Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Watkins Bill Would Revolutionize Impact Fees in Virginia

—

by

James A. Bacon
in ,

Sen. John C. Watkins, R-Powhatan, has submitted what could be the most important legislation of the 2008 General Assembly session: a bill that would transform the way proffers and impact fees are administered across the state.

The bill addresses one of the most critical issues facing Virginia today: how municipal governments pay for the infrastructure (roads, schools and public safety buildings) required to support growth. Watkins’ status as one of Virginia’s most experienced legislators and support from the Home Builders Association of Virginia guarantees that the measure will receive serious consideration.

(The bill hasn’t been posted online yet, but I have a copy, courtesy of Andrea Epps, of Watkins’ summary and some explanatory remarks. For details, click here.)

As Watkins describes the legislation, it would eliminate cash proffers (while still allowing in-kind, on-site contributions such as parcels of land) and substitute impact fees on residential and commercial development. Here’s the biggie: The impact fees also would apply to by-right residential and commercial development, currently exempt from either proffers or impact fees. The bill would put all forms of development on an equal footing.

Says Watkins: “The overall objective of the proposed legislation is to broaden the base of those that make growth-related contributions to the cost of public infrastructure, and consequently to reduce the per unit cost.” Using the example of Chesterfield County, which resides in his senatorial district, Watkins said that Chesterfield collected $27.1 million in proffers between fiscal 2004 and 2007. Under his legislation, the county would have collected $88.7 million.

Key features of the bill would:

  • Eliminate cash from the proffer system. But grandfather any existing cash proffers that have been pledged.

  • Retain the non-cash proffer system. The value of non-cash proffers would be credited against the impact fees.

  • Enact an impact fee statute to cover roads, schools and public safety buildings. All cities and high-growth counties (5 percent population growth per decade or more) with populations over 20,000 could impose impact fees. Ordinances would apply “to all residential and commercial rezonings and by-right residential and commercial development (so-called stale zoned land) within an impact fee service area….”

  • Require localities outside Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads to enact a Real Property Relief Fee. Property owners would pay 20 cents per $100 on the sale of their property to be deposited in a locality’s capital improvement fund. (NoVa and Hampton Roads already have such a fee.)

Here’s where it gets complicated. Ordinances would create “impact fee service areas.” The Watkins document I link to does not explains how these service areas would be set up. Would they be synonomous with the Urban Development Areas created under 2007 legislation? I don’t know. Additionally, Watkins alludes to Level of Service (LOS) requirements within the service areas, as well caps on impact fees.

Bacon’s bottom line: This sounds like a promising start, although the devil is in the details. Watkin’s proposal would advance the objective of “making growth pay its own way,” and it would put by-right development on the same proffer/impact-fee footing as rezoned development. By doing so, it would dramatically shift the balance of market power away from the scattered, disconnected pattern of growth associated with by-right development in favor of larger, more rationally conceived development projects. (It is no accident that Watkins has a big financial stake in such a planned development, the Watkins Center, in Chesterfield County.)

This bill is no cure-all by any means. But it does address one of the thorniest problems related to growth: how to pay for it. My initial reaction is favorable, although I want to hear what others have to say. If Bacon’s Rebellion still had outside funding, I would sic Bob Burke or Peter Galuszka, or both of them, all over this story to make sure all facets of the proposal were properly understood. Alas, we no longer have those resources, so we will have to content ourselves with tracking the bill on the blog. Hopefully, readers will contribute their insight.

Update: The bill, SB768, has been filed.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    I smell a rat. This plan looks to eliminate any impact of the developer by shifting the costs to the farmer who sold his land, and to the future homebuyers.

    In many cases the farmer doesn’t have much choice other than to sell because government has assessed his property based upon past development in his area. We have several horse farms down here that are now up for sale because the taxes have outstripped the ability to pay.

    Also this business with non-cash proffers isn’t as valuable as it may seem. What good is a bunch of dirt signed over to the government? It isn’t on the tax rolls, and is not a usable asset for bonding or other schemes to raise cash for infrastructural improvements. In fact, it becomes a liability the govenment must maintain. The cities here own tons of land, little of which has any economic value whatsoever.

    The end results are higher prices in a collapsing economy, and more taxes that aren’t dedicated to their intended function.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Economists tell us that the cost of impact fees or proffers usually wind up split equally between the developer (actually his customers) and the land seller. It works this way because impact fees reduce the amount the developer is willing to pay. The developer adds his portion to his base cost and adds profit on top of that.

    Politically, impact fees are seen as a tax on developers, but in acuality half of it is a tax on existing residents. Uually the same long term residents who have managed to preserve their property the longest.

    I saw this happen on Martha’s Vineyard, and now it is happening here, in loudoun, and other places as well.

    The real value of this, ought to be more transparency and predictability. As it stands now, any development is a crap shoot: you cannot even get an estimate from the professionals you need of what it willtake to get through the review process.

    If you get through.

    ——————-

    5% per decade seems like a strict criteria. More than half the state fits that bill. Anyplace growing less than that is practically in a recessionary situation.

    —————————–

    What is the point of the property relief fee? If this is a developed property already, why do they need to contribute (again, and again, and again, every time the property is sold) to the cpital improvement fund?

