Information Packet on History of Prince William County Proffer Guidance Following the Adoption of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan

Transcription

1 Information Packet on History of Prince William County Proffer Guidance Following the Adoption of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan 1. Staff Memorandum of April 9, 2004 regarding the Adoption of the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy following the adoption of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Staff Memorandum of April 19, 2006 regarding the recommendation to Adopt the Updated Policy Guide for Monetary Contributions Countywide. 3.,, Effective July 1, 2006 (current Proffer Guidance in effect today).

2 Craig S. Gerhart County Executive COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT 1 County Complex Court, Prince William, Virginia (703) Metro FAX: (703) April 9, 2004 BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Sean T. Connaughton, Chairman Maureen S. Caddigan, Vice Chairman Hilda M. Barg W. S. Wally Covington, III John D. Jenkins Martin E. Nohe Corey A. Stewart John T. Stirrup TO: FROM: THRU: Board of County Supervisors Stephen K. Griffin, AICP Director of Planning Craig S. Gerhart County Executive RE: Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy I. Background in chronological order is as follows: A. Comprehensive Plan Uses LOS Criteria The Comprehensive Plan utilizes LOS standards to measure the quality or quantity of service provided by five County agencies: Public Works/Transportation, Schools, Parks, Libraries, and Fire and Rescue. These criteria are utilized to evaluate the potential impact of development applications reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Supervisors. B. The (Policy Guide) The Policy Guide details the process for the calculation of suggested monetary proffers during the rezoning process. C. Policy Guide Summary Each section of the Policy Guide outlines the corresponding level-of-service measures and assignment of value for single-family, townhouse, and multifamily dwellings. D. Past Modifications to Policy Guide The Policy Guide originally called for a phased approach to the suggested monetary contributions from 66% to 100% when it was first instituted in After appropriate notice to the development community and refinements of several portions of the methodology, the Board of County Supervisors adopted the most recent policy on November 1, 2001, which was effective January 1, The Policy Guide now calls for 100% contributions, with certain exceptions, such as economic development projects and agerestricted housing. E. Annual Update When the Board of County Supervisors first adopted the Policy Guide in 1998, it requested an annual update of the data.

3 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page 2 F Update Postponed The 2002 update of the Policy Guide was postponed pending the adoption of the 2003 Comprehensive Plan, which occurred on June 24, G. Current Update Staff completed a revised Policy Guide in November 2003 in coordination with County agencies. Staff also included updated County population and household numbers, based on the latest information available (COG 6.3). This information was presented to the Board of County Supervisors on November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003; February 10, 2004; and March 16, At its meeting on March 16, 2004, the Board requested a work session be scheduled for the April 20, 2004, meeting, and requested Board members and the development community to submit remaining questions to the Planning Office by March 23, 2004, to be addressed at this meeting. II. Current Situation is as follows: A. The Planning Office has prepared specific responses to all questions submitted by the Board and the development community. These issues will be addressed during the work session of April 20, B. The Planning Office is recommending several changes to the Policy Guide presented to the Board on December 16, 2003, based on issues brought up by the Board of County Supervisors or suggested at meetings with the development community. 1. Changes in Escalator Clause The revised Policy Guide recommends a new method for adjusting monetary contributions to account for inflation. A copy of the slide presentation prepared by the Department of Finance is located at Attachment B. a) Escalator Clause Defined Escalator clauses allow existing proffers to be increased commensurate with price increases experienced in the local area. b) Current Escalator Method The current Policy Guide recommends the Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), with a 6% cap. The CPI-U has not exceeded 3.5% in any year over the past 10 years. This index measures consumer commodities such as food, clothing, and other consumer products but does not measure cost of land or construction.

4 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page 3 c) Proposed Escalator Method The revised Policy Guide includes a new proffer escalator index of 6.67%. This new index is a combination of several industry-recognized indices. i. Combination of Four Indices: (a) (b) (c) (d) index of engineering, design, and consulting costs based on PPI (Producer Price Index), which is currently 1.8%; index of construction costs based on Marshall & Swift (an industry-accepted market indicator of construction costs). The January 2004 rate is 5.3%; index for road construction costs from the Federal Highway Administration. The 2002 rate was 2.1%; and index for land costs based on Prince William County Real Estate Assessment. Although this figure has traditionally not exceeded CPI-U, it is now 15%. ii. Combination Index Would Vary for Each LOS Agency Each of the five LOS agencies will utilize a different combination or percentage of the four indices above. For instance, the index for road construction costs is 85% of the factor used for Transportation, but not used for other LOS agencies. 2. Suggested Language in Proffers The Policy Guide includes a new section that provides guidelines for proffer language with the intent of facilitating subsequent staff review of site and subdivision plans, and facilitating efficient uses of proffered monetary contributions. 3. Change in Effective Date The effective date of the Policy Guide is recommended to be June 1, 2004, approximately 40 days after the proposed date for Board action. 4. No Change in Suggested Proffer Amounts Staff continues to recommend adoption of the suggested proffer amounts in the Policy Guide.

5 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page 4 a) Dwelling Units Projected by 2025 The Policy Guide uses the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) Round 6.3 (staff) projections for population and dwelling unit growth. This forecast projected that a total of 50,176 dwelling units would be built between 2000 and After deduction of the 17,375 units estimated to be built and occupied by June 30, 2003, there remained 32,801 units to be built and occupied by These numbers should not be converted to a yearly average. Greater growth (at an average of 3,000 per year occupied dwelling units) is forecasted for earlier years. Growth is projected to be sharply reduced in the outlying years. Should a different set of projections be used, the traffic model would have to be rerun to identify additional lane miles needed to serve the additional population. b) Collected and Pledged Proffers County staff has identified $22 million in collected proffer funds and has assigned almost $10 million in collected funds to projects within the proposed FY CIP. The remaining funds are intended for use by the schools or have restrictions on use, which prevents their immediate utilization. The collected or pledged proffer amounts do not reduce the need for the facilities or the suggested proffer amounts in the Policy Guide. C. Meetings with Developers The Planning Office has conducted meetings with representatives of the development community. Most of the questions concerned how the Planning Office tracked both collected proffers as well as proffers pledged but not yet collected. Feedback on the changes identified above included: 1. Escalator Clause Methodology The development community representatives generally opposed a revision of the current methodology which uses the CPI-U index. 2. Suggested Proffer Language Developer representatives generally had no objection to insertion of this language. 3. Effective Date The development community requested that advance notice be given if the suggested proffer amounts are increased. 4. Suggested Proffer Amounts Some members of the community urged that suggested cash proffer amounts be reduced based on past monies collected.

6 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page 5 5. Value of Noncash Proffers The developers recommended that the value of noncash proffers be calculated and published along with the cash proffer amounts, in order to show the total contributions made by the development community toward public facilities. D. Overview as Previously Submitted Overview of the Policy Guide Update as previously submitted to the Board of County Supervisors: 1. Changes to County Population The Policy Guide has incorporated a revised County population figure of 321,570, based on the Office of Information Technology s estimate of the County s population as of June Changes to Average Household Size The Policy Guide has incorporated updated household sizes by unit type. The new average household size is 3.19 for single-family detached residences, 2.94 for townhomes, and 2.14 for multifamily residences, including condos and apartments. 1 These revised figures were computed by the Office of Information Technology, based on data from the 2000 census and approved for use by the Policy Committee. 3. Changes in Procedure Used to Calculate Cost of Land Acquisition All agencies reported significant increases in the cost of land acquisition for public facilities. An average cost per acre of $110,283 is being used for libraries, fire and rescue, and schools, based on recent transactions. This method replaces the former method of calculating average cost per agency during the last three years. It is believed that calculation of an average cost for these agencies provides more accurate and consistent data. Individual calculation of costs resulted in disparate land costs among these agencies, based on frequency of land purchase. 4. Change in Procedure Used to Calculate Cost of Road Improvement A simplified manner of calculation of road costs has been made. Previously, costs for future roads were based on unfunded costs after deduction of state funding. This method lacks precision, given different budget methodologies at the state and local level. The new procedure involves calculation of total unfunded lane miles needed to be built, and then uses one method to calculate costs. The figure used for total unfunded lane miles does not include roads built since 2000, roads included in the County bond projects, or roads to be constructed using state or federal money (2002 CLRP). 1 The existing LOS policy uses household multipliers of 3.34 for single-family residences, 2.94 for townhomes, and 2.0 for condominiums/apartments.

