Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Thinking Through Proffers in Albemarle

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

Albemarle County supervisors are wrestling with an interesting question: How much should developers pay the county for new housing to offset the cost of providing government services. The number tentatively agreed upon: $17,000 per single-family home.

The question goes to the heart of the growth-management debate. As Jeremy Borden with the Daily Progress writes, new households mean more children in schools and more drivers on roads. (It also means more people requiring fire, police and rescue services, more people frequenting libraries, and more lawns and parking lots generating more run-off into rivers and streams.) The board came up with $17,000 based on the county’s planned capital projects and comparisons to other counties, including Chesterfield.

Personally, I think it’s perfectly reasonable for developers (who pass on the cost to home owners) to help defray the county’s capital expenses to build new school buildings, police stations, libraries, fire stations and other amenities that the new residents will demand. But I don’t think the Albemarle supervisors are carrying their logic quite far enough.

The cost of providing infrastructure varies widely by project. Some developments are more compact and have more infrastructure-efficient design. Some locations, especially those farthest from existing population centers, cost more to serve than to others. Some, by virtue of proximity to population centers and existing infrastructure, pose only modest new burdens on local government.

Albemarle — and every local government, for that matter — needs to devise a sliding scale in which the proffer or impact fee varies according to the fiscal impact of the development — and the fee needs to apply to all new houses, not just those in projects that require rezoning. As counties take over responsibility for building and maintaining roads, such a sliding-scale proffer/impact fee is all the more crucial. Houses in transportation-efficient communities would incur lower burdens than houses built on 20-acre farmettes. Developers (and, by extension, home buyers) would be rewarded for building (and living in) communities that required less infrastructure investment.

Exacting the same proffer/impact fee from home owners, regardless of the design or location of their community, is just another form of socialism. It helps the local government recover its costs, but it does not encourage infrastructure-efficient design or location.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

14 responses to “Thinking Through Proffers in Albemarle”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Jim, the Richmond Greens have made it known that the City of Richmond has the most regressive minimum water rate IN THE COUNTRY. Its $43.55 for that first glass of water out of your tap. We offered a $100 to anyone who could find a worse one. The contest time period ended and we gave the money to the Richmond Earth Day celebration. This is a conservation issue as well as a social justice issue.

    Although there have been a few exceptions, the media and bloggers have ignored this. City Council is trying to bring up connection fees and says its not right to compare to the counties’ rates. I question this strongly, since its a City public utility that also sells water to the counties.

    Regardless, we need more sustainable development and affordable citizen services.

  2. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I find the gross difference in proffers between counties… interesting.. ranging from the $30K range in Loudoun and Prince William to the teens for Albemarle and Chesterfield near Richmond (I believe).

    Remember – these are per home so the amount of infrastructure needed is on a per home basis so one might think the per home proffer would be proportional.

    For instance, each home would pay it’s share of a new school and the price for that share.. you wouldn’t think it would vary THAT much between counties…or perhaps it does.. with the price of land.

    But the other aspect that JAB brings up is proffer proportionality with respect to the type of housing – at least partially on the theory that some kinds of compact development require less infrastructure and services….

    ehhhh.. I’m not so sure… in outlying jurisdictions with high commuting populations….

    I don’t know about other counties but in Spotsylvania, the proffer IS on a sliding scale from SFD, to townhouse, duplex, apartments, etc.

    But, I don’t think there is differentiation with regard to “compact development” and I will point out that for places like Spotsylvania.. you can have all the “smart growth” “new urbanist” compact development projects you want but at the end of the day.. the vast majority of folks who buy homes in those “better” developments will commute every day to their NoVa jobs.

    So the “theory” that these newer types of development are “better” in terms of living and working locally doesn’t really “work” for the exurban commuting counties so why would you give a proffer break anyhow? How would you justify it?

    You could have two families living in a new compact development in Spotsy and one family.. the breadwinner is a Principle at a local Elementary School and the other breadwinner is a government worker at the Pentagon.