    Some one sells out and moves away, so you relieve them of their property on the way out.

    I guess that’s how it got its name.

    ————————-

    Darrell has painted the picture about right. New development comes in. New owners get the rules changed to protect themselves (slam the door behind). New development raises both the valuation and the taxes. Old owner gets forced out, and punished on the way, for being a “Developer”.

    The farmers do get, or ought to get some protection, in that their vacant land is taxed at a lower rate (but that’s in additon to their regular taxes they pay at the same rate as anyone else).

    What people don’t understand is that all their infrastrucure, barns, sheds, etc. get taxed and assesed at the same rate as the house. But their real value may not be going up anywhere near as fast as nearby residences, and they may actually be throw-aways, in the end.

    On top of that, when they do finally pull the plug, they get back taxed for five years at the full residential rate, even for the land that was vacant.

    If you really want to keep the farms, or local bus service, or air service to the regional airport, then they need to be profitable. If the county wants to retain farms in the scenery business, in order to save money for themselves, then they need to come up with some scenery customers.

    If the counties are effectively borrowing money from landowners by using their power to direct, delay, and tax what would otherwise be a development a free market would accept (and pay for), then you cross over from requiring development to pay for itself to simply preventing development.

    Where that line is isn’t clear at all, and the true facts are deliberately obuscated further by political interests, and those that wish to protect themselves at the cost of others. But, if it does become clear that the line is crossed, when you have truly supernormal requirements, then the landowners put in more or less eternal limbo should have some expectation of considerations in return.

    Some people think land use taxation does that, but they clearly don’t get what is actually happening, or what the current situation is costing them.

    Growth costs money, and it needs to be paid for. Growth also makes money, for everybody. Sure, all we see is our taxes going up, but that isn’t the whole story. preventing growth also costs money, and it has different rewards and values.

    Neither those who suffer growth, those enjoy growth, or those who are prevented from growth, ought to have to pay disproportionately.

    How you resolve that is beyond me, but it is clear from all the yelling on all sides that no one is happy with the present situation.

    RH

  3. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    And let’s look at where those impact fees actually go. The development I live in paid impact fees. Nary an improvement has been made. No, the money went for improvements all right. As capital improvements to benefit the commercial interests. Meanwhile the main street outside our little enclave has no sidewalks, no extra lanes, and no stop light which is sorely needed to keep someone from getting killed trying to cross rush hour.

  4. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If localities think/believe/know that this bill will place a higher level of infrastructure cost on them then tell me again why they would choose to rezone?

    Unless I missed it in the bill or there is a second shoe in the wings, if locality’s don’t like the deal, they can simply say “no thanks”…

    hey… isn’t that what they did until developers returned hat-in-ha nd and said.. “what will it take for you to approve this rezone?”

    Unless that second shoe says something like “oh yeah.. you (the locality) no longer has the right to turn down rezones….”

    Also, with the advent of localities (existing,current taxpayers) becoming more financially responsible for some roads – especially those that get maxed out from new development…

    .. why would they even more inclined to take LESS money for rezones?

    If I wanted to invent an almost perfect way to get more and more localities to model themselves after Facquier County – this would be the way.

    The only way this is going to work out for developers is if the GA pays a companion piece of legislation that essentially strips a locality’s right to not approve rezones.

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Unless I missed it in the bill or “there is a second shoe in the wings, if locality’s don’t like the deal, they can simply say “no thanks”…

    hey… isn’t that what they did until developers returned hat-in-ha nd and said.. “what will it take for you to approve this rezone?”

    So, what you are saying is that it is OK for government to essentially sell their authority?

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “The only way this is going to work out for developers is if the GA pays a companion piece of legislation that essentially strips a locality’s right to not approve rezones.”

    If the development fees are sufficient to cover the costs, why should the locality be allowed to refuse?

    You keep saying it is all about the costs, and I say that’s just a cover.

    RH

  7. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    If you tell a customer that you need a certain number of dollars for hay to “cover your costs” and he says that you are wrong and that he is going to only pay you 1/2 of the cost you claim..

    … then let’s hear your response (absent the “flowery” adjectives):

    🙂

    this is “he said, she said” and how would you resolve it?

    I just love the “one-size-fits-all” aspect of this bill.

    No matter what community.. where they are located.. what their current infrastructure situation is, etc, etc, – everyone gets the same impact fee .. and that fee is determined how?

    Oh.. the Home Builders of Virginia have already determined what that fee is…

    say.. this sounds a really excellent way to stroke the localities to smile as they willingly bend over and wait….

    🙂

    and taxpayers… they’re going to love this.. no matter how much growth has already occurred and no matter how much of a deficit they have in roads and schools.. the state is going to decree that they must accept any proposal made by a developer….

    like I said.. you could not find a better way to empower and “grow” the no-growth folks…. we’re going to be breeding them like rabbits..

  8. Andrea Epps Avatar
    Andrea Epps

    I am looking forward to reading the language of the bill. I appreciate Senator Watkins insight to the “bigger picture”. I choose to be an optimistic individual; however I have found the best laid plans tend to get lost in translation. If this legislation actually charges everyone who uses facilities, God bless it.