7 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page 6 E. Cost Adjustments Cost adjustments to the monetary contributions have been incorporated into the March 1, 2004, Policy Guide. 1. Summary of Changes A summary of changes to the monetary contributions is identified on page 2 of the March 1, 2004, Policy Guide and is attached. 2. Schools The schools are using the $110,283 average cost per acre for land acquisition. This cost per acre is a significant increase from the $40,000 per acre used in previous years. However, it is significantly lower than the $132,000 per acre that the School Board reported for its latest acquisition. The School Board reports that facility construction costs have risen slightly for elementary schools but have been reduced from $21.5 million to $16.3 million for middle schools and from $45.5 million to $40.7 million for high schools. There have also been slight changes in the student generation factors. The gross per pupil cost has changed from $14,471 to $17,383 for elementary schools, from $18,780 to $16,614 for middle schools, and from $22,651 to $23,059 for high schools. The change in the gross cost, when coupled with the change described above in student generation factors, has resulted in a change in the cost-per-unit type. The new requested monetary proffers for schools have increased as summarized below: a) Single-Family Detached The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $8,287 to $8,939, an increase of $652 (an 8% change). b) Townhouse The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $7,973 to $8,435, an increase of $462 (a 6% change). c) Multifamily The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $3,492 to $2,342, a decrease of $1,150 (a -33% change). This change results from a decrease of the percentage of students living in multifamily residences from to Parks The per-acre cost to acquire and develop parks has increased from $64,130 to $97,289, based on recent Park Authority acquisitions. The average land acquisition cost of $110,283 used for other agencies is not applicable for Parks. Unlike other agencies, land for parks does not have to be located adjacent to existing roads, neighborhoods, and utility connections. Also, land for parks may contain more environmental constraints than property for other public facilities. The new requested monetary proffers for parks have increased as summarized below:

8 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page 7 a) Single-Family Detached The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $2,756 to $3,972, an increase of $1,216 (a 44% change). b) Townhouse The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $2,441 to $3,725, an increase of $1,284 (a 53% change). c) Multifamily The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $1,657 to $2,679, an increase of $1,022 (a 62% change). 4. Libraries Libraries is using the $110,283 average cost per acre for land acquisition, replacing the previous estimate of $76,500 per acre. The cost of construction has increased from $160 per acre to $424 per acre, consistent with the costs shown for the construction of the Montclair and Gainesville libraries in the CIP. The cost per book has increased from $17.00 to $ The new requested monetary proffers for libraries have changed as summarized below: a) Single-Family Detached The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $375 to $551, an increase of $176 (a 47% change). b) Townhouse The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $330 to $560, an increase of $230 (a 70% change). c) Multifamily The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $224 to $381, an increase of $157 (a 70% change). 5. Fire and Rescue Fire and Rescue is using the $110,283 average cost per acre for land acquisition instead of using the existing method of calculation (the three-year rolling average). If the three-year rolling average for land acquisition had been used, the average cost per acre would have been $109,248. The average cost per capita of land, construction, and equipment for a fire station has increased from $ to $ per capita. The new requested monetary proffers for fire and rescue have changed as summarized below: a) Single-Family Detached The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $578 to $753, an increase of $175 (a 30% change). b) Townhouse The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $509 to $715, an increase of $206 (a 40% change).

9 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page 8 c) Multifamily The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $346 to $510, an increase of $164 (a 47% change). d) Nonresidential The suggested nonresidential monetary proffer amount has changed from $0.38 per square foot to $0.56 per square foot, an increase of $0.18 per square foot (a 47% change). 6. Transportation Costs of road improvements per mile have minimally increased from $2,064,704 to $2,167,940 (a 5% increase). However, the cost-per-residential unit has increased significantly. The percentage of residential trips has increased from 47% to 56%. The number of new units projected to be built by 2025 has decreased from 51,770 to 32,801, based on the number of actual units built as of July 15, The new requested monetary proffers for transportation have increased as summarized below: a) Single-Family Detached The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $5,264 to $8,770, an increase of $3,506 (a 67% change). b) Townhouse The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $4,624 to $8,160, an increase of $3,536 (a 76% change). c) Multifamily The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $3,057 to $5,258, an increase of $2,201 (a 72% change). 7. Total Changes in Requested Monetary Proffer Amounts The revised LOS policy guide utilizes the updated agency information. The new requested monetary proffers have increased as summarized below: a) Single-Family Detached The requested monetary proffer amount has increased from $17,260 to $22,986, an increase of $5,726 (a 33% change). b) Townhouse The requested monetary proffer amount has increased from $15,877 to $21,595, an increase of $5,718 (a 36% change). c) Multifamily The requested monetary proffer amount has increased from $8,776 to $11,171, an increase of $2,395 (a 27% change).

10 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page 9 III. Issues in order of importance are as follows: A. Level of Service/Comprehensive Plan Are the proposed revisions and policies incorporated into the revised Policy Guide consistent with the basic level of service approach as part of the Comprehensive Plan? B. Fiscal Impacts What are the impacts of the proposed revisions to the Policy Guide on the County s fiscal strategies? C. Legal What legal requirements are necessary to implement the revisions to the Policy Guide? D. Community Participation What public involvement or comments have been received on the proposed LOS update from the public? E. Timing When will implementation of the revisions to the Policy Guide occur? IV. Alternatives, beginning with the staff recommendation, are as follows: A. Adopt the LOS Policy Guide/Proffer Policy. 1. Level of Service/Comprehensive Plan The Policy Guide for Monetary Contributions is consistent with the general tenets of the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for more precise calculation of the initial capital costs needed to support each new dwelling unit. The Policy Guide for Monetary Contributions has been updated for costs and utilizes more up-to-date population and household numbers. The method used to adjust for inflation has also been updated. 2. Fiscal Impacts The funds from the will offset the impact of initial capital costs generated by each new dwelling unit for the five services identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Policy Guide currently provides for developers to commit to the suggested LOS proffer amounts effective at the date of rezoning, rather than the date of development of the units. Historically, service level costs have increased over time, resulting in new units paying less than the amount in effect during the year that they are constructed. 3. Legal Cash proffers are voluntary. This methodology provides the most up-to-date and equitable method of determining the suggested cash proffers.

11 Adopt the Level of Service (LOS) Policy Guide/Proffer Policy April 9, 2004 Page Community Participation Meetings with the development community occurred on three occasions. No input has been received from the general public. 5. Timing The revised policy will apply to applications for rezonings submitted and accepted on and after June 1, B. Take No Action. 1. Level of Service/Comprehensive Plan The Policy Guide will not be updated for infrastructure costs and household estimates. 2. Fiscal Impacts This alternative is not consistent with the County s policy of moving toward a pay as you go approach to development and does not reflect the full impact of initial capital costs generated by each new dwelling unit. 3. Legal Cash proffers are voluntary. The current methodology provides a rationale for determination of suggested amounts. 4. Community Participation Meetings with the development community occurred on three occasions. No input has been received from the general public. 5. Timing Not applicable. V. Recommendation is that the Board of County Supervisors accept Alternative A and adopt the attached Resolution. Staff: Debrarae Karnes, AICP, x7373 Attachment revised March 1, 2004 NRE/DRK:eas:w:\LOS Policy Guide 2004/LOS staff rpt