    Could you justify charging them different proffers?

    I don’t think so.

    So.. how about if both of them live in a conventional subdivision – would you be justified in charging both of them more than if they lived in a compact development if one still worked local and the other still commuted to NoVa?

    Or.. for a real perverse comparison.. what is the NoVa commuter lived in a comact development and the local worker lived in a standard subdivision.

    Would you charge the local worker MORE than the commuter in terms of proffers?

    I think.. in the long .. run… all you are justified in doing is charging everyone for their fair pro-rata share of the new infrastructure that is needed to serve them and I just don’t see new schools for kids living in a compact development costing less than kids who live in a traditional subdivision.

    I think the best.. most fair..way to handle this would be to have a separate charge for the commuters..for the roads they need to commute to NoVa – either TOLLs and/or congestion pricing.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I thought Larry was on the right track, up until the tolls part.

    There really isn’t any evidence that one kind of community necessarly generates less trafic than another, and anyway, schools are the big enchilada. Even if we can prove that building one kind of community will result in less travel, the likely result would be that we should build more poor communities, which really do have less travel.

    But if we find some other kind of community that meets this goal, then it is likely to have other costs which are offsetting. One reason proffers are higher in Loudoun is that infrastructure costs more there. Another reason is that the residents can afford to pay them, so it is a question of what the market will bear and a question of maximising revenue.

    You don’t get more money by raising proffer requirements if the residents can’t afford to pay.

    The real problem is that cash proffers amount to a means of selling a way out from under the counties’ police powers. Which is why proffers are seldom in cash and mostly in like kind adjustments that benefit the general good, rather than a direct contribution to general revenues. Cash payments are a little too unseemly: they make planners and attorneys nervous.

    Congestion even if it originates in Spotsy or Fauquier mostly happens someplace else like Springfield or Centreville.

    How are you going to transfer the money from the congestion tolls back to the originating county? Why not just tax the county that is causing the congestion through unbalanced development practices?

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    How are you going to transfer the money from the congestion tolls back to the originating county? Why not just tax the county that is causing the congestion through unbalanced development practices?

    That’s sort of the argument DC is making when you think about it :-p

    Just a thought

    NMM

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    right.

    proffers are for infrastructure for the counties.

    tolls are for infrastructure for the commuters.

    they’re separate and different and administured by different entitities.

    p.s. cash proffers are not unusual at all these days in Spotsy.

  6. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I see this in WaPo today:

    “Fairfax Braces for 3,200 New Students”

    and .. ” concerns in several communities where jobs are being added over whether schools and roads can handle the increase in residents.”

    Now.. we be talking for months about having opportunities to build/redevelop compact development communities located near where the jobs are….

    Call me stupid but isn’t this an opportunity for Fairfax to designate land adjacent to Belvoir for new urban settlement patterns?

    set up a development environment where developers can come in and put into action.. the things that are being advocated as the right things to do to address commuting and road congestion.

    What would be the downside?

    If nothing else.. we’d learn more about the practicality of doing something like this – and who knows.. later on.. the county might be able to work with new development in a similiar way.. if successful.

  7. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry the issue is who should pay for it

    We in Fairfax dont want to pay for something that the federal government is causing

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    New/Moved Jobs “causes” the problem – right? It just so happens in this case, it is the Feds.

    Why go after the Feds any more or less than you’d go after other companies that bring jobs …along with congestion?

    What I was proposing was not that Fairfax taxpayers pay for the move but instead that Fairfax itself take a closer look at it’s ordinances and land-use designations in it’s comp plan – to encourage development/redevelopment that would occur near to Belvoir so that folks who transferred there for their job would also have the option of finding a place to live near Belvoir… so Fairfax and it’s residents would suffer less congestion than if all the new job transfers commuted….

    wrong idea?