  9. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    The Bizarre Case of John Thoburn and his driving range. The Fairfax County Times has an interesting article about a would be developer, his driving range, a Catholic School and a neighborhood anti-development group. Here’s some interesting reading:

    The recent Times article:

    http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/news/2008/jan/15/oakcrest-considers-move/

    John Thoburn’s plea from jail in 2001:

    http://www.freejohnthoburn.com/

    An editorial about the matter:

    http://americancityandcounty.com/mag/government_editors_viewpointcountys_actions/

    And the local homeowners group that opposes development:

    http://www.hmdl.org/

    This is typical of Fairfax County’s zoning wars.

    1. Is the guy a small businessman trying to “feed his family?”. His sale of part of his property for $15M makes the poor small businessman argument hard to swallow.

    2. Is the county trying to protect the business of their own golf course and driving range just up the road? The zoning restrictions placed on Thoburn’s business are a lot harsher than the rules the county follows itself. The county sells beer at its range / course but Thoburn can’t sell Coke in a cup.

    3. Is the sale of part of the land to Oakcrest a prelude to Thoburn applying (yet again) for a zoning variance that will make him even richer? Despite his rhetoric about being a simple small businessman, Thoburn has applied again and again for a zoning variance for his property (currently zoned 1 house per 2 acres). What do these zoning variance applications have to do with running a driving range?

    4. Does the Hunter Mill Defense League really care about the Civil War history of the area or is that just an excuse to deny Thoburn his legitimate property rights?

    5. Even the Oakcrest School has some controversy. It is run along the Opus Dei philosophy within the Catholic Church. Anyone who watched The DaVinci Code remembers Silas – the evil Opus Dei priest. While The DaVinci Code was a work of fiction FBI spy Robert Hannsen’s role as a supernuminary in Opus Dei is fact.

    Anyone wanting a look at the wierd and disappointing world of Fairfax County development need look no further than this bizarre story.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If you tell a customer that you need a certain number of dollars for hay to “cover your costs” and he says that you are wrong and that he is going to only pay you 1/2 of the cost you claim..”

    I don’t see your point.

    I said “if the development fees are sufficient to cover costs…”

    Not “if the fees are sufficient to cover half the costs….”

    If my customer says he will pay half my costs, I either sell for that, and hope for better tmes, or go out of business. I don;t have the option of spreading the rest of the difference to my suppliers.

    The government does. The government will get their money whether it comes form developers, existing residents, new residents, or all three. The only question is: what is the correct mix, given the mix of benefits (yes, and disbenefits, Larry).

    I think it comes down to this: is the government trying to protect some existing residents (from inexorable growth) at the expense of other existing residents and future residents?

    It’s easy to blame the developers here, but lets face it: they are intermediaries. They are come and gone, but the residents stay, and the problems (and benefits) are theirs. Developers are a creation of the laws we made that require them.

    If the government can collect enough in development fees to cover the costs, and if the market will pay them, then what do we do about growth? Or is the problem really one of conservation, trying to avoid its own costs? or is it NIMBY, cloaked in conservation?

    This is the kind of thing that gives conservation a bad name, and we should work to get a real answer, not a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

    If the government can’t collect enough in fees, then why not? Because the Developers are a big powerful special interest. Where do they get their money? From residents. Again, the developers are an intermediary, and the problems belong to residents. Non-residents effectively get their vote through supporting their special interest: the developers. We are unfair to outsiders and then complain when they fight back, “unfairly”.

    I agree this will breed no-growthers like rabbits. I said the same thing about nukes and renewables: if you want to promote them, build a few coal plants.

    So, after we breed a whole bunch more no-growthers, then what do we do about growth? Is there any price that’s high enough, or is the price so high it’s just cheaper to kill people? If the recession gets deep enough, and people really are suffering, guess where the first stimulus is going to hit.

    RH

    RH

  11. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    …”I don’t see your point.

    I said “if the development fees are sufficient to cover costs…”

    right.. and who decides that?

    do the developers/GA decide or does the local government?

    and who decides what an acceptable level of service is for roads, schools, libraries etc?

    I’m quite sure if you ask the developers they’ll name a number quite different from the locality.

    “Here’s where it gets complicated. Ordinances would create “impact fee service areas.” The Watkins document I link to does not explains how these service areas would be set up. Would they be synonomous with the Urban Development Areas created under 2007 legislation? I don’t know. Additionally, Watkins alludes to Level of Service (LOS) requirements within the service areas, as well caps on impact fees.”

    excellent questions.

    and I predict we’ll know just how serious the folks are who are supporting this – in terms of real solutions – shortly by how soon the ideas/concepts are disclosed..questions answered, feedback sought, etc.

    Basically… are you going to work with the localities to deal with the issues of concern to collaboratively develop something that will move us forward.. or are we going to throw a diversionary bomb and try to get something passed that does not have wide/deep support?

    I agree with the idea that at the end of the day, we need a fair and equitable way to ensure that levels-of-service are maintained ad development/growth proceeds.

    And I have a certain amount of optimism (tempered skepticism justified by a history of Lucy/football machinations…

    One bad sign… the use of the “affordable housing” bomb…

    One thousand square foot homes CAN be built…that have everything in them necessary for a healthy homelife… for folks who work but cannot afford a 500K ..3000 sq foot home with Granite counter tops, etc, et all.