12 MOTION: April 20, 2004 Regular Meeting SECOND: Res. No. 04- RE: LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) POLICY GUIDE/PROFFER POLICY ACTION: WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan includes level of service components for Schools, Parks, Fire and Rescue, Libraries, and Transportation chapters, which were retained from the 1998 Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a was created to implement the suggested monetary contributions for development applications to address levels of service; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Board s request for yearly updates of the Policy Guide, it was updated in July of 1999, October of 2000, and November of 2001; and WHEREAS, staff has updated the to reflect more accurate population, household size, student generation figures, and minor cost adjustments requested by individual agencies, as well as use of an uniform average cost per acre to acquire land for library, school and fire and rescue facilities; and WHEREAS, the has been changed to substitute a different measure for the escalator clause as well as additional language detailing desirable proffer language; and WHEREAS, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors received an informational presentation on the update at their meetings on November 18, 2003; December 16, 2003; February 10, 2004; March 16, 2004; and April 20, 2004; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors does hereby adopt the dated March 1, 2004, to become effective June 1, Votes Ayes: Nays: Pass: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting: For Information: Planning Director CERTIFIED COPY Clerk to the Board

13 14-A MOTION: May 2, 2006 Regular Meeting SECOND: Res. No. 06- RE: ADOPT THE UPDATED POLICY GUIDE FOR MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS ACTION: WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan include level of service components for schools, parks, fire and rescue, libraries, and transportation chapters; and WHEREAS, a was created to establish the suggested monetary contributions for development applications to address levels of service in 1998; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Boards request for yearly updates of the policy guide, it was updated on October 2000, January 2002, and June 2004; and WHEREAS, the has been updated to reflect among other things new population and household estimates, student generation figures, cost adjustments requested by individual agencies, as well as a uniform average cost per acre to acquire land for library, school and fire and rescue facilities; and WHEREAS, staff has coordinated the update with the agencies, as well as with the Proffer Oversight Committee; and WHEREAS, the Prince William Board of County Supervisors conducted a work session on Aprill8, 2006, when staff presented the updated information, and where a member representing the Proffer Oversight Committee and the Northern Virginia Building Industry Association provided comments to the Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Prince William Board of County Supervisors does hereby adopt the updated dated March 31, 2006, to become effective July I, Votes: Ayes: Nays: Absent from Vote: Absent from Meeting: For Information: Planning Director CERTIF1ED COPY =--,--o-,---, Clerk to the Board

14 Craig S. Gerhart County Executive COUNTY OF PRINCE WILLIAM OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT 1 County Complex Court, Prince William, Virginia l (703) Metro FAX: (703) Aprill9, 2006 BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Sean T. Connaughton, Chairman Maureen S. Caddigan, Vice Chairman Hilda M. Barg W. S. Wally Covington, III John D. Jenkins Martin E. Nohe Corey A Stewart John T. Stirrup TO: Board of County SupervisorfsU,~- FROM~D. r Stephen K. Griffin, AICP v ~ 0{ Director of Planning THRU: RE: Craig S. Gerhart County Executive Adopt the Updated - Countywide I. Background in chronological order is as follows: A. Level of Service (LOS) Criteria - The Comprehensive Plan utilizes LOS standards to measure the quality or quantity of service provided by five County agencies: Public Works/Transportation, Schools, Parks, Libraries, and Fire and Rescue. These criteria are utilized to evaluate the potential impacts of development applications on public facilities and to suggest mitigation measures to offset the impacts. B. (Policy Guide)- The policy guide details the process for the calculation of suggested monetary proffers to offset the impacts on public facilities. Each section outlines the data and methodology used to derive the suggested proffer amounts for single-family, townhouse, and multifamily dwellings. C. Past Modifications to Policy Guide- The policy guide originally called for a phased approach to the suggested monetary contributions from 66% to 100% when it was first instituted in Since approval of the first policy guide in 1998, subsequent updates were approved in October 2000, January 2002, and the most recent approval in June D. Annual Update When the Board of County Supervisors first adopted the policy guide in 1998, it requested an armual update of the data. An Equal Opportunity Employer,_r.llRAr1,. c\1[ ~2ff;0,c ~v > > PRINCE WILLIAM (OLIKTY

15 Updated April 19, 2006 Page2 II. Current Situation is as follows: A. Process- Staff coordinated with the Schools System, Library System, Fire and Rescue, Public Works/Transportation and the Finance Department and with the Proffer Oversight Committee during the past several months. B. Parks and Recreation Proffer Amounts- No changes are proposed to parks and recreation proffers at this time. Once the ongoing open space study is complete and new level of service standards are established, the suggested monetary proffers will be calculated. This update is anticipated to be complete in C. Data Used in Process: 1. Dwelling Units Projected by The policy guide uses the Metropolitan Washington Conncil of Governments (MWCOG) Ronnd 7.0 projections for population and dwelling unit growth. This forecast projected that a total of 55,924 dwelling units would be built between 2000 and These projections for growth are high for the first I 0 years, but are reduced in the outlying years. 2. Changes to County Population~ The policy guide incorporates a revised County population figure of354,383, based on the Office oflnformation Technologys estimate of the Countys population as of June Procedure Used to Calculate Cost of Land Acquisition- All agencies continue to report significant increases in the cost of land acquisition for public facilities. A unified average cost per acre of$128,468 is used for libraries, fire and rescue, and schools, based on recent transactions between Jnne 2003 and Jnne This is an increase from the $110,283 per acre used in the last update. 4. Procedure Used to Calculate Cost of Road Improvement- A simplified manner of calculation of road costs was used with the 2004 update and is maintained with this update. The current procedure involves calculation of total cost of unfunded lane miles needed to be built, using recent cost estimates, and then using the residential share of the total trip generation to derive the residential share of this total cost. The amount is then distributed among the 55,924 nnits projected to be built by 2025, using the DCSM trip generation factors per type of unit to calculate costs. 5. Changes to Debt Service Credits - Similar to prior updates, an amount is deducted from the calculated cost per dwelling unit for schools, libraries and fire and rescue facilities already planned and identified in the FY 07 CIP. This is the debt service for known projects that the new units will not have to pay as part of the proffers, as they will be paying it as part of their taxes.

16 Updated April 19, 2006 Page 3 D. Meetings with Proffer Oversight Committee- The Planning Office has conducted several meetings over the past several months with representatives of the Proffer Oversight Committee, who were appointed by the Board of County Supervisors. This committee represents the development community. Mr. Joe Jacobs, representing the committee, spoke of their concerns regarding the proposed amounts and the methodology for the calculations at the Boards work session on April 18, E. Summary of Changes to the Requested Monetary Proffer Amounts: Attachment A is the updated policy guide under consideration by the Board. Listed below is a summary of the monetary amounts as proposed in the guide: a) Single-Family Detached The requested monetary proffer amount has increased from $22,986 to $37,719, an increase of $14,733 (a 64% change). b) Townhouse- The requested monetary proffer amount has increased from $21,595 to $31,927, an increase of$10,332 (a 47% change). c) Multifamily - The requested monetary proffer amount has increased from $11,171 to $19,526, an increase of$8,355 (a 74% change). F. Summary of Changes By Facility: 1. Schools - The School Board reports that facility construction costs have significantly risen for elementary, middle and high schools (approximately $4.4 million for elementary, $16.3 million for middle, and $23.4 million for high school). There have also been slight changes in the student generation factors. The gross cost per pupil has accordingly changed from $17,383 to $22,940 for elementary schools, from $16,614 to $30,271 for middle schools, and from $23,059 to $34,636 for high schools. These costs, minus the debt service credit as well as credit due to state funding of public facilities, have resulted in a change in the cost-per-unit type. The new requested monetary proffers for schools have increased as follows: a) Single-Family Detached- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $8,939 to $14,462, an increase of$5,523 (a 61% change). b) Townhouse- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $8,435 to $11,685, an increase of$3,250 (a 38% change).

