In researching this question further, staff found several localities that use applicant prepared notices for other applications that require notices (e.g. rezoning). In discussions with staff in those localities, none encouraged this approach, finding the work involved in checking the notices and corrections often required as much or more staff time than doing the notices themselves. Based on these findings, staff is recommending the administration of notices be kept the same as currently practiced, but the cost of administering the notices can be recovered as a separate fee. The attached ordinance amendment includes this is in section 14-2031. 2. 100% cost recovery - The attached ordinance amendment provides for 100% cost recovery. (Attachment 3, 12/12/08 draft) Staff has also provided a comparison of several fees showing the fee difference between the previous staff recommendation, a 75% cost recovery, and a 100% cost recovery. (Attachment 4) This also includes a comparison of fees in several other localities. Staff believes this provides the Planning Commission the requested information for determining what percentage of cost recovery should be recommended to the County Board. 3. Outsourcing — Staff identified a couple of localities that outsource some part of their plan review, primarily the engineering reviews. Thus, it appears this is a viable option. It was noted that those localities provide for their Agent to establish fees for cost recovery rather than having explicit fees in the ordinance. Albemarle County has always provided specific fees in the ordinances rather than use this type of provision. Based on this information and the County's approach to fees, staff believes an outsourcing amendment should be crafted to match the specific program being established. As such, staff recommends deferring this ordinance amendment until such time as the County is ready to outsource. As it will likely take at least four months to contract this service under public procurement requirements, staff believes there will be plenty of time to incorporate the ordinance amendment if and when the County elects to use this type of process. Finally, staff noted an ethical dilemma in the approach being used by others. The private firm providing the review services also continued to submit applications for their own private clients. Reviews often call for judgment on the part of the reviewer. Thus, there is a potential for the reviewing firm to hold competing firms and competing clients to a different standard than themselves. If the County were to pursue this approach, staff believes a provision that prohibits the reviewing firm from submitting applications should be considered. While that resolves the ethical dilemma, it creates another problem. The firms most qualified to perform the reviews will be firms experienced at submitting applications. Recognizing those firms will be unlikely to eliminate all of their other clients in order to qualify for this contract; the County might be limited to firms that have little or no experience with the County's requirements. Thus, there may be an extensive and expensive start-up process with any attempt to outsource the reviews. BUDGET IMPACT: As noted in the October 2008 work session, the County currently collects roughly $145,000 from subdivision fees in a typical year. Under staff's recommendation, this would increase to roughly $467,000 in a "normal" year. Thus, the staff recommended fees would increase County revenues by approximately $322,000 in a typical year. Staff anticipates applications will be two-thirds of an average year for FY 09 and FY 10. If 100% cost recovery were adopted, revenues would increase by approximately $790,000 in a typical year, but it should be noted that this assumes the increased fees would not reduce the number of applications. While it appears the fees are a small percentage of the value of a new lot, the cost could be a detriment for those who anticipated holding the lot rather than immediately selling the lot. Staff has not attempted a price sensitivity analysis as this would be a very complex exercise and there is little confidence in its accuracy. RECOMMENDATIONS: With direction from the Planning Commission on the listed issues, staff will proceed to a public hearing with a Subdivision Text Amendment. ATTACHMENTS 1. September 2008 Executive Summary on Subdivision Fees 2. Staff survey of notice provisions with subdivision ordinances 3. Draft Subdivision Ordinance amendment 4. Comparison of various subdivision fees COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Fees — Subdivision Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed changes in Subdivision Ordinance fees STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Fritz LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: September 3, 2008 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ATTACHMENT 1 BACKGROUND: The purpose of this worksession is to receive Board direction on staff recommended changes for fees in the Subdivision ordinance. At the December 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff presented a Community Development Fee Study and a recommendation for a fee policy. (Attachment A) Given the limited amount of time for discussion and the complexity, it was not possible for the Board to give specific direction on revised fees. To provide adequate consideration of the fees, staff divided this task into specific ordinances. The Building Regulations and Water Protection ordinances were reviewed at an April 9, 2008 worksession and subsequently revised. Today's worksession is to establish direction for the Subdivision Ordinance. Following completion of the Subdivision Ordinance, staff plans to bring forward the Zoning Ordinance. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal Three: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs. DISCUSSION: The fee study presented to the Board in December 2007 identified county costs for fee related services, estimated revenue from current fees, proposed new fees, and compared the fees to those in eight comparable localities. The fee study extract included in Attachment A included an explanation of how costs were calculated and the algorithm used by the consultant in developing a recommendation for setting fees. After reviewing past Board considerations and the consultant's fee recommendation, staff recognized it was necessary to simplify the fee decision. For simplicity, staff considered establishing fees at one-half of the county's cost. The concept behind splitting the cost of service was to recognize that part of the service is related to the property owner's interest and part of this is related to a broader public interest. Staff then prepared Attachment B to provide a side by side comparison of the cost of service, the current fee, the consultant recommended fee, and a staff recommended fee set at one-half of the county cost. Staff also included a revenue summary for each fee concept in Attachment B. From this analysis, it appears the consultant's recommendation and staff's recommendation generate very similar revenues in a typical year. Next, staff provided a comparison of fees for three subdivision types in Attachment C. Recognizing that each locality has a unique fee structure, staff found it practically impossible to provide a meaningful comparison of all fees. This simple table provide meaningful examples of how the fees compare with three different sizes. This table demonstrates that the fees are similar in most situations, but there are some significant changes. Among the most significant changes would be the fee for a two lot family division. It is noted that localities appear to have very different goals in these fees. Finally, staff notes that other localities are also attempting to develop a more consistent fee structure and recover higher percentages of their costs. Chesterfield County is currently attempting to establish a fee structure that sets fees at 75% of their costs and Arlington County is attempting to set many of its fees at 100% cost recovery. Staff noted that either a 75% or 100% cost recovery would set many of Albemarle County's subdivision fees higher than the comparison localities. There are good reasons for this. First, most other localities make their processes administrative, meaning the Planning Commission is not involved in the process. For example, by comparing the cost of service for a 20 lot preliminary plan that goes to the Planning Commission to one handled administratively( Fee Study ID 82 versus 87), the cost is roughly double for the one reviewed by the Planning Commission. This cost is illustrated in Attachment C with the Stafford County fees. Additionally, not only are the subdivisions handled administratively, most of the waivers or modifications are also handled administratively. As the Board is aware, administrative waivers were a Development Task Force recommendation and are now being considered by the Planning Commission. Second, in keeping with administrative processes, most localities do not send notices to neighboring properties for subdivisions. Costs associated with the notices are both direct, the cost of preparing and mailing the notices, and indirect, staff time resulting from questions resulting from the mailings. While these notices keep the neighborhood informed, they can also generate a considerable demand for staff time in responses. Third, it should be recognized that Albemarle County's ordinance is more complex than most. For example, Albemarle's ordinance is roughly twice the size of the Greene County ordinance. The complexity of the ordinance versus staff time appears to follow the rule of the square. In other words, if there are twice as many requirements, it requires four times as much time to review, due to the increased likelihood of errors or mistakes. BUDGET IMPACT: As noted in Attachment B, the County currently collects roughly $145,000 from subdivision fees in an average year. Under the consultant's recommendation, this would increase to roughly $486,000. Under staff's recommendation, this would increase to roughly $467,000. Thus, the staff recommended fees would increase County revenues by approximately $322,000 in an average year. Staff anticipates applications will be two-thirds of an average year for the next this amount. An additional $100,000 is anticipated for one RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff offers the following recommendations: 1. The Board direct staff to bring forward changes to the Subdivision Ordinance fees as recommended by staff in Attachment B, with any other changes the Board determines appropriate. 