Numbers game

Following months of hard work by every department of Goochland government, the long-awaited capital impact model CIM) crafted by outside consulting firm Tischler Bise, was adopted by the Board of Supervisors to justify a new cash proffer policy, also adopted, on February 6.

During its 2016 session, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation intending to limit cash proffers to mitigate only the capital impacts specifically attributable to a particular project. The unintended consequences, however, resulted in a de facto freeze on residential rezoning applications statewide.

In the past few months, Goochland’s supervisors deferred action on four residential rezoning applications until the revised proffer policy and supporting data was in place. This document provides a mechanism to make capital cost impact determinations per project or unit.

Capital items include buildings; expensive equipment like fire-recue apparatus; and parks. Not all capital projects are proffer eligible. For instance, the courthouse and library included in the 25 year capital improvement plan, cannot be funded with proffer dollars.

Even though demand for law enforcement services, provided in the county by the Goochland Sheriff’s Office, are expected to increase, no additional capital facility capacity beyond emergency communications is anticipated, so there is no law enforcement component. In contrast, new fire-rescue stations will be built and equipped, so there is a fire-rescue component. Capital costs are also shown for non-residential uses, which are not subject to cash proffers.

Thresholds of growth that trigger the need for increased capacity in public facilities underlie the calculations. For instance, the number of students generated by a particular subdivision could trigger a need for additional school space.

Based on the recently completed 25 year CIP, some categories are not included. For instance, the animal shelter under construction is deemed to meet the needs of the county for 25 years, and is not included. Costs are based on current numbers and should be updated over time.

County Attorney Tara McGee reminded the supervisors that revenue generated by cash proffers under the old policy never met all of the costs of development. She also said that the policy deals with facility capacity and anything not connected to construction is not included in the current law.

The CIM divides the county into three districts, roughly equivalent to the elementary school attendance zones. The western zone is approximately District 1; the central Districts 2 and 3; and the eastern districts 4 and five.

County population, according to the study, is expected to rise by 8,099 to 30,807 in the next decade and add 565 students to the school system.  It should be noted that even if homes do generate school aged children, there is no guarantee that they will attend public school. Most of this growth is expected in the eastern district.

The CIM report, which is more than 100 pages, includes a lot of data. Summaries for proffer eligible costs by district are interesting. The lowest numbers are in the eastern district, the highest in the central and western between the two.

By right development, which requires no rezoning, is not subject to proffers, nor are single lot rezonings.

Louise Thompson, a local realtor and developer, questioned the methodology of the CIM with respect to the number of students generated by the Breeze Hill and Lane’s End subdivisions.  The CIM into placed those communities into the central school attendance zone even though students who live there go to Randolph. She also contended that the actual number of students generated is far lower than indicated by the CIM and some who already live there attend private schools.

Julie Herlands of TischlerBise contended that, over their lifespan, the homes in question will generate students and moving the homes from one zone to another will make little difference in the overall results. The CIM is based on the recently adopted CIP, which looks forward 25 years.

Herlands commended the county for looking forward in combining a facilities plan, and long term CIP with a tool to address capital impacts of development.

Thompson also contended that high dollar proffers just increase home prices—builders pass the proffer costs along—and make it harder for people of modest means to live in Goochland.

It remains to be seen if developers will “voluntarily” pay these new amounts and if the supervisors will decline to approve rezoning applications without them. In the meantime, the General Assembly is “passing by”  a number of proffer bills this session to be discussed at a “proffer party” sometime next summer. It is hoped that legislation acceptable to both developers and local government  can be crafted at that time.

Board Chair Ken Peterson, District 5 observed that all of the data included in the CIM is interesting and useful but it seems to be only part of the puzzle. The expense of the people who provide government services for the new residents, equipment, and maintenance is not addressed.

Fire-rescue Chief Bill MacKay mentions often the difficulty of finding, hiring, and retaining career providers to compensate for the decline in volunteer participation. Sheriff James Agnew has commented on the dearth of qualified candidates for deputy slots as fewer people choose law enforcement careers. Goochland public safety jobs pay less and offer fewer opportunities for advancement than larger departments,  but we still need enough good people to keep the peace, save lives, and protect property. A closer look at these needs should be part of development decisions.

McGee contended that the new policy is reasonable and defensible under the current law. Applicants still have the option of preparing their own development impact statement, or use the county’s model, if they determine it to be reasonable. Staff can use the CIM to evaluate the applications in a meaningful way.

The TischlerBise report is included in the board packet for February 6, on the county website goochlandva.us. The stream of the presentation is included in the February 6 “meetings on demand” at about the 1:30 mark. Both are worthy of your perusal to understand how new residential growth will be evaluated.

This leaves enough questions to be a cliffhanger on a soap opera. Will developers accept higher proffers? Will the supervisors reject the rezoning applications if they don’t? Will tax rates increase to cover the cost of expanded services? Stay tuned for the next thrilling episode!