17 Updated April 19, 2006 Page4 c) Multifamily- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $2,342 to $5,033, an increase of$2,691 (a 114% change). This change results in part from an increase in the percentage of students living in multifamily residences from to Libraries- The cost per book volume has increased from $18.00 to $24.00, in addition to the increase in the cost of land. The new requested monetary proffers for libraries have changed as summarized below: a) Single-Family Detached- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $551 to $610, an increase of$59 (a 10% change). b) Townhouse- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $560 to $60 I, an increase of $41 (a 7% change). c) Multifamily- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $3 81 to $418, an increase of $3 7 (a 9% change). 3. Fire and Rescue - The average cost per capita of land, construction, and equipment for a fire station has increased from $ to $ per capita. Since the last update, two new fire stations have been constructed and will assist with responses to residential incidents. An increase in debt service amounts over the current CIP resulted in an increase in the credit provided, thereby resulting in minimal change in the per unit amount from the last update. The new requested monetary proffers for fire and rescue have changed as summarized below: a) Single-Family Detached- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $753 to $749, a decrease of$4 (a -I% change). b) Townhouse - The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $715 to $720, an increase of$5 (less than a 1% change). c) Multifamily- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $510 to $509, a decrease of$1 (less than a -1% change). d) Nonresidential- The suggested nonresidential monetary proffer amount has changed from $0.56 per square foot to $0.61 per square foot, an increase of$0.05 per square foot (a 9% change).

18 Updated April 19, 2006 Page 5 4. Transportation- Costs of road improvements per lane mile have significantly increased from $2,167,940 to $4,000,000 (an 85% increase). As a result, the cost-per-residential unit has increased significantly. The percentage of residential trips to total trips has increased from 56% to 59%. Based on COG 7.0 forecasts, the number of new units projected to be built by 2025 is 55,924. The new requested monetary proffers for transportation have increased as summarized below: a) Single-Family Detached- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $8,770 to $17,926, an increase of$9,156 (a 104% change). b) Townhouse- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $8,160 to $15,196, an increase of$7,036 (an 86% change). c) Multifamily- The requested monetary proffer amount has changed from $5,258 to $10,887, an increase of$5,629 (a 107% change). 5. Parks- No change is being recommended to parks due to the ongoing open space study. Once the study is complete and new level of service standards are established, the suggested monetary contribution will be calculated. G. Proffer Amounts ofneighboring Localities- Loudoun County and Stafford County have recently revised their proffer amounts and Spotsylvania is currently considering changes. Their current amounts are referenced in Attachment B. III. Issues in order of importance are as follows: A. Level of Service/Comprehensive Plan- Are the proposed revisions and policies incorporated into the revised policy guide consistent with the basic level of service approach as part of the Comprehensive Plan? B. Fiscal Impacts- What are the impacts of the proposed revisions to the Policy guide on the Countys fiscal strategies? C. Timing- When will implementation of the revisions to the policy guide occur? D. Legal- What legal requirements are necessary to implement the revisions to the policy guide? E. Community Participation- What public involvement or comments have been received on the proposed LOS update from the public?

19 Updated April 19, 2006 Page6 IV. Alternatives, beginning with the staff recommendation, are as follows: A. Adopt the Updated Dated March 31, 2006 (Attachment A), Effective July 1, Level of Service/Comprehensive Plan- The Policy Guide for Monetary Contributions is consistent with the general tenets of the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for calculation of the initial capital costs needed to support each new dwelling unit. It also utilizes more up-to-date population, household numbers, and student generation factors. 2. Fiscal Impacts- The proposed monetary contributions are intended to offset the impact of initial capital costs generated by each new dwelling unit for the five services identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The policy guide provides for developers to commit to the suggested LOS proffer amounts effective at the date of rezoning, rather than the date of development of the units. Historically, service level costs have increased over time, resulting in new units paying less than the amount in effect during the year that they are occupied, even with the application of the escalation clause using the consumer price index (CPI-U). 3. Timing The revised policy will apply to applications for rezoning accepted on and after July I, Legal- Cash proffers are voluntary. This methodology provides the rationale in determining the suggested cash proffers. 5. Community Participation- Several meetings with the Proffer Oversight Committee have occurred since last summer and the committee has reviewed the proposed changes to the policy guide and has comments, particularly on the transportation section and its methodology. The committee has presented its concerns to the Board at its work session on the update on April 18. B. Adopt the Updated Dated March (Attachment A), Subject to a Phased Implementation. as Outlined in Attachment C. 1, Level of Service/Comprehensive Plan- The Policy Guide for Monetary Contributions is consistent with the general tenets of the Comprehensive Plan. It provides for calculation of the initial capital costs needed to support each new dwelling unit. It also utilizes more up-to-date population and household numbers.

20 Updated April 19, 2006 Page 7 2. Fiscal Impacts- The proposed monetary contributions are intended to offset the impact of initial capital costs generated by each new dwelling unit for the five services identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The policy guide currently provides for developers to commit to the suggested LOS proffer amounts effective at the date of rezoning, rather than the date of development of the units. Historically, service level costs have increased over time, resulting in new units paying less than the amount in effect during the year that they are occupied, even with the application of the escalation clause using the consumer price index (CPI-U). A phased implementation of the new amounts would result in a number of rezoning cases processed after July 1, 2006 not paying their full share of the capital costs. On the other hand, a phased implementation would allow builders and developers a period of adjustment whereas only 50% of the increase would be requested for rezoning proposals between July 1, 2006 and December 31, The full 100% increase for rezoning proposals would be implemented on January 1, Timing- The phased implementation policy would allow the first phase (50% of the increase) to apply to applications for rezoning accepted on or after July 1, 2006 through December 31, The final phase (1 00% of the increase) applies to applications for rezoning accepted on or after January 1, Legal- Cash proffers are voluntary. Ibis methodology provides the rationale in determining the suggested cash proffers. 5. Communi tv Participation - Several meetings with the Proffer Oversight Committee have occurred since last summer and the committee has reviewed the proposed changes to the policy guide and has comments, particularly on the transportation section and its methodology. A phased implementation concept was recommended by the Proffer Oversight Committee. The committee has presented its concerns to the Board at its work session on the update on April 18. The Proffer Oversight Committee has requested implementation over a three year period. C. Take No Action. 1. Level of Service/Comprehensive Plan- The policy guide will not be updated for infrastructure costs and relevant household data. 2. Fiscal Impacts- This alternative is not consistent with the Countys policy of moving toward a "pay as you go" approach to development and does not reflect the full impact of initial capital costs generated by each new dwelling unit. 3. Timing- Not applicable.

21 Updated April 19, 2006 Page 8 4. Legal- Cash proffers are voluntary. The current methodology provides a rationale for determination of suggested amounts. 5. Community Participation - Meetings with the Proffer Oversight Committee have occurred and an additional meeting is scheduled for April 28, No input has been received from the general public. V. Recommendation is that the Board of County Supervisors accept Alternative A and adopt the attached Resolution. Staff: Lisa Fink-Butler, x6839 Attachment A -, revised March 31, 2006 Attachment B- Proffer Amounts of Neighboring Localities Attachment C- Phased Implementation Table NREILFB:lfb:w\BOCSrepProfferGuide may

22 POLICY GUIDE for MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS Prince William County Office of Planning Effective July 1, 2006

23 I. Background The Virginia General Assembly, at its 1974 session, enacted legislation allowing counties having an urban county executive form of government to aecept the voluntary proffering of certain conditions in writing from a zoning applicant. Va. Code Section In a subsequent action, the State Code was amended allowing a handful of other jurisdictions, including Prince William County, to accept proffers. In 1976, the Prince William County Zoning Ordinance was amended to include provisions for the aeceptance and enforcement of proffers submitted with rezoning applications. The purpose of the legislation, known as conditional zoning, is to provide additional flexibility to local jurisdictions. The concept intends that the negative effects of a particular zoning application be offset to some degree through the proffering of mitigative conditions by the applicant. Proffers have become an increasingly significant factor in the Countys land use regulation process. II. Purpose of This Document As part of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan, Prince William County established level of service (LOS) criteria for the various chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. LOS is a standard or benchmark by which to measure the quantity and/or quality of service provided by a government agency. LOS criteria were established for the Transportation, Parks and Open Space, and Fire and Rescue Plans. The Library Plan, adopted in 1994, also includes LOS criteria. LOS standards are measured on a Countywide basis. The LOS standards provide an objective justification for mitigation requests. If a proposal does not meet the established LOS for a particular chapter of the Plan, either a monetary, facility and/or site proffer is expected to be provided. Such a proffer seeks to mitigate the demand on Countywide schools, parks, roads, fire and rescue services, and librarie-s presented by the proposed development. In most cases, LOS standards have been computed on a "per capita" or per resident basis. Aecording to Prince William Countys Office of Information Technology (OIT), the population of Prince William County was 354,383 as of June 15, The purpose of this document is to provide a guide to the methodologies used for those equitable monetary contributions for the Schools, Fire and Rescue, Libraries, Parks and Open Space, and Transportation Plans in the Comprehensive Plan. Effective July I, 2006 I