    Proffers do NOT keep developers from PROPOSING such development and asking for some waivers for THAT KIND of housing and much of the public -even the rabid anti-growthers would probably agree to such a concept – as an affordable housing concept.

    So a fair question – is this proposal really about affordable housing?

    If it’s not – and we REALLY do want to make some progress ON THE ISSUE – then let’s stop using rhetoric that is divisive… from the get go.

    and we can all clearly see that waiting to rush onto the stage from the wings are the .. “property rights” folks who really don’t give a rats behind about the issue per se but instead how they can profit from it…

    we’ll find out shortly if the homebuilders are truly serious about dealing with the issues.. or not..

    .. that

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We don’t know who ddcides that, or on what obective and reviewable basis.

    That’s the problem.

    As far as I can tell, this whole argument was stated by the widely publicized (and probably wrong) cost of community services studies performed according to AFT guidelines.

    And the last thing a community wants is affordable housing, because that goes even farther down the AFT curve. Suggesting that a hundred neighbors will show up and support such a proposal is laughable.

    —————

    The Thoburn story is extreme, but not that extreme. One developer went back to the board 22 times, and each time got a further exaction, before he sued.

    Six or seven rounds isn’t uncommon.
    If the locals can’t run their business wny better than that, then of course people will go to the legislature for relief.

    ————–

    Property rights ae not “property rights”. They are real and when they go away, or when they are expropriated for the good of the people, we will all suffer, and the environment will suffer.

    Property rights are what make it possible to say this is my property and I want it to be a wilderness. It is what makes it possile for us to claim that water and air are shared resources that “belong” to all of us.

    When every tree and every critter and every molecule of air and water has an owner that can profit from his ownership, then we will see how important property rights are, and how well our property is protected and maintained.

    Suggesting that a hundred neighbors will show up and support an affordable housing proposal is laughable. The only way it’s going to happen is when they are made to understand that they don’t have unlimited rights over someone else’s property, and when the propser understands his rights are not unlimited either.

    It isn’t a question of whether such rights exist. It’s a question of having a clear and unambiguous understanding of what they are and aren’t. And, that they are not subject to change at a whim.

    What is the issue?

    Affordable housing?
    Congestion?
    Adequate Public Facilities?
    Money?
    Assessments?
    Tax rates and taxation?
    Ability to pay?
    Property rights?
    Conservation?
    Environment?
    Growth?
    Change?
    Opportunity?
    Race?
    Greed?
    Jealousy?

    Probably a little of all of the above. But let’s not tackle the whole problem. Lets just pull one stick out of the bundle of sticks and argue about that. Let’s claim it is THE ISSUE so we can solve the problem with only part of an answer.

    RH

  13. Toomanytaxes Avatar
    Toomanytaxes

    Level of Service is critical and should be set based on objective criteria.

    For example, the 1994 Task Force for Tysons Corner planning decided that, in adopting Plan amendments, traffic congestion must not deteriorate below LOS E. Now, some members of the new Task Force argue that, in order to accommodate a new urban wonderland, traffic congestion should be permitted to deteriorate to LOS F.

    Just think about that. The public must have adequate input into the setting of LOS standards for all affected public facilities.

    TMT

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That’s one. Wasn’t too hard was it?

    All we need is about 5000 more, and we might have a handle on a few of the critical variables.

    RH

    (Congestion is our friend, didn’t you know that? the task force shoud be required to holkd their meeting on the median of Route 7.)

  15. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “We don’t know who ddcides that, or on what obective and reviewable basis.”

    sure we do. It’s the folks who make the rezone decision.

    Last time I checked, there was no agency called the Department of Truth that decides on an empirical basis what a fee should be.

    there’s really not that much to “figure out” anyhow.

    Conventional SFD generate about 10 auto trips per day and about .4 kids.

    Most claims that the proffers are not justified is just flat wrong as
    virtually every locality that uses proffers provides fairly extensive cost data documentation to support their fee schedule – and it’s usually pretty hard to argue with because it is on the low side.

    In they did not provide such data, you can bet, that they’d be in court for arbitrary and capacious actions.

    re: LOS and LOSS – the second ‘S’ stands for STANDARDS and they DO exist already and are substantiated and widely accepted.

    VDOT uses them. LOS A through F. A = free flowing, F = gridlock

    so if a road is currently LOS C and a new development will take it to LOS F, then they get their rezone approval if they agree to mitigate it to maintain LOS C.

    and this can vary tremendously from what a 10 story building might generate verses a single home on a rural road.

    Ditto with schools.

    If a development adds 400 kids, then you mitigate with what it takes to provide 400 seats.

    If THIS is what is being proposed, I’d support it PROVIDED it is NOT capped and has no loopholes.

    What I would support is the statewide use of LOSS – levels of service standards as the basis for determining what scope and scale of infrastructure will be needed to MAINTAIN the current LOS.

    so.. the ball is in the homebuilders court… this is not uncharted territory at all… it’s well established ..and in use in states like Florida.

    if the intent of this legislation is just simply an attempt to force onto localities a fee structure that essentially puts them into a no-win position of having to raise taxes to pay for growth or let LOS be degraded, it is going to result in BOS’s that refuse to rezone and the ones that go ahead and rezone anyhow, they’ll get tossed out at the next election.

    people who pay property taxes .. you know those “other” property owners…. they also vote…. not only BOS ..but GA..

    so .. this bills might be referred to as the KOD bill – as in.. if the public perceives their GA rep to vote FOR a bill that results in raising their property taxes ..for new growth… I’m gonna guess they’re going to end up like Loudouns previous BOS.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “there was no agency called the Department of Truth that decides on an empirical basis what a fee should be.”