  9. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    I think it is the right idea. Anyone from Spotsy, for example, who works at Ft Belvoir isn’t then clogging up the highway around the Pentagon or Shirlington, and they also don’t have to drive so far.

    Even better if Fairfax also makes it more possible for people to live closer than Spotsy. The counter argument is that moving jobs to Belvoir then makes it possible for people to live even farther than Spotsy, and thus encourages what we call sprawl.

    Since farther from Fairfax generally means cheaper than Fairfax, that is a market fact of life.

    But what does it mean if youare going to change the “comprehensive”
    plan every time someone wants to create a new Job center? This development is going to make it clear that it is not residential development that causes congestion, but an overconcentration of jobs coupled with inadequate peak transportation to supply those jobs with people. (Yes, and also inadequate housing and other amenities near the jobs center.)

    So here we have a new jobs center, which happens to be Federal, and this jobs center expects the state and county to provide what it needs, which includes comp plan changes, maybe. So who is running the planning show here? And who should be footing the bill?

    Why would you, for example, put a toll on the commuters who are attracted, not to say ordered, to this site? After all, this wasn’t their plan.

    When you have a jobs concentration that causes congestion, send the bill to the job creators. That way you will actually be charging those that benefit most from the new public works, you will encourage them to locate where the charges are lowest(where infrastructure isn’t so expensive to build), and you will provide positive feedback that encourages better and more efficient design – even if it is not as compact as some would like.

    As for the comprehensive plan, it is more of a wish list than a plan, mostly junk and fluff, used as a faux “reason” for people to argue against whatever it is they don’t want. A real plan would be one that is designed to create what it is you do want. Planners wind up devoting their professional lives to changing the comp plans to match the realities on the ground, and this will be another case in point.

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: “if youare going to change the “comprehensive”
    plan every time someone wants to create a new Job center?”

    I’m smiling a bit.

    Is this what you hand in mind for “more places”? 🙂

    he he he 🙂

    A locality can designate an area for jobs.. employment centers… from now until the cows come home but what you say is true also.

    Especially where the Feds are concerned.

    They’re the 600 lb gorilla who can go camp out whereever it wishes…
    and of course the local government folks will pretend that such job “injuries” requires the Feds to mitigate their impact.

    Of course the Feds can move them again to … hey… Spotsylvania…

    all of this points out that.. as you say.. a locality can designate WHERE it wants different land-uses to occur but it has a whole lot less control on the when and how especially with regard to scope and scale.

    What would benefit Fairfax and NoVa the MOST in my view in terms of help from the Feds would be to have a traffic model developed… that could help analyze the new traffic patterns that will result and that same model could be used in the future for other studies….

  11. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “Comprhensive Plans” are a farce. The only reason they exist is that theyt are a required pre-requisite for zoning ordinances that support them: a classic case of circular logic.

    Show me a comprehensive plan that contains a schedule and a budget. Show me won that has passed successive referenda as to its acceptance.

    “….a locality can designate WHERE it wants different land-uses to occur but it has a whole lot less control on the when and how especially with regard to scope and scale.”

    Which is exactly my point. If you can’t control scope and scale, let alone influences external to your jurisdicition, or when it happens, then WHERE is a minor issue, unless you happen to be the NIMBY neihbor.

    “What would benefit Fairfax and NoVa the MOST in my view in terms of help from the Feds would be to have a traffic model developed… that could help analyze the new traffic patterns that will result and that same model could be used in the future for other studies…”

    I agree. But it is not going to happen because the results would be political suicide.

    There is another reason it can;t happen. Models are “proven” by just the scenario you suggest. Make a model to predict the future. When the future comes examine the model (your hypothesis) to see how well it did.
    Then adjust it to see if you can predict the next cycle better.

    The problem is that the nexus between transportation and land use takes thirty years or more to develop, so your models are always thirty years behind. If you read the literature on traffic models, they are rife with disagreement.