24 SUMMARY OF REQUESTED MONETARY PROFFER AMOUNTS Sine:le Familv Service Amount Schools $1 4,462 Parks $3,972 Libraries $610 Fire and Rescue $749 Transoortation $17,926 Townhouse Service Subtotal $ Schools $11,685 Parks $3,725 Libraries $601 Fire and Rescue $720 Transportation $ 15, 196 Subtotal $31,927 Multifamilv Service Schools $5,033 Parks $2,679 Libraries $418 Fire and Rescue $509 Transoortation $ Subtotal $ These suggested voluntary monetary contributions reflect 2005 data. Actual proffer contributions may be adjusted to account for inflation, based on the Consumer Price Index. The Board of County Supervisors reaffinns its commitment to address workforce affordable housing either by requesting affordable units with new development or requesting an increased contribution in lieu of construction of affordable units. Effective July 1,

25 Schools Level of Service for Schools is defined as average use capacity determined on a Countywide basis. These average use capacity ratios are used to determine the capital cost per student. In tum, these figures are used to determine the capital cost per unit type based on student generation factor for each education level for each unit type. Student Genera tion Factors (SGF) Single F arnily Townhouse Multifamilv Total Elementary Middle High Total Costs Standards Elementa ry Middle High Acres/School Site Cost/ Acre * * $128,468 $128,468 $128,468 Cost/Site $2,569,360 $5,138,720 $10,277,400 Facility Cost $16,930,000 $32,700,000 $64,190,000 Total Cost $19,499,360 $3 7,838, 720 $74,467,440 Student Capacity 850 1,250 2, 150 Gross Cost/Student $22,940 $30,271 $34,636 **Cost/Acre based on the average of the public land acquisitions between 7/03-7/05 Effective July I,

26 Cost per Unit Type Single Family Townhouse Multifamily Type Cost/Student SGF* Cost/Unit SGF* Cost/Unit SGF* Cost/Unit Elementary $22, $6, $5, $3,097 Middle $30, $4, $3, $1,695 High $34, $7, $5, $2,147 Total $18,366 $14,560 $6,940 *SGF =Student GeneratiOn Factor Suggested Monetarv Contribution The suggested monetary contribution for schools is determined by subtracting from the gross cost per housing unit both funding received from state and federal sources for capital needs and a debt service credit. The debt service credit is derived annually by amortizing projected CIP school debt. Unit Type Gross Cost Less State/Federal per Unit Share of Capital FY06 I 1.2% Single Family $18,366 -$2,056 Townhouse $14,560 -$1,630 Multifamily $6,940 -$777 *See attached debt serv1ce tables Total capital budget for schools % of Capital budget used for new construction % of Capital budget used for renewal Total $ received from state for capital $17,815,000x Less Credit for Debt Service* Net Cost -$1,848 $14,462 -$1,245 $11,685 -$1,130 $5,033 = $107,454,000 = 67.6% = 32,4% = $17,815,000 = $12,042,940 Percent of state/federal going to new development $12,042,940/$107,454,000 = 11.2% Effective July 1,

27 School Credit l006 <93J l.)or. " Total Credil $ s Single Family 6 Years C:I83687 Fuetl Year 2001.!OOS l ,6()(1 s s 655,900 s ).5~ > s 116 s 179 s ) I.0J(J(I5f.t62R 2010 loll 68tl.700 s m..oo S.3l> l2l s s s 47US2.000 S ()00 s 5S8.JUOOO S ,4.663 s.895.$ )83 s s 25.l s 31, l.uj. 3.9\» Oi:KOUM Rate: > Si,_,le Ftt.Wty rw s S o $ s l """ s OiSOOIJIItAa-1~ A~t~l Year s s Total 61% NPV 2010 loll s lll.l lll.l (1, J JC).97 10( ]1 79.9A $56.61 $A9.3$ Sl $ Sl.lOJil su6.61 sm.:~~~ $239.9$ $ SU3.29 $ $ Sl13.29 $ $1~.63 $ SIJ9.91 $10(1.6 S93.ll $79.98 Sl,ZliM S1.Sl8 Effective July I,

28 School Credil l I.U98.$397.5 A"Cra,Jt Aisc.Jstd Vehlt $ ))1,417 $ 3Sl..100 Real Esutc T n Rlk 0.~ Rea1 ~ace T:u Re"(~MK l.026 :U32 Per«:M 10 Credit Uft ).1:5, Annu.al debt service cndrt 38 $ J) Tout Credit Sl.24.5 Rul EPace Tu Rt~nae Otbt Sei"Yi«for ~"ooos s 4.9$-4,66] ~rc:uc toc~m 1.)0. (Detlc xrvicc. u pcteellt or real u ~e re u-.el Ol$c.ot1111 Race - Sill&lt Famitr l $ ~ ).0 s.o " u.o 1).0 14,0 1$ ),8.17 s "31.& s 4, I,IIJ. 6.1" $ )). 24 """""... -Rs"l YUl 2009 To.,. nhouse 6 Years 1.03()()1& J.0S002-26JS 1, :-.5-4 >010 loll $ $ «I.MOO $ < $ : ~9<\l l.lm ).157 ]... II "" l.61t JI l.jo. "~ 180 "1.$ s $1), s m.mroo $ $ IUl.S.JIJ s ).4 $ U.$ $ )1.900,490 s 2.61o "" - $..,1) \, I<Jo , Fiscal Yew > > & ~ 1"-HPV $ ,.,.., ,j $ 13<68 l l.s.?n I ICU & ~ , $31.11 S3).2A $11.18 $ $141,74 S179SI SI10.J9 $ $ $ $13<.68 S11S.70 $ $107.7 $91.76 $89.71 $80.81 $71.83 S61.l5 mn Sl.J69.90 $1.1" Effective July I,

29 S<hool Cndit 1006 Avmg( Asses~ Val~ :,\01,734 Real Es121e Tn Ratt: 0.91 Rtil E.stace Tax Revenue: ) l.mi Multifamily 6 Ytar$ 1.081JIIS :.\ ()1 24~ :,\4 FiKIIl Year )U s :,\:,\, O.ll ~.09 7 Per\:enl co Credit A Mual debe Krviee credi1 3l local Credit $1.130 l. l"l. 30 l.6s ) "- 110 I)S 163 " Real Esta~ Tu Rc:\C:nut Debt Servia for Sc:IIO<Ib s 4,954,66) ~entic)credit 1.3"- (Debl K"iee u a percuit of real estate rewenuc) S9S.SOO l. I S t7t.ss1.000 s $13, s > $ , ) ) lt ),CJS 4.61> s.;tj> DLKMIIII Rat.e IS \,11> (l.l"l. 6.1J. Sincle Family Xot ) > , ILO!l.O t:..o 14.0 u.o S Fi~e~t Yar loll Dis.colf!tRale JJS : IJ8.S4 1) $ II 10 IO.S.9.$ $ 81..l(l 7)_13 6.s.20 S1.0S 8.90 Total 6.l).t4PV U4.6S S30.17 $70.97 $ $ $ St5<.84 51,6.69 S131..S4 $ $ $)14.10 SIO>.ll$ $97.80 $ Slt..l(l $13.33 $ $.57.0$ $<8.90 $ Sl,l30 Effective July I,