    The way I see it, that’s the problem. We make political answers to practical problems with no basis in anything other than who shows up at the meeting – besides the applicant.

    “Conventional SFD generate about 10 auto trips per day and about .4 kids.”

    Most easy answers are wrong.

    The extensive cost data provided are wrong, too. They are both wrong. The county has an interest in getting as much as they can, and developers have an interest in paying as little as they can. They are both suspect. Now that we’ve established that, we need the department of truth to figure out what’s right.

    Then, if we know whats right, how much should be paid, THEN can we get off the growth kick, and get on with business?

    Or is the cost just a red herring?

    How about if instead of establishing a minimum, the legislature established a maximum?

    Anyone who pays the max fee is entittled to build. Period. Wpould that satisfy?

    I didn’t think so.

    RH

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    this is like saying that someone who buys a car only has to pay a maximum and then they can pick any car on the lot regardless of the sticker price.

    re: Dept of Truth

    Until I see this taught as a central tenant to Economics and practiced universally, I’m going to put this in the drawer labeled “idiotic ideas that require a perfect world to work” next to the drawer labeled “no amount of data will convince me of ideas I don’t like”.

    Localities did not invent the Traffic Generation method of estimating trips.

    Virtually ALL have used what AASHTO – the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials have DOCUMENTED by looking at EXISTING traffic data from real live exiting developments.

    The same is true of the number of kids per residence.

    These numbers are not “cooked”; they are from actual data.

    FURTHER – if you want to not believe data from credentialed sources SEPARATE from the counties and who have no ax to grind at all then let’s do this.

    You build the development and you pay for the actual numbers that result.

    You set the proffer for the AASHTO standard and then you measure the actual traffic and if it is less than predicted, you get a refund. If it is more, then you pay more.

    Ditto with the kid factor.

    And what is really interesting here, is that I do not hear the same ideas expressed with water/sewer.

    How come we’re not saying that the Dept of Truth has to PROVE that EACH house will need a water/sewer connection?

    That’s essentially what we’re arguing in my view.

    So.. let’s not argue.

    Let’s use Performance Standards – actual data – of that specific development – to determine the price of the proffers.

    so.. now I expect, the argument to shift to “well everyone should pay for the infrastructure anyhow” …concept…..

    That’s what typically happens when you pin the “proffers are unjustified” folks down… they just switch to a different argument … because they really don’t want to deal with the facts on the ground to start with.

    It’s a philosophy that argues that everybody subsidizes everyone else and that “user pays” is fundamentally wrong and unfair.

  18. andrea epps Avatar
    andrea epps

    Chesterfield County is in the process of adopting LOS criteria. There is a catch. They have taken TWO paragraphs from the extensively researched Chesapeake model and are adding them to ONLY ONE AREA OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ( We have sub-plans) Now, I am sure you can all see the problem with equity here. What about the rest of the county? I have Chesapeake’s Comp Plan and the proffer policy that was adopted to cover LOS. ( If anyone can lend any insight into the Chesapeake process Please help!)
    I was not there when they went through the process, but at least they had a proper process.
    Around here, all of the newly elected officials ran on the platform of “responsible growth”, yet the term has yet to be defined. There was a plan to have a comprehensive growth management symposium, but from what I hear, the new board didn’t want it.
    I support LOS standards when they are implemented with common sense. Unfortunately, this LOS proposal seems to be more of a political stunt. The Chairman of the Planning Commission called the proposal a “Stop-Gap” measure in his explanation. THAT IS THE REAL ISSUE.
    I wish we could have more constructive dialogue with the citizenry and explain to them what happens to the local economy when everything “stops”
    The VDOT Access Management standards are totally conflicting with the SSAR regs. When you add to this problem those localities that don’t adopt sound land use policy in the proper manner, everything will stop and the local economy is going to go down the drain.
    I was the Chairman of our “Impact Fee Committee” , so I understand what is supposed to be done ( That isn’t what they proposed by the way)
    Around here, they talk about more economic development potential. I found it really interesting when I followed the link to hmdl.org referenced by a previous poster, the chief complaint by those people is that there is TOO MUCH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT???
    Most developers I know will tell you they have no problem contributing their share.I agree we need to use actual data for calculation. It doesn’t benefit the communities they build if residents can’t get home safely. In addition, at least in Chesterfield, development is how roads and schools get built. At what point is the locality going to contribute its share?
    Jim, please forgive me for rambling. I am a bit frustrated

  19. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m not sure I see a problem with LOSS for currently undeveloped areas designated for growth in the comp plan.

    LOSS is a performance standard placed on new growth – in the area designated for growth – as opposed to areas not designated for growth and properties with existing “by-right” zoning.

