HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201500009 Review Comments 2016-03-31Short Review Comments Report for:
ZMA201500009
SubApplication Type:
Spring Hill Village - Proffer Amendment
Date Completed:12/15/2015
Reviewer:Francis MacCall CDD Admin Zoning Review
Review Status:QC OK
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/25/2016
Reviewer:Rachel Falkenstein CDD Planning
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:12/29/2015
Reviewer:Jay Schlothauer CDD Inspections
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/06/2016
Reviewer:Matthew Wentland CDD Engineering
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:
Division:
Date Completed:01/12/2016
Reviewer:Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Admin
Review Status:No Objection
Reviews Comments:Based on ZMA dated 12/6/15.
No comments or objections.
Division:
Page:1 of 1 County of Albemarle Printed On:January 30, 2017
CUNTY OF ALBEMARL
ltigety
MEMORANDUM
TO: Elaine Echols, Principal Planner
FROM: Steven A. Allshouse, Manager of Economic Analysis and Forecasting
David Benish, Acting Director of Planning
DATE: March 31, 2016
RE: Fiscal Impact Analysis of ZMA 2015-09 (Spring.Hill Village)
The Planning Commission requested an analysis of the Spring Hill Village development as approved
under ZMA 2013-00017 using the CRIM model. Results of the CRIM analysis could then be
compared to the proposed per unit cash proffer amounts recommended by FIAC. Staff used an
updated version of the County's Cost Revenue Impact Model (CRIM) to analyze two separate
scenarios for the property in question. Please note that the results generated by the CRIM analysis
cannot be used for proffer purposes,since CRIM includes consideration of both operating expenses
as well as capital expenses; and capital expenses in the model include all items in the County's
CIP/CNA, not just capital items that increase capacity(these conditions are not consist with proffers
laws as amended in the State Code in 2013. Also note that the version of CRIM used in this analysis
utilizes an average cost approach of analysis, whereas the proffer law that will become effective on
July 1, 2016 requires essentially a marginal cost approach of analysis.
The first scenario involved the maximum new development that could take place under existing
zoning and assumes all built units are single family detached units,the unit type which generates the
greatest impacts on public infrastructure and services. As a result,this scenario creates the greatest
theoretical level of impacts permitted under the zoning. The second scenario reflects the concept for
the development as illustrated on the approved application plan, which is a total of 90 units
consisting of 66 SFD and 24 SFA/TH units. The results of these two analyses appear in the attached
"Budget Summary—Existing Zoning" and "Budget Summary—Proposed Zoning" documents, and
are summarized below.
CRIM--Current Zoning, Maximum 100 units, (all SFD)
In this scenario, staff assumed 100 single family detached residences(SFD's)would be built during
the course of the next year. CRIM estimates that,after build-out,the type and level of development
that could take place under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact:
1
wry
Property Taxes $327,000
Other Revenues 301,000
Total Revenues $628,000
School Expenditures ($881,000)
County Govt. Expenditures (272,000)
Total Expenditures ($1,153,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($525,000)*
Fiscal Impact Per Unit $5,250*
For comparison:
Cash proffers generated under FIAC $491,800
FIAC per unit amount, SFD $4,918
*NOTE: Please note that the impacts generated from the CRIM model run include
factors/inputs into the model that are not consistent with current state law regarding proffers
(CRIM runs include non-capacity building CIP/CNA projects and also operating expenses).
The CRIM generated amounts(total and per unit)are therefore higher than can be accepted
for proffers under state law.
Note that any discrepancies between the dollar values in this memorandum and the dollar
values in the CRIM printout result from rounding errors in the model.
CRIM--Current Zoning,Application Plan Concept(90 units, 66 SFD & 24 SFA/TH)
This second scenario is reflective of the approved application plan and an initial site plan that was
approved in February,and potentially reflects more accurately the distribution of units by type. Staff
assumed, again,that the development would be completed in one year. CRIM estimates that, after
build-out, this proposed project would have the net annual fiscal impact shown below.
2
•
Property Taxes $238,000
Other Revenues 226,000
Total Revenues $464,000
School Expenditures ($610,000)
County Govt. Expenditures ($220,000)
Total Expenditures ($830,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($366,000)*
Fiscal Impact Per Unit $4,067*^
For comparison:
Cash proffers generated under FIAC $416,868
FIAC per unit amount, SFD/SFA-TH $4,918/$3,845
*NOTE: The impacts generated from the CRIM model include factors/inputs into the model
that are not consistent with current state law regarding proffers (CRIM runs include non-
capacity building CIP/CNA projects and also operating expenses. The CRIM generated
amounts (total and per unit) are higher than can be accepted for proffers under state law.
^NOTE: this per unit amount is provided by dividing the net annual fiscal impact by the
total number of units. No differentiating is made regarding unit type. The FIAC approach
recognizes the different level of impacts typically generated by residents of different types of
units.
Note, once again, that any discrepancies between the dollar values here and those shown in the
CRIM printout are the result of rounding errors in the model.
Summary of Findings:
- The CRIM runs of the two scenarios for Spring Hill Village did not result in a significant
difference in the per unit fiscal impact or the total amount of funds potentially contributed to
address impacts of the development. Furthermore, the additional amounts from the CRIM
runs are likely to be negated by the unlawful inputs still contained in the CRIM Model
(operating expenses and non-capacity building CIP/CNA projects).
- Based on the results of this analysis of the Spring Hill Village project, staff opinion is that
further use of the CRIM model to assess ZMA amendment requests to modify existing cash
proffer amounts is not useful and will not result in substantially different calculations for
impacts and resulting cash proffer amounts than use of the recommended FIAC cash proffer
3
amounts.
- Staff is currently assessing the most recent revisions to the state law regarding proffers,and
will be undertaking a more comprehensive reassessment of the County's cash proffer policies
and practices in light of the changes in the state code. These efforts will result in a more
comprehensive response to the shifts in the ability to use cash proffers as a mechanism to
address a project's impact on essential public infrastructure and services.
SAA/saa
4