30 Parks (no changes proposed) Determination of Gross Cost per Dwelling Unit Step 1 a = Park Authority standard for acres of parkland per I,000 residents Park Authority standard is 13.8 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, calculated as follows: acres of neighborhood park per I,000 residents --- I acres of community park per I,000 residents acres of regional park per I,000 residents acres of special use park per I,000 residents total acres of parkland per 1,000 residents 13.8 Based on updated information from the Office oflnformation Technology, and approved for use by the Policy Committee in February 2003, on average, there are: Step 2 c = ax d persons/unit 2.94 persons/unit 2.14 persons/unit in Ill in Single-family houses Townhouses Multifamily/Condominium units Where: c = the gross cost per new dwelling unit to acquire and develop an acre of parkland d = the cost per acre to acquire and develop an acre of parkland ($97,259 average cost per acre) Determination of Net Cost per DwcUing Unit Step 3 n = c- (g +b) Where: n = the net cost to the County per new dwelling unit to acquire and develop an acre of parkland g b = state/federal/other contributions for parks (2.50% of c)* debt service credit per dwelling unit 2.SO% average amount of funds from state and federal grants estimated July, 2003 Effective July I,

31 Per Unit Calculations Single Family Gross Cost Step J a = Step 2 c = Net Cost Step 3 g = b = n = 3.19 (13.8) = JOOO ( )*$97,259 = $4, ($4,282) = $107 $202 $4,282 - ($ ) = $3,972 Townhouse Gross Cost Step 1 a = Step 2 c = Net Cost Step 3 g = b = n = 2.94(13.8) = JOOO ( ) $97,259 = $3, ($3,946) = $99 $122 $3,946 - (99+122) = $3,725 M ultifamjly/coodo Gross Cost Step I a = 2.14 (13.8) = JOOO Step 2 c = ( )(92,085) = $2,872 Net Cost Step 3 g b n = = = (2,872) = $92 $121 $2,872 - ( ) = $2,679 Effective July I,

32 Suggested Monetary Contribution (Amortize only projected CIP debt) The suggested monetary contribution for parks is detem1ined by subtracting from the gross cost per housing unit both funding received from state and federal sources for capital needs, and a debt service credit. The debt service credit is derived annually by amortizing projected CIP debt. Unit Type Gross Cost per Unit Single Family $4,282 Townhouse $3,946 Multifamily $2,872 *See attached debt serv1ce tables Less State/Federal Less Credit for Net Cost Share of Capital Debt Service* 2.5% -$107 -$202 $3,972 -$99 -$122 $3,725 -$72 -$121 $2,679 Effective July I,

33 Parks Credit Single Family- 6 Years Fiscal Year Average Assessed Value Real Estate Tax Rate Real Estate Tax Revenue Percent to Credit Annual debt scrvioc credit Total Credit Real Estate Ta.x Reveuue Debt Sel1e<> for Parks $ 355,835 s 384,302 $ 399,674 $ 415,661 $ 432,287 s ,128 4,458 4,636 4,822 5,015 5, % 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% s. s 13 s 12 s 15 s 28 s 29 $202 s 315,284,640 s 354,952,584 s 382,745,950 s 41 1,525,970 s 442,338,782 s 475,458,689 s s s s s s 2, Percent to Credit O.Oo/. 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% (Debt service as a percent of real estaie reve.nue) Discowtt Rate 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6. 1% Single Family Year $ $ $ Discount Rate Fiscal Year $0.00 $ $11.81 $ $14.83 $ $27.90 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $16.17: $ $ $ $ $8.82 Total $353.6~ 6.1% NPV $20 Effective July I,

34 Parks Credit Townhouse- 6 Years $8 Fiscal Year Average Ass~d Value Reat Estate Tax Rate ReaJ Estate Tax Revenue s 215,572 $ , ,701 $ $ 251,816 $ $ 272, Peroent to Ctedlt Annual debt setvice credit Total Credit 0.0% $. s $ % 8 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% $ 1 s 9 $ % s 18 Real Estate Tax Revenue $ 3 t5,284,640 s 354,952,584 $ 382,745,950 s 4 11, $ 442,338,782 s 475,458,689 Debt Service for Parks $ $ 999, $ 975, s 1,265, $ 2,461, s 2,679, Pe~nl to Credit 0.0% 0.3% (Debt setvice as a percent of real estate revenue) 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% Discount Rate 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% Townhouse Year Fiscal Year $ $ 7.60 $ 7.16 $ 8.99 Discount Rate Total 6.1% NPV 2008 $ $ $0.00 $7.60 $7.16 $8.99 $16.90 $17.81 $16.92 $16.03 $15.14 $14.24 $13.35 $12.46 $11.57 $10.68 $9.79 $8.90 $8.01 $7.12 $6.23 $5.34 $ $ 22 Effective July I,

35 Parks Credit $8 200$ Multifamily 6 Years 1.039!KI $9 Fiscal Ye.at !KI3$ Average As-sessed Value Real Estate Tax Rate R&al Estate Tax Revenue $ 213,807 $ , ,679 $ 240,14a $ 249,754 s 259, , s 270, ,134 Percent to Credn Annual debt semoe credit $ 0.0% s 0.3% 8 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% $ 7 s 9 s % s 18 Total Credn $121 Real Estate Tax Revenue $ ,640 s 354,952,564 $ 382,745,950 s 411,525,970 s 442,338,782 s 475,458,689 Debt Service for Parks $ s 999.$21.25 $ 975, s 1, $ $ Percent to Credit 0.0% 0.3% (Debt service as a percent of real estate revenue) Oiscount Rate 6.1% 6.1% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% 6.1% Multifamily Fiscal Year Year $ 2.0 $ $ $ Discount Rate $0.00 $7.54 $7.10 $8.91 $ $16.77 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $5.30 Total $ % NPV $121 Effective July I,

36 Libraries Level of Service for Libraries is defined as building square footage and volumes (books) needed in order to meet nationally recognized standards for suburban populations. Square Feet of Library Building Needed Volumes Needed = 0.41 square feet per capita = 2.5 volumes per capita COSTS: Standards Square feet/capita Building cost/square foot Acres/capita Cost/acre ** Subtotal to construct building per capita Volumes/capita Cost/volume*** 0.41 $ $128, $24.00 $ $6.81 $ $60.00 GROSS COST PER CAPITA $ Multiply by 3.19 for single-family dwelling, 2.94 for townhouse, or 2.14 for multifamily Suggested Monetary Contribution Unit Amount Less C redit for Net Debt Service Single Family $ $ $ Townhouse $ $ $ Multifamily $ $96.00 $ **Cost/Acre based on the average of the public land acquisitions between 7/03-7/05 ***Cost/Volume is computed by using the acquisitions module to determine the actual average cost per volume paid in the last fiscal year, then adjusted based on assumptions about collections. Effective July I,

37 Lihr ry Crtdil l006 A"C!IfC At.M:»Cd Value tl.j6ji Rul f,a.latc: TH Rltt 091 ACII Eamc Tar Rc~ 91 Pcrcc:nl o Credit 00,. Anllllll debt tcrvicc credit TOIIIOtdtt SU7 lto1 E6tMt: T n Rtft~We I m...ooo DeUS ,._ PctcCftll.. Credit... ([}id)t ltt"!ce b I pc1«n ftlf tctl C$1:MC tcycmic. OltcnUollt Jt.. c: Slntkfamly X o s.o a.o ~ o 1$ II.G 190 lll.o l006 "" ljloi ~ I I 41.3$) 0... lu.a.<xio ljloi Singlt Fomlly. ~ Yurs l.om16661 I.(1699! ~161) I OXIOS66M... v..!001 l009 loio loll 6$~ I 709,ol()(l 61).000 o.n ,.6(11 4,611.. us $.06$ t O.S:l> OS.... 1! II " I fli.ssl.ooo I,1),41?6.000 " S$1.))} : I 1,91 1,JOO I 1..~ ~ :Ul&.t~ OIKOUM Ra,. o...,_,.. 0_$.... " "" <1.1" " " FGIY~ 2001 l009 loio loll lltl "" 61~ NPV Zl.Sl.. 6.1" I 11.0S > I.S.~ ).68 ll.6.l II.SB =,., &.411 l,j7 6.) Sl1tl SlOG snn UI.G$ no.oo Sll.ts $.19 Sl S $1 SIIU),,., st.al u.. n SU7 Effective July I,