    It’s when a proposal is received for a density that is over and above the existing “by-right” density – i.e. the reason there has to be a PROPOSAL instead of of administrative process of developing land consistent with the current standards, permits.

    If the “by-right” is one house per acre or one house per 10 acres or 10 houses per acre – whatever the ordinance has established.

    It’s only when a proposal EXCEEDS this designated level that a jurisdiction wants to negotiate with the developer the scope and scale of the infrastructure needed for a higher than designated density and who will pay.

    When a locality UPZONES an area unilaterally as policy (as opposed to responding to a particular rezone proposal) – what they are doing in effect, is promising to devote county resources to build the infrastructure needed – because by doing the UPZONING, they have removed their own ability to negotiate proffers.

    What Watkins appears to be advocating is to essentially have the state – designate ALL land as the same – and as developable to whatever density the property owner would want and that his/her only financial responsibility would be to pay an impact fee for each unit.

    … AND .. that impact fee would be the same … across the board no matter where – geographically and no matter what density, nor the prevailing local growth rate, nor the current status of the infrastructure, and .. much more…

    It removes from each locality, the ability to determine for their own situation what the actual costs are going to be and to negotiate those costs with the developer.

    and a good “for instance” is that even for a given local jurisdiction, they may be different locations that would have different associated infrastructure costs.

    one area may have sufficient/excess water/sewer capacity and another.. may not..

    ditto.. roads, schools..

    So.. here’s the real irony..

    here we have the same folks who rag on and on about big government dictates … “command & control” of what ought to be local decisions…

    .. jumping the tracks and advocating (for their own benefit) a 180 degree opposite tact….to the evil “big government” way of doing business.

    how would they respond to a claim that they walk/talk like bunch of hypocrites?

    Dillon Rule = developer control of “big” government.. when the local government cannot be controlled…

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/middleeast/21israel.html?ei=5065&en=e8435952c4b2651d&ex=1201582800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “I agree we need to use actual data for calculation. It doesn’t benefit the communities they build if residents can’t get home safely.

    At what point is the locality going to contribute its share? “

    Some people seem to think the locality has no share. They want to set a standard so high (no change in levels of service or quality of life) that nothing can ever be built. Everything stops.

    They call this responsible growth, when it is nothing of the sort.

    We have “calculations” to show what proffers should be, but nothing to show what the communities responsibilites are.

  22. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    This topic should have been labeled Figures and Fools. Who cares how we arrive at the ‘proper’ price. The point is that the money paid doesn’t go to ensure a highway maintains LOS C as a result of a project. No, it goes into a drawer that says, “City Councils Slush Fund”. They use that money to sweeten the pot for other developers to build stuff the councils want.

    Chesapeake has tons of impact fees. You are reminded of that fact every time your car impacts the potholes in our 1950s era road system.

  23. andrea epps Avatar
    andrea epps

    Senate bill 768. It’s posted

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Check out how Boise, Idaho runs their impact fees and related area of impact for a look at what this bill may accomplish.

    the stunning thing to me is that public parks, recreation, trails, and open space amenities are left out of the equation in these discussions.

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Andrea — Good comments. I think that part of the communications and understanding issue is the vastly different impact in local areas.

    Many of you still live in real America. I live in Disneyland on the Potomac and in Fairfax County, where Virginia’s land laws don’t apply.

    Seriously, many of us exist because of the federal government. So long as Uncle Sam is operating, there will be federal appropriations and regulations. Many businesses will be here just for those purposes. Our economic growth equation is different from most of those in real America.

    Fairfax County has grown well beyond its infrastructure. Darn near everything is overused. Traffic is terrible and only getting worse. The quality of life decreases from year to year. Real estate taxes have skyrocketed much faster than most people’s incomes.

    Fairfax County officials collect virtually nothing from new development that requires zoning changes.

    Moreover, the bulk of the fiscal benefits from our growth flow to Richmond in the form of individual and corporate income tax proceeds. In return for these tax dollars, we get pennies.

    Under these circumstances, most people oppose more growth. We’d be even crazier if we didn’t. I don’t believe that the impacts of growth are the same in most other parts of Virginia.

    TMT

  26. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Outside of TMT’s NoVa, there is another aspect to the proffer issue – not readily appreciated even by the Home builders lobby and that is that localities, like individuals do not have an unlimited ability to borrow money.

    They are restricted to how much they can afford to pay back.

    Some folks ask what is the localities share of the infrastructure?

    I would suggest that by making available tax-exempt bonds to developers that they are getting something that requires the locality to give up some other capital project.. perhaps a new library or park or other amenity – not built because the locality only had enough credit to pay for infrastructure for new development or amenities for existing taxpayers.

    Further, the capital costs of most infrastructure is ONLY the initial acquisition cost. Roads needs maintenance and improvements.

    Schools need to pay operational costs for teachers, salaries, etc.

    Ditto fire/rescue. The cost of the fire/rescue building is just a gnat on a dogs butt in terms of what it cost to actually deploy a 24/7 fire/rescue function.

    so.. the locality and existing taxpayers are ALREADY helping to pay for the cost of new growth.

    and about the only way to increase a locality’s ability to raise bond money for new infrastructure is to raise taxes because the bond agencies keep pretty close track of a localities ability to pay – close enough to rate them on credit worthiness … Fairfax has a AAA if not mistaken… while my own county of Spotsy cannot achieve AAA unless they have more tax revenue coming in.