2. The Board adopt the Resolution of Intent in Attachment D for amending the Subdivision Ordinance. With the above direction, staff will proceed with a Subdivision Text Amendment to bring to the Planning Commission. ATTACHMENT 2 Survey of Virginia Localities: Site Plan and Subdivisions Below are the results from 10 localities that responded to a five question survey about how their departments handled the review and approval of site plans and subdivision plats. The localities, including their populations are: 1. Rockingham County (75,000 people) 2. Washington County (53,000 people) 3. Halifax County (37,000 people) 4. City of Danville (46,000 people) 5. Montgomery County (90,000 people) 6. Frederick County (80,000 people) 7. Fauquier County (67,000 people) 8. Augusta County (73,000 people) 9. Roanoke County (92,000 people) 10. Amherst County (68,000 people) Question 1 asked, "Is the review and approval of site plans done administratively or by the Planning Comission?" Administratively Planning Commission ❑Amherst County ❑ Roanoke County ❑Augusta County ❑ Fauquier County ❑ Frederick County ❑ Montgomery County ❑ City of Danville ❑ Halifax County ❑ Washington County O Rockingham Countv As you can see, all 10 of the responding localities review and approve site plans administratively. Question 2 was very similar, but asked, "Is the review and approval of subdivision plats done administratively or by the Planning Comission?" Administratively Depends Planning Commission ❑ Fauquier County ❑ Montgomery County ❑ City of Danville ❑Amherst County ❑ Roanoke County ❑Augusta County ❑ Frederick County ❑ Halifax County ❑Washington County [:]Rockingham County Seven of the localities exclusively review subdivision plats administratively, while three localities use a hybrid system where some plans are reviewed by the PC and some are not depending on a variety of factors. No localities had all of their subdivision plats reviewed by the PC. Question 3 asked a couple clarifying questions about those localities that use a hybrid system. Here are their responses: Fauquier County: "Our PC reviews all preliminary plats. Commercial and industrial lots may be subdivided administratively if they are consistent with an approved concept plan or have a Plan of Development approved by the Planning Commission." Montgomery County: "Major subdivisions go through both the PC & BOS. They are considered major if they create eleven (11) or more lots or tracts; require construction of a new street; or requires a private access easement, serving a total of four (4) or more lots or tracts." City of Danville: "Any subdivision of three or more lots, or anything with a right-of-way dedication goes to our Planning Commission." Question 4 asked, "Do you provide notice to neighbors of proposed subdivision plats or site plans?" ** Amherst County did not respond to Question 4. Only two localities indicated that they provide notice to neighbors for proposed subdivision plats or site plans. One of the "No" respondents noted, however, that they do provide notice if it is required by VA Code, as with vacation of easements or with right of ways. Finally, question 5 simply asked for a contact person for each locality, including their phone or email addresses. Nine of the ten respondents can be found below: 1. Rockingham County (75,000 people) William L."Billy" Vaughn Director of Community Development wvau,ghn @ rockin,ghamcountyy a. gov Rockingham County Administration Center 20 East Gay Street Harrisonburg, Virginia 22802 540.564.3031 (office) 540.476.1101 (mobile) www.rockinghaincountyva.gov www.yesrockingham.com 2. Washington County (53,000 people) Mark Reeter County Administrator mreeter@washcova.com 3. Halifax County (37,000 people) Robert Love Zoning Administrator 434-476-3300 ext. 234 rml@co.halifax.va.us 4. City of Danville (46,000 people) Ken Gillie Director of Planning Division Zoning Administrator City of Danville, VA (434) 799-5261 (ext. 238) ,gillikc@ci.danville.va.us 5. Montgomery County (90,000 people) Steven M. Sandy, AICP, CZA Planning Director Montgomery County (540)394-2148 sandysm@montgomerycoun!yva.gov 6. Frederick County (80,000 people) Eric R. Lawrence, AICP Director, Department of Planning and Development Frederick County 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-665-5651 540-665-6395 (fax) elawrenc@co.frederick.va.us http://www.co.frederick.va.us/PlanningAndDevelopment/PlanningAndDev.htm www.co.frederick.va.us 7. Fauquier County (67,000 people) Kimberley Fogle, Assistant Director of Community Development Fauquier County 540/347.8660 kimberley.fo.gle@fauquiercounty.gov 8. Augusta County (73,000 people) Michele L. Astarb Subdivision Administrator 540-245-5700 mastarb@co.au,gusta.va.us 9. Roanoke County (92,000 people) Philip Thompson, AICP, CZA Deputy Director of Planning Roanoke County, VA (540) 772-2068 pthomp son @ ro anokecountyya. gov ATTACHMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. 09-14( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II, ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, Article H, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec.14-203 Fees Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land Article II. Administration and Procedure 14-203 Fees. Each subdivider shall pay a fee upon the submittal of a plat or other application, based on the schedule below; provided that neither the county nor the county school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant. The fee shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the "County of Albemarle." A. Preliminary plat for subdivision: If subject to review by the commission: (a) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00 UJaO.00. (b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00 4 350.00. (c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00 $4,650-00. If subject to review by the agent: (a) Two -lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(2) or if all lots front on an existing public street: $95.00 $490.00. (b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.00 2 100.00. (c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00 $2,100.00. (d) 20 or more lots: $670.00 SZJ00.00. 