38 Library Crtdit 2006 Avera&e AJscsKd Valw s 3:JU77 Rul Eau~e Ta Ra.te 0.91 Rtll E&talit Ta Ruu.ue J.OU Perc:cn1 to Credit Afl~tl debe~ aedit TCilal Credit F!ul &ute Tt RcYenu.t: Deb!: SciYi«((If Uht-lriu Ptrc:t111 to Cttdic (Otbi XlVI«U I pctum o/ fui cs.ijte rtve-) Disco. Rtte sm.,.r..o.,. XU< l.q.o s.o ).0 ".0 t>.o n o... SI )1.&<t o Jt 1.1 9& ) JS o b Tn" nhnuse.. 6 Years &., &)5 1.0: Fiscal Year 2008 """ 2010 loll U1.a<XI 46].900 n.soo O.lt 1.96$ J.l.S7 ],411 o 7US ~ Sl), " " l>l)ll.ooo !.SOO s 2.69C,9.S0 s 2.606,9.50 s ~..... OSI O.S1. n Jt -... v ,.py "" 1010 loll 16.)0 IS.21 $ $ f)m\4, I.SI l J so.oo $().()() S lO SI.S.ll Sl.l8 Sll. Sl1.16 Sll.OS StU $10.63 $9.93 $9.22 $8~1 S7.t0.,... S6.JI $ S<.lJ SIBUI S106 Effective July I,

39 Llhrary Credit 2006 A veta; ( Asie$Kd Value.301.7$4 ReaJ &utt Tu. Rtu: 0.91 Real Esl* Tu Revenue I.U994:\ :1< Multifamily~ Yea.-. L ()90) (\1 2411&& Fi!GII Year )74,800 () s U19 l.9$ ~ )), ).097 Percent to C~k 0.1)1. An~ll debt service credit s TautCKdi1 Rtal Estlk To Rcvtt~UC: s ,000 Odic~ fot Librarie$ ~en co Credit (Dtbc K!"Yicc u ptrccnl of real dollltt revenue) s o..,.. s 0.1)1. s s 0.1) O.SI. 0.5" s II " I s 7US s m.nl.ooo s SOO s s ~ s 0.41> SI 0.4$ ll l.si8.9so Q. 4S. Oiscou111 Rm fi.llt Sit~~k F.mily -1.0 s 2.0 l.o.o s.o a.o u.o s 2007 FtSUI Year s 14,8(1 s L\.80 To" Oisc:OIItll Rat( t.. l"fo~ s 2011 so.oo SO.IIO $14.80 $ Sll.l $1123 II.S8 SII.Sl 10.~ SIO.t< 10.)0 SIO.JO 9.65 S9.6S ~.01 S )7 Sl $7.12 7,08 $ $6.44 $.19 SS.79 S$.U s.u.so S-<.50 l.ll S3.16 Sl6$.03 S96 Effective July I,

40 Fire and Rescue NEEDS: Needs are defined as building square footage, acreage, and equipment needed to provide fire and rescue service that meets local service standards for suburban populations, expressed as costl capita (residential) and cost/incident (nonresidential). RESIDENTIAL COSTS: Residential Factor: (2005 data) Residential incidents Total incidents = 17,939 = ,655 Residential factor applied to total cost of fire and rescue services. Standards for Residential: Bldg. cost/capita 1 $ X Land costlcapita 2 $68.88 X Equipment cost/capita 1 $ X = = = $ $ $ COST PER CAP IT A $ Multiply by 3.19 for single-family dwelling, 2.94 for townhouse, or 2.14 for multifamily 1 This figure is based on the average cost over the proceeding 3 years. 2 This figure is based on the average cost of recent land acquisitions for county agencies. Effective July l,

41 Suggested Monetan Contribution (Amortize current debt and project CIP debt) Unit Type Gross Cost per Unit Single Family $ Townhouse $ Multifamily $ Based on FY05 Cap1tal Budget NONRESIDENTIAL COSTS: Standards for Nonresidential: Capital cost of station (land. building, and equipment) Maximum desirable incidents served per station Less Funds Fire Levy for Capital % -$ $ $ $ ,000 Less Credit for Debt Service Net Cost -$ $ $78.00 $ $71.00 $ $2, Capital cost per incident Capital cost per incident x nonresidential incident generation factor ( sf) $ X = $ 0.61 per square foot Suggested Monetary Contribution Unit Nonresidential Amount $ 0.61 per sq. ft. Effective July I,

42 F&R Credit U""69S 1007 Single Family 6 Years ~$ 1.069?&3687 I.O~fl\l~ I.O;IOOSM2l Fi&eal Year l008 l loll Ava cc A.sukd Valut $ 49~~6, Rul f!a;ttic: Tu Rnc 0.91 Rc.al Est~lt Tu Rtvtt~Ut. 91 ~tecrtdll A-.ual dtbf 1Cf"WU t:rtdll 2.6& t.. :~IO Rr.ai~TuRr~ )92.6l6.000 Ddlf Scr-lcc: tot FI:R $ UU1S ~n:rm to Cttdtt (Ott)ltcl"\llce 1 pcrcr_n. of re: l ejuk n:ycnat) DIKOUIII fhic s S61,600 0,11.3S~ O.l.. $ IO U $ Jt.l I.OJA.,OII O.ll $ 6U.OOO $ n.100 $ o;u.to I S.l!OS $ 1.\_16 " " 0.).. 0.)... 0.)... 0" $ I.&I) Jl ~Sl.OOO $ $ S"-ll.OOO OOO..OSOJlOO $ I,.o )2, 196 $ 1, OJ.. 0.).. 0).. o.~ > f-.11. " " 1\.11. Sf"tkF"IrNiy 1m l.g s.o ILO u.o IO l Fitc1IYar ).16 U..Ol, "4NPV $ 14, 1) l 1)91 ll.:u 12.$2 IUl ll.ll ) 9.7 IJS S.S6..., 12.6& $10.42 Sl3.16 SIS.07 SloUl Sll.9t su.n lll.jl SIUl sil.n SIO:l $9.74 $9.0< S&.JS sus $6.26 ss.u $4.17 SU7 $ Sll6 Effective July l,

43 f&r Credit 2006 A~ra;c A~Stct V1luc Real E4tate Tu. Rite 0.91 Real $tale Tu. Rt tll11t 3,026 PtftcM 10 Oedlt AnnuJ~I debt service crcdk T01t1 Cttdit :nun " Rell Esra~e Tax Reveauc Debt Service few F&R ll4.3u Percent 10 Crtdit 0.1); (Debt KIYic:e u 1 pe«:ent of real esutt rcven.ud I.U98.S;l975 l , s 4)1,8.60,000 s 1.034, Townhouse- 6 Years I.Ota99927)4 I J>SOOl:U.! Msul Year lj)c)8 l009 2() , ;l ~.., ,411 OJ._ OJO, 0.)1> OJ.. 10 s 10 s s 71.5 s s 513, s ls!.jl3.000 s , o. :v~o 0.3..,. O.J ,66,46" O.J!J, OisctltUM Rifle ii.l J, (>I" I J, Sinale Fa.nily X ) s.o ) u.o ro.o w l007 s 7.02 Oo:Kount ~~. F;teaiYar loll... s s 9.51 $ ~ ~ NPv 9J ) 7,9\ ,0) 6.l<l 6.09 S.62 s.u ,12. l.js ).18 Ul SUI S7.02 SU >1 S.J7... S8.4) $7.9\1 $7.50 $7.03 $6.$6 $6.09 SS.62 SS.IS $4.68 s.t.u SJ.lS S).U run Sl%8.11 S78 Effective July 1,