    Even worse than that, the “black boxes” turn out to be highly political in nature. Their assumptions are driven by predisposed opinion, not facts on the ground that can be verified across space and time.

    It is perfectly fine to use studies as the basis for other studies. It is important to do so. But in the intervening thirty years or so, many of us will live out major portions of our lives trapped in desperation based on someone’s Comprehensive Plan”.

    God forbid that the comprensive plan should actually be based on the conventional wisdom, which changes a lot more often than thirty years.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    this could actually be a very interesting discussion.

    On one hand, most of us are in favor of letting the markplace decide the when/where/how etc but on the other hand… I don’t think anyone would like the idea of .. say a Walmart locating in the center of a subdivision and then widening a subdivision road to acommodate the increased traffic.

    Some Comp Plans do indeed have CIPs in them or associated with them.

    The CIPs are often associated with schools, libraries and EMS facilities as opposed to roads.

    And that has been the problem.

    Localities have long recognized and accepted the need to plan – financially – for infrastructure associated with schools, libraries, etc .. but not roads.

    re: traffic models

    You can validate almost ANY model by looking at existing facilities that are upgraded/changed.

    Models work fine.. if you validate them properly.

    So folks can and do argue about traffic models and yes.. situations that are very complex still can’t be modelled precisely in every case – but down a notch – it’s not even rocket science anymore.

    It’s pretty straight forward.

    You do a traffic study prior to a development… predict the traffic.

    After the development is built – you go back and do traffic counts and you compare the reality with the model prediction – then you fold that back into the model itself.

    This is really not about the difficulty of using tools to predict infrastructure requirements – it’s about resistance to doing so – because then the affected parties – the developers (and the elected government) will actually have to figure out how to pay for more infrastructure than they wanted to pay for.

    This is the fundamental problem.

    Cost avoidance by refusing to plan – so that you actually know what is needed and the cost to provide it.

    The more typical name is “head in the sand” planning.

  13. Ray Hyde Avatar
    Ray Hyde

    “You can validate almost ANY model by looking at existing facilities that are upgraded/changed.

    Models work fine.. if you validate them properly.”

    All I can tell you is that the people who work on transportation and land use models disagree with you. The time frame is so large that validation is nearly impossible. In any case, we aren;t spending anywhere near enough mony on this problem. The models are going to have to be as common and as well understood as alrm clock and calculators before they are fully accepted.

    Expect a lot of lawsuits in the meantime.

    The nice thing about not planning is that failure comes on you suddenly, without a long preceding period of anxiety and tension.

    Here is the deal. In the US automakers use robots to build automobiles. In Japan, manufactureres use robots to rearrange the plant according to the need for different products.

    One is a plan for stasis, and the other is a plan to accomodate change.

    Which one is more effective?

    As longa as we start off with “The only answer is …..” then we are doomed to fail.

  14. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    How does one get a CEP (circular error probable) of say 300 feet for a 50 million dollar missile that has hundreds of error sources without shooting hundreds/thousands of those missiles and then analyzing each one’s actual performance?

    Answer: models – validated by a small number of test flights.

    Models developed without validation ARE indeed a subject of endless debate in many engineering disciplines but it is a really stupid concept – to argue concepts without using validation.

    the “P” part of CEP is probable defined as a confidence factor of say 2 sigma… which in normal-speak means that yes – there will always be things that cannot be fully explained by the model or even by subsequent analysis but the mistake that is made is by believing that because models will never be 100% accurate – that they will never be useful.

    100% of homes may not actually generate exactly 10 trips per day but if 95% generate between 8 and 11 trips per day… you KNOW that the number is NOT 5 or 6 and that you need to plan for AT LEAST 8 to even get close to a desired functionality if you are going to plan infrastructure.

    Some folks would classify this as Rocket Science. It’s not really.

    It’s really Common Sense but some folks believe that because nothing is 100% reliable .. that it then is .. unreliable… and common sense should help us better understand and accept the .. difference.

Leave a Reply

Read More