HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTA200800002 Legacy Document 2009-03-04COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Fees — Subdivision
Ordinance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Recommendation to County Board on Subdivision
Ordinance Fees
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Graham, Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 10, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission has conducted two work sessions on proposed changes to fees in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Based on the direction received at those work sessions, staff has prepared an ordinance amendment for the Planning
Commission's consideration. Attachments 1 and 2 are the executive summaries from the prior work sessions. Attachment
3 is the proposed ordinance amendment.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal Three: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
Staff believes the proposed ordinance amendment in Attachment 3 reflects the Planning Commission's direction. Prior
Planning Commission discussions have focused on three issues.
• Percentage of administrative costs recovered - The attached ordinance amendment provides for 75% cost
recovery. (Attachment 3) 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 includes a comparison of fees in several other localities.
• Cost of notices is captured by the fees - Staff started its consideration of the notice issue by performing a simple
survey of similar localities, which was provided to the Planning Commission in January. Based on these findings,
staff recommended the administration of notices be kept the same as currently practiced, but the cost of
administering the notices be recovered as a separate fee. The attached ordinance amendment includes this is in
section 14-203 I.
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. Staff recommends fees
associated with outsourcing of reviews be considered as part of that program's development.
BUDGET IMPACT:
To aid in understanding how the fees relate to other localities and differing cost recovery percentages, staff has
provided Attachment 4. As noted in the October 2008 work session, the County currently collects roughly $145,000
from subdivision fees in a typical year. Under staffs recommendation of 50% cost recovery, this would increase to
approximately $467,000 in a "normal" year. Staff currently anticipates applications will be one-half of an average year
for the remainder of FY'09 and FY'l0. With staff's recommended fees and this workload, FY'l0 revenues would
increase by approximately $90,000. If 75% cost recovery were adopted, revenues would increase by approximately
$170,000 in FY'10 using this workload. 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 anticipate holding the lot rather than immediately selling the lot. Staff notes a price sensitivity
analysis for subdivision plats would be a very complex exercise and has little confidence in its accuracy.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests the Planning Commission forward a recommendation on Subdivision Ordinance fees to the County Board.
The Planning Commission may recommend a lower fee than that advertised.
ATTACHMENTS
1. September 2008 Executive Summary on Subdivision Fees (w/o attachments)
2. January 2009 Executive Summary on Subdivision Fees (w/o attachments)
3. Proposed Subdivision Ordinance Amendment
4. Comparison of various subdivision fees
N
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
J
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.
4
COUNTY 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:
ATTACHMENT 2
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 14-203 I.
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
5. September 2008 Executive Summary on Subdivision Fees
6. Staff survey of notice provisions with subdivision ordinances
7. Draft Subdivision Ordinance amendment
8. Comparison of various subdivision fees
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 11, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec.14-203 Fees
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article H. 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 .00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: S 1, 100.00 $3,260.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00
2. 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 $365.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $360.00
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00
(d) 20 or more lots: $670.00
3. Reinstatement of review: $65.00 S35 -0M.
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 same
req}ri exts applicable feefee.
B. Final plat for subdivision:
1. If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: x0.00 150.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00 3 485.00.
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: $95.00 810.0 .
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $369:00$1,49-Q 00.
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $550:00 1 67 .00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $670.00 $!,&45M.
3. Final plat for subdivision without approved preliminary plat: The
applicable preliminary plat fee plus the applicable fmal lat fee.
-34. Condominium plat: $100.00.
45. Reinstatement of review: $65.00 S750.00.
C. Plat for rural subdivision, family subdivision, resubdivision, or boundary line
adjustment: $95.00 $1,010,00.
D. Easement plat: $95.00.
1 Easement plat without a deed: $710.00.
2. Easement plat with a deed: $1.125.00.
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-
$1,010,00,
ubdivision•101 0
4 Waiver of one or more street standards before approval of preliminary
plat: $785.00.
5. Waiver of curb_ and/or nutter reouirements before approval of preliminary
6 Waiver of street
interconnection requirements before approval
of
preliminary
IM5.00.
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
F. Bonds -
1 Bond estimate
request for subdivision improvements:
$375.00.
2. Bonding inspection
for plat: $375.00.
3 Bonding inspection
for bond reduction: $375.00
G Groundwater assessment information required by section 14-308 1 •
1 Tier 1 assessment under section 17-40L-$50 00-
2. Tier 2 assessment under section 17-402L.$330.00.
00
3 Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403• $1,010.00.
4 Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404• $1,140.00.
H. Other matters subject to review:
1. Waiver of any requirement of this chapter for which a waiver is
authorized after approval of preliminary plat and before approval of final
lit: X80.00
2. Waiver of any requirement of this chapter for which a waiver is
authorized after approval of final plat,• $1,240.00.
-23. Relief from plat conditions imposed by commission prior to the date of
adoption of this chapter: 580.00 $515,00.
34. Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: $240.00 S405.00.
45. Extension of plat approval: $45.00 SM.N.
6. Vacation of plat or part thereof: X170:00 60.00.
„TG
30
q
lei
lei
... .....
I Notices as required by sections 14-216 and 14-221:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: 5200.00 plus
the actual cost of first class osp tape.
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00
plus the actual cost of first classosl
(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
p
�
to
•
cn
C
m w
a
a
3
a
CL
-
•
a
Vj
y
O
O
3
3
3
3
3
d
w
".
3
7fu
3'3_
7
3
■
n
0
60
69
69
69
69
69
69
N
A
N
�
.P
N
�
•
A
Oo
.A
O
W
W
W
0)
0)
N
-4A
69
�
69
69
69
69
�
OW
-4
0)
N
O
O
0
O
O
O
O
69
69
,
69
69
tn
P4
�
69
co
cn
00
O
co
Ul
U1
�
cn
O
O
O
O
O
69
N
tq
N
6�969
■
•
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
69
69
69
69
69
69
69
■
W
W
00
cn
A
O
cn
O
• •
-01
Q
-4
0)
O
O
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
Ul
■
69
69
69
f.9
69
69
69
A
O
O
_1
W
• • —
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
6969
Z
69
,
•
D
0
C
C)
0
69
Q)
(A
69
H9
J
O
O
O
O69
O
•
W
69
69
69
4
Ln
0
Ul
Ln
C
O
O
O
O
O
+
ffl
N
Ul
U7
O
(D
D01D
Cr 0
No
3O
N+
N
lA
•
N
O
O
7
7
69
69
69
69
69
69
W
—1
N
0
69
•
O
O
O
O
Un
Ul
p
•
O
O
O
O
O
O