3. Reinstatement of review: $65.00 1 000.00. 4. Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the same property has been filed previously, shall be subject to the apnlicable fee. B. Final plat for subdivision: If subject to review by the commission: (a) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00 4 200.00. (b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00 $4A!0.00. (c) 20 or more lots: $00 4 650.00. If subject to review by the agent: (a) Two -lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(2) or if all lots front on an existing public street: $9:00 1050.00. (b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.001 950.00. (c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00 2 200.00. (d) 20 or more lots: $670.00 $Z 450.00. 3. Final plat for subdivision without approved preliminary plat: The applicable preliminary plat fee plus the applicable final plat fee. -34. Condominium plat: $100.00. 45. Reinstatement of review: $65.00 &L000.00. C. Plat for rural subdivision, family subdivision, resubdivision, or boundary line adjustment: $95.00 &L350.00. D. Easement plat: $95.00. 1. Easement plat without a deed: $950.00. 2. Easement plat with a deed: $1,500.00. E. Streets: 1. Public road plans: $250.00 for each review of a submitted plan, including reviews of revisions after plan approval. 2. Private road plans: $400.00 for each review of a submitted plan, including reviews of revisions after plan approval. 3. Authorization for one or more private streets within a subdivision: $1,350.00. 4. Waiver of one or more street standards before approval of preliminary plat -$1,050.00. 5. Waiver of curb and/or gutter requirements before approval of preliminary plat: $1,050.00. 6. Waiver of street interconnection requirements before approval of preliminaryplat: 1 050.00. 7. If required to construct a street, the subdivider shall pay to the county a fee equal to the cost of the inspection of the construction of any such street. These fees shall be paid prior to completion of all necessary inspections and shall be deemed a part of the cost of construction of the street for purposes of section 14-435(Bl. F. Bonds: 1. Bond estimate request for subdivision improvements: $500.00. 2. Bonding inspection for plat: $500.00. 3. Bonding inspection for bond reduction: $500.00 G. Groundwater assessment information required by section 14-308.1: 1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401: $50.00. 2. Tier 2 assessment under section 17-402: 1330.00. 3. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $1,300.00. 4. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1,500.00. H. Other matters subject to review: Waiver of any requirement of this chanter for which a waiver is authorized after approval of preliminary plat and before approval of final plat: $4$8 88 1 650.00. 2. Waiver of any requirement of this chapter for which a waiver is authorized after approval of final plat: $1.650.00. 23. Relief from plat conditions imposed by commission prior to the date of adoption of this chapter: $150.00 $770.00. -34. Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: $240.00 $540.00. 45. Extension of plat approval: $4500 $240.00. Vacation of plat or part thereof: $170.00 $480.00. I. Notices as required by sections 14-216 and 14-221: 1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: $200.00. 2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00 (9-5-96, 12-11-91, 6-7-89, 4-17-85, 12-1-82, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76, 8-28-74 (§ 3); 1988 Code, § 18-43; Ord. 98- A(1), 7-15-98; Ord. 99-14(1), 6-16-99; Ord. 02-14(2), 7-3-02; Ord. 04-14(1), adopted 12-8-04, effective 2-8-05; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05) State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9). I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Ms. Mallek Mr. Rooker Mr. Slutzky Ms. Thomas ATTACHMENT 4 SubdivisionStaff - .Re Phase County Cost Current Fee Fee Study Recommended 100% 751%. Cost Co t Recovery 0. Fluvanna Greene Stafford 2 Lot Family Division $1,377 $95 $800 $690 $1,015 $1,350 $100 $190 $600 $200 $800 5 Lot Subdivision Preliminary - Admin $2,301 $360 $1,550 $1,150 $1,575 $2,100 NA $400 $1,500 $400(+ $250/reubmisssion) $1,750 - PC $4,322 $720 $3,840 $2,200 $3,075 $4,100 $6,750 Final - Admin $1,990 $360 $435 $1,000 $1,465 $1,950 $100 $100 $750 NA $1,500 20 Lot Subdivision Preliminary - Admin $2,464 $670 $1,550 $1,150 $1,575 $2,100 $1,730 $700 $3,000 $1,510 +$25o/resubmission $2,500 - PC $4,862 $1,330 $4,380 $2,200 $3,490 $4,650 $7,500 Final - Admin $2,464 $670 $740 $1,230 $1,840 $2,450 $1,730 $100 $1,500 NA $3,500 * Note: The staff recommended fees did not include a separate fee for notices. This could be added without changing the fees listed, but results in fees that are slightly higher than 50% of cost.