  27. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Virtually ALL have used what AASHTO – the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials have DOCUMENTED by looking at EXISTING traffic data from real live exiting developments.”

    The AASHTO documents have been criticized for not being realistically generated, they are enirely to generalized (and conservative) to be used for meaningful estimations for real projects.

    RH

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “Schools need to pay operational costs for teachers, salaries, etc.

    Ditto fire/rescue. The cost of the fire/rescue building is just a gnat on a dogs butt in terms of what it cost to actually deploy a 24/7 fire/rescue function.

    so.. the locality and existing taxpayers are ALREADY helping to pay for the cost of new growth.”

    How is that? It sounds as if you are saying that the atual taxes collectd from all residents, including new ones, are not enough to cover the costs of operation and maintenance – even if inital capital costs are covered as proffers.

    Aren’t the new residents paying as much toward opertion and maintenance of previous facilities as existing residents are paying for operation and maintenance of new facilities?

    What you are saying sounds like a cry for higher taxes – just to adequately support existing stuff.

    Naturally, if you are already paying an insufficient amount to keep and operate the stuf you have, then any new stuff WILL be and additional burden. But that’s not because of the new stuff, it is because of inadequate preveious support for existing stuff.

    Beating up on new develeopment with bad economics is the easy way out, but it doesn’t change the truth.

    And if TMT’s comments aboput FAIFAX proffers are true, then it is all the worse.

    RH

  29. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, you are opposed to the “Dept of Truth” but then turn right around and point to AASHTO as your own dept of truth on that topic.

    I suggest this shows that we do need and want authoritative figures we can count on. I also suggest that AASHTO is not an unbiased, peer reviewed source.

    What I am looking for is not so much a “Dept of Truth” as a set of agreed procedures on how to discover truth, as used in government policies. A set of procedures that will lend some inulation between policy based on known facts and policy driven by political needs and mob desires.

    RH

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    AASHTO has no dog in the infrastructure hunt but if you disagree with using their data, you can find another organization that does traffic generation or we can measure it per development and set performance standards accordingly.

    The option of having the folks who will benefit from the develop doing the study is not an option.

    The Dept of Truth is “who do you trust”?

    So.. find a 3rd party with no dog in the hunt OR do it yourself as that is something that CAN be measured.

    re: paying for growth.

    everyone pays their taxes for the services they receive.

    when someone builds a new home, they also pay for a water/sewer hookup and a driveway and the logic is that those are things that they need for that house and rightfully a legitimate cost – AS ARE any other infrastructure need to serve that house.

    For instance – the actual cost of a water/sewer hookup is not just the pipe that connects them – it is also THEIR SHARE of the capital costs of the system that was built to serve their home.

    and that is why it is called an “availability fee”.

    Proffers are, in fact, an equivalent “availability” fee to ensure that the other infrastructure that that house needs is … “available”.

    what a concept.

    you need water/sewer – you pay for it.

    you need a driveway – you pay for it.

    you need a seat for your kid at school – you pay for it.

    you need a fire/rescue station near your home -you pay for it.

    you would not expect someone else to pay for these costs as they truly belong to you.

    and you still have not answered the question with respect to the idea of having other taxpayers pay for infrastructure for new residents if there is a high rate of growth.

    How would you handle this for the faster growing counties?

    Would you just keep raising taxes no matter how high a growth rate?

    and if you did that and the voters threw you out of office for doing that – what would you do then

  31. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “everyone pays their taxes for the services they receive.”

    You really believe that? I don’t. My elected officials tell me that farms pay far more in taxes than they get in services.

    Do I think the system should be more fair? Yes.

    Do I think that equates to everyone paying for exactly what they get? No.

    Do I think there are benefits of scale? Yes.

    RH

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The guy is asking for a zoning variance for one house per two acres? What would he do with zoning for one house per 180 acres?

    (That used to be one house per three acres.)

    RH

  33. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “How would you handle this for the faster growing counties?”

    I would put a percentage dollar cap on the increase per year, like 5%. Irrespective of assessment.

    This would have the simultaneous effect of a) shifting current and immediate new costs to new residents. As new buyers, their assessment would be current. The followng year, their increase would be limited to 5%. The “overae” would be shifted to the nextset o new buyers.

    b) protecting existing residents from being forced out immediately.
    c) giving existing residents time to adapt by either earnign more ore moving.
    d) would allow existing residents ot capitalize on the increased value of their property over time, and
    e) if they choose not to capitalize and move away, to eventually (after 20years) they would pay their share of the increased capital value, while having avoiding the immediate costs of fast growth.

    There might be some other formulas, but I think this meets the goals, wthout restricting growth unduly, and recognizing the (eventual) value of growth.

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “It’s a philosophy that argues that everybody subsidizes everyone else and that “user pays” is fundamentally wrong and unfair.”

    This isn’t a philosophy.

    It is a reasonable question as to when you cross the boundary from “User Pays” to having lost the benefits (to all) of benefits of scale.

    It is a question of how do you reconcile the fact that someone may get screwed with the fact of everyone doing with less.