44 F&R Credit 2006 Aoelife Asses~d Valve $ )01.7$4 Real Estat~ TIA R)lt: 0.91 Real Escat< TIll ReYCil~ 2,U6 Pt"rccn 10 Credit AnMilll <kbl scrvu Crtdil $ l~;l;\ 1!0()7 347, o~... $ 6 Multifamily 6 Years 1.011QIIH74 I.Ofi99M ~ fl~-4 Fl~al Yc:a loll ~74,$()() $ $ 4)) ~ O.Jl. 8 $ 9 $ 9 $ 9 Tot.a!CrcdM $71 Reat Esttte: T u Rt:YCfltX 39.U86JJOO Debt Strvk:.c ftlf F&R 234,315 Pcn::e:nl 1<1 Credit O.llo (Debf K.fVict»it perttnl O( ~~ C$Uitc rcve:nllc) $ 4) )4.()81 0,2). $ 471rS.S2.000 $1), !.3~ ,0S9, , $ O.JJ> 0.3~ 03.. O.).S> l..o9,679 OiS«~Unc Rile - Si,..kFamlty 200< s.o Jl.O IS.O o 6.:n 6.1J ~. I I. FIICII Ye Oiscnum R&lt uo a.os 7.6S 1.2) & S.9S 5.$3 $.10 " NP\1 4,68 4. u ),8) 3.40! ~ S1.6ol S6.37 $1,04 S9.21 Sl.6ol SS..IO S8.o6 S7.6$ S7.23 S6.80 S6.38 S$.95 S$.$3 $5.10 S4.U S3.83 S3.40 $2.98 $ Sl16.83 S7l Effective July I,

45 Transportation In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the follo\ving c~lculations are based upon roadways classified as Major Collector and above. Roadways classified as Minor Collectors and Local Streets are evaluated in conjunction with development proposals as stipulated in the Prince William County Design and Construction Standards Manual (DCSM). Calculations reference lane-miles. Lane-miles are defined as the product of the number of through-traffic lanes for a given segment of roadway multiplied by the length in miles of that given segment of roadway. Standards: Total lane-miles needed in 2025 to meet LOS goals in adopted Thoroughfare Plan network Less lane-miles opened to traffic through January 1, 2006 Additional lane-miles of road needed by 2025 Less improvements included in the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COGs) 2005 Financially Constrained Long-Range Plan (CLRP) Lane-miles of unfunded road improvements (rounded to nearest mile) Multiplied by the estimated average cost/mile of new road Total estimated cost of unfunded road improvements = 1,659.0(J) = ( 4 ) = x $4 ooo ooo< 5 >, = $ 1,378,000,000 The following are forecasted residential trips based on current Thoroughfare Plan and COG Round 7 forecast. Total trips per day forecasted for 2025 Resident-based trips per day Home-based work trips Home-based other trips Home-based shopping trips Trips to other counties Total resident-based trips per day = = = = = 1,989,731 ( 6 ) 108, , , ,581 1,171,607 a Includes Interstates, Parkways, Principal and Minor Arterials, Major Collectors and ramps identified in 2025 Thoroughfare Plan. 4 The number shown includes the 4J.I Iane-miles approved by Prince William County voters for funding in 2002, the Jane-miles under consideration for a 2006 bond referendtun and the 49.5 Jane-miles under consideration for a 20 I 0 bond referendum. 5 Based upon actual costs for recent Road Bond Branch construction projects. 6 forecasted trips per day from 2006 Comprehensive Plan transportation model. Effective July I,

46 Residential share of total trips (1,171,607 I 1,989,731 rounded to whole percent) = 59% Residential share of unfunded road improvements ($1,378,000,000 X.59) = $ 813,020,000 Residential Share An applicant for a rezoning for residential use will be asked to proffer a LOS contribution to help offset the unfunded road improvements identified above. The methodology for calculating this LOS contribution is shown below. If the applicant elects to dedicate transportation improvements and/or right-of-way for roads identified in the Thoroughfare Plan which are above and beyond what is required to mitigate the transportation impact of the proposed development and satisfy VDOT safety requirements, the value of that dedication will be credited against the suggested monetary contribution. The value of that credit will be determined based on the Countys assessed value of the right-of-way and the cost of the transportation improvement using the Countys Unit Price List. The value of the credit will be determined during subdivision plan approval. Cost per unit type: Forecasted residential trio e.eneration bv tvoe of dwelline. unit in 2025: Type of New Units Daily Trip Total New Trips %New Trips Jhol elling Unit by 2025 Generation/Unit by Unit Type by Unit Type Single frunily 25, ,970 56% Townhouse 5, ,200 II% MultifaJ.nily 24, ,852 33% TOTAL 55, , % Distribution of costs attributable to residential trip makine. to type of dwelling unit in 2025: Residential %New Residential Type of Share of T rips by Share by New Units Dwelling Unit Unfunded Needs Unit Type Unit Type by2025 Cost/Unit Single-faJ.nily $813,020,000 Townhouse $813,020,000 MultifaJ.Uily $813,020,000 TOTAL 0.56 $455,291,200 25,397 $17, $ 89,432,200 5,885 $15, $268,296,600 24,642 $10, $813,020,000 55,924 Effective July I,

47 Non-Residential Share Based upon the per unit residential calculations shown above, Prince William County will still experience a shortfall of $564,980,000 for necessary roadway improvements required by The Council ofgovermnents (COG) Round 7 forecasts however, approximately 73,000 additional jobs will be created from nonresidential uses by Applicants for nonresidential development will be asked to contribute right-of-way, roadway construction, and other transportation improvements that serve to mitigate the impacts of that development on the LOS of roads serving that development. Cash contributions in lieu of transportation improvements may also be requested, provided the cash contribution is calculated based on the approximate costs of the transportation improvements that serve to mitigate and have a reasonable relationship to the proposed development. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) submitted with each nonresidential development application will serve as an indication of the extent of that impact and the mitigation required to maintain LOS. These mitigating improvements and the anticipated revenue growth from new nonresidential development are anticipated to alleviate the $564 million shortfall. Effective July 1,

48 Suggested Proffer Language To facilitate the subsequent review of site and subdivision plans, the proffer statement should be written in clear and concise language v;ith consideration toward future interpretation. The performance details of a proffered condition should be defined. More specifically, the proffer text should include information pertaining to not only what is being proffered, but also when the action will occur and who is involved in performance of the action. Where possible, proffers should define objective standards of performance to avoid any subsequent debate regarding interpretation. Restatements of already existing state or local requirements should be omitted from the proffer text. Each proffer should state the time frame within which the proffered obligation will be performed. In the absence of explicit language indicating when performance is to occur, the County will generally request demonstration of performance of the proffered obligation with the preliminary or first final site or subdivision plan affecting the rezoned property. Actual performance is expected at the time of development subject to approved plans and issuance of permits. Examples of preferred collection dates for monetary proffers generally are listed below: Final plan approval Lump sum with the issuance of a land disturbance permit Lump sum with the first building permit for a particular type of unit Per lot or unit amount with every building permit for a particular type of unit Pursuant to direction from the Board of County Supervisors, applicants will be encouraged to make monetary contributions for transportation improvements as a lump sum prior to issuance of a site development permit. In order to facilitate more efficient use of proffered monetary contributions, the direction of such contributions to specific capital projects wi ll be discouraged, as will limitation of monetary contributions to a specific area of the County. Applicants proffering monetary contributions will be encouraged to include a provision to adjust the proffered amount consistent with the increase in the cost of improvements over time. The County will maintain a cost of construction "index" to assist the applicant in determining the appropriate rate. The County Attorneys Office \viii assist the Planning Office in review of proffer language. Applicants seeking assistance with drafting specific proffer language are encouraged to contact the Planning Office. Effective July I,