    As opposed to deliberately screwing some group (one you don’t happen to like) in order to get more for some other group (one you do like).

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “If the “by-right” is one house per acre or one house per 10 acres or 10 houses per acre – whatever the ordinance has established.”

    Is that before or after the previous downzoning?

    RH

  36. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    so your solution is to essentially have a system that forces people of modest means out of their homes as growth accelerates – right?

    b) protecting existing residents from being forced out immediately.

    c) giving existing residents time to adapt by either earnign more before moving.

    e) if they choose not to capitalize and move away, to eventually (after 20years) they would pay their share of the increased capital value,

    it appears that what you are advocating is “stealing” money from existing residents… or giving them the alternative of moving out of a home they’ve lived in most of their lives…

    you know .. this sounds like having a government that forces people out of their homes… and then taking some of their money and giving it to those who develop land.

    what planet are you living on RH?

    Do you think that folks are going to stand by and let you or anyone else impose this as a solution?

    Your plan only works if you do away with Democracy and replace it with a totalitarian government.

  37. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I thought the problem was “rapid growth”. 20 years ought to be enough to adapt.

    I think you misread this.

    This plan protects existing residents from the immediate effects of growth and phases them into the mode of paying full costs of infrastructure that is at least 20 years old. (or ten or 15, howeer you structure it.)

    If they still can’t afford to pay for the costs of growth that is now 20 years old, then they may have to move away. I don’t see where it says that government is required to protect people from the costs and alue of living in their area — forever. I don’t think they should have to take sudden shifts due to huge increases in growth.

    This is the system that is used in Maryland, so you can’t say it would never be accepted.

    Is what you are suggesting that people should pay taxes only on the value that they paid for their home – that it should NEVER increase?

  38. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well, the reality is that folks who retire with modest pensions are vulnerable to ever increasing costs that exceed the COLA (if they have one) in their pension and now days most pensions are defined contributions so the only COLA you get is if you have a nestegg that gains interest.

    One, unless in need of means-tested tax relief, should expect to pay for the cost of services – O&M.

    Making them pay for an infrastructure deficit is more problematic but most county budgets consist of both Operational and Capital expenses so when you pay your taxes as an existing resident -you already ARE paying for infrastructure.

    Further your taxes go to pay for the debt service of new infrastructure provided for new growth. If a bunch of people move into an area – a new school is built even though you may have already help pay for the school YOUR kids went to.

    The full cost of new Schools (and roads) are almost never paid completely with proffers. It’s a shared expense because existing residents have to made up the difference AND they have to help pay the debt service on the bonds used to build the new schools and roads.

    The problem with rapid growth is that instead of sharing the costs of one new school every 5 years, the same pool of existing residents may have to share the cost of 5 new schools per year (like in Loudoun).

    So there is a wide range of infrastructure costs associated with the rate of growth.

    This is the rationale behind why not all counties are allowed to use proffers – only those counties deemed to be high growth. There is only about 20 or 30 counties out of 100 counties in Virginia.

    In a lot of RoVa, they cannot charge proffers and so the impact fees would help them.

    but in high growth areas – the fixed impact fees would not begin to cover high growth costs.

    If you are a retired person in a place like Fairfax .. and plan to stay there.. you better have a pretty good source of retirement income..

    Some of the furious growth we see in Spotsylvania is former Fairfaxers fleeing the property taxes and other costs that they no longer can afford on a fixed income.

    Indeed, the only rezones that have been approved in the last 3 years have been “over 55” homes.

    think of this. Spotsylvania is essentially doing what Facquier is doing. They’ve said “no” to growth because every standard home means more taxes for existing residents and many existing residents are deputies, school teacher, local medical techs, librarians, etc. not 100K a year salaried Federal workers.

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    “folks who retire with modest pensions are vulnerable to ever increasing costs that exceed the COLA “

    I’m really sorry.

    Where does it say in your deed that you are entitled to stay there forever at the same price? I imagine that if youhad that clause, you would have had to pay more.

    Where does it say in your deed that you get to control your neighbors, in order to get the same net benefit? I imagine that if you had that clause, you would have had to pay more.

    In Fauquier, they turn down not only standard homes, but super homes. Ones that would seriously add to the tax base and cost little. Don’t even think about affordable homes.

    Fairfax is exporting their problems, what else is new?

    “the same pool of existing residents may have to share the cost of 5 new schools per year”

    If it is the ame pool of existing residents, why do they need 5 new schools?

    You can do better than that.

    RH

  40. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Where does it say in your deed that you are entitled to stay there forever at the same price? I imagine that if youhad that clause, you would have had to pay more.

    Where does it say in your deed that you get to control your neighbors, in order to get the same net benefit? I imagine that if you had that clause, you would have had to pay more.

    RH – you’re looking in the wrong place….

    it says that on the ballot when you vote…

    if you and your neighbors agree that you don’t want your taxes raised to pay for infrastructure for new folks ,…guess what?

    if you and your neighbors agree that you don’t want dunderheads selling junk car parts in your neighborhood.. guess what?

    see.., all this time.. you were looking in the wrong place.

    you forgot the basic instructions on how to use a hammer.. right or you thought there was a rule book for the use of the hammer that outlawed certain uses?

    🙂

    got it?

Leave a Reply

Read More