Date SUBMITTED: August 16, 2006
DATE
OF WORKSHOP SESSION: August 23, 2006
date
of public MEETING: N/A
To: MAYOR & Board of ALDERMEN
From: Chuck
Boyd, Deputy Director for Planning
RE: Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO)
PURPOSE: Staff will be presenting the
1) Explanation of the Allocation APFO system (pages 2-4)
2)
Sub region that could be used with an Allocation
APFO (page 4)
3)
Special Allocation Groups (page 4)
4)
History of building activity related to an
Allocation System (page 5-6)
HISTORY: This workshop is a follow up to the 7/19/06, 8/2/06 & 8/9/06 workshops. These workshops were intended to provide the Mayor & Board of Aldermen background information about two different APFO models. Listed below is a summation of the three workshops:
At the 7/19/06 workshop, staff presented basic information on what is an APFO, the facilities that can be associated with an APFO and the City’s history with the APFO.
At the 8/2/06 workshop, Mayor Jones & Rick Stup
presented information concerning
At the 8/9/06 workshop, Jeff Bronow presented information on
Staff believes that
an allocation process would work well for the City of
By adding sub
regions to the allocation process, the allocation process further directs
growth within the municipality. If the
municipality has limited capacity in one region, then the amount of allocation
to that region can be reduced until their in sufficient capacity in that region
to accommodate growth.
Staff is proposing
the following schedule for upcoming workshops:
August 23 Explanation of Allocation Hybrid Method
Discussion
of sub regions
August 30 Ray Barnes FCPS (Evening Meeting
starting at 7 pm)
CIP process
School
Construction Process
State Rate
Capacity
DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this
meeting is to allow staff to present the basic mechanics of how an allocation
based APFO could work for the City of
This is the first step in both the APFO &
Water Allocation Process. Site plans
& preliminary subdivisions will need approval by December 1 to be
considered for the allocation process the following year.
This report will give the status of the City
wide infrastructure, services & CIP projects. Staff anticipates that this report will also
give recommendations on CIP Projects, and the yearly unit cap allocation.
Staff would
anticipate that in March or April, the
Staff has found
models where this allocation is made on a 3 year cycle and then confirmed by
the elected officials the following years.
Having a 3 year cycle gives more predictability in the system, but at
the same time allows for a change in any one year if an unforeseen event occurs
This is also where
other departments could use the APFO to formulate their budget requests for the
upcoming years. Staff would expect other
departments to start requesting changes to their budgets based on the allocation
during the next three years. With a
predictable and steady number of dwelling units being built each year,
departments can plan appropriately for the staffing and services that they
provide. A good example would be the
following:
Recreation knows that
we need 5 shuffleboard courts for every 1,000 persons.
Recreation
Department will place in their budget a request for 4 additional courts each
year.
(850 units * 2.4 persons per unit =
2,040 additional persons = 10 new shuffleboard courts)
During the budget
and CIP process, the Mayor & Board will adopt an dwelling unit allocation
for the next fiscal year(s) at the same time of the budget.
This is the first possible area that could
stop development. Staff sees the
allocation system working similar to the Water Allocation Ordnance. Staff anticipates that there would be an
equal share based on the number of projects (30% of the allocation) in that
have approved site plans or subdivisions and another share based on the total
of the units available for construction (60% of the allocation) and another 10%
for special allocations. This is
slightly different than the Water Allocation which has a 20/70/10 split. Based on staff’s experience, the 20%
allocation hurts the smaller developments.
- and / or -
This is an optional part of the system and
will be discussed in detail later in the presentation. Staff has developed
several different methods that could be used to allocate dwelling units.
This is the first
real APFO test of a traditional APFO that a development would encounter. This test would be for roads, water &
sewer and other infrastructure. The
roads test would need to be specifically stated on how far out the applicant is
required to test for roads. The water
& sewer test is not only for capacity, but for pressure and line size. Capacity for water & sewer should not be an
issue since the overall allocation was partially based on capacity of the water
& sewer system.
The development would now get a preliminary
allocation of water with no date on the Water & Sewer Contract. This will allow the project to proceed to the
next step, but not constraint by the deadline on the Water & Sewer
Contract.
This is one facility
that City has no control over. Staff
would recommend that each school (elementary, middle & high) being
tested. Each project would only need to
pass each test once. However staff
believes that after a certain number of years, the project should be allow to
proceed in the development process.
Projects would
continue through the process with receiving final Water Service Contract,
building permit and C/O.
Sub Regions
Attached with the
Executive Summary are several options that could be used for sub regions. The five scenarios that were developed for
sub regions include:
1)
City
Wide Sub Regions (City is one region)
2)
Concentric
Circle Sub Regions
3)
Sector
Sub Regions
4)
Census
Tract Sub Regions
5)
Tiered
Sub Region
Staff explored the
models above and found the Tiered Sub Regions to be the most attractive. It gives priority to existing developments over
proposed developments (with no approvals).
This will allow the City and developer to maximize the infrastructure
currently in place. The Tiered System could
follow the format of the Water Allocation Ordinance (see attachment for
explanation).
Combining the sub
region approach with the special allocation groups (see below) allows for the
City to ensure that policies that are important to the City are given
priority.
Special Allocation Groups
Downtown
Moderately Price Dwelling Units (MPDU’s)
Could be a ratio of MPDU to unregulated houses
Hope VI
Senior Housing
Infill Projects
These special allocation groups would be allocated units at
the same time the overall allocation is made.
Staff suggested that 10% of the overall allocation be used for the
special groups, but
City’s
Development Patterns (Past & Future)
The staff was
directed to review how the City has issued building permits. The Historic Building Permit Activity Chart (attached)
shows permits issued over the past 2 decades.
The City’s peak building permits occurred in 1999 & 2000 and these
years show the highest 10 year average of just under 600 units. The highest 5 year average also occurred in
2000, 2001 & 2002 with 2001 5 year average over 700 units. If you average the averages, the result is
that the City on average issues about 550 units a year. This information is important for a
historical perspective of the City’s growth patterns.
The question was
also directed at staff on the future growth patterns for the City. This number is somewhat harder to
define. Staff researched the issued and
has come up with several scenarios for the potential future growth patterns. These numbers are based on the assumption
that the infrastructure can keep pace with the proposed growth.
In the simplest terms, the City of
|
Year |
|
County |
% to |
|
Max Day |
DU’s |
|
|
|
Allocation |
Residential |
|
1.6 |
250 gps |
|
2007 |
|
1.5 MGD |
65% |
975,000 |
609,375 |
2,437 du’s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009 |
|
4.5 MGD |
65% |
2.9 MGD |
1.8 MGD |
7,312 du’s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2015 |
|
4 MGD |
65% |
2.6 MGD |
1.6 MGD |
6,500 du’s |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potential |
16,249 du’s |
The assumption is
that 65% of all new water will go to residential uses. This percentage was taken from the 2004
Comprehensive Plan. Of the 1.5 MGDs
allocated in 2007, only 975,000 gallons would be used towards residential
uses. Then a max day factor of 1.6 is
applied to 975,000 gallons and is further reduced to 609,375 gallons. Using a factor of 250 gallons per unit gives
us the final number of 2,437 units. The
2,347 units would be available until the next allotment of water is delivered
to the City in 2009. That would mean
that the City would need to build 1,200 units a year. The next allocation of 4.5 MGD would net
7,312 units and indicate that the City would have to build just over 1,000
units a year until the 2015 allocation.
2004 Comprehensive
Plan
Using the simplest
of calculations, the anticipated number of potential households in 2030 is
42,300 units. Minus the 2000 Census of
20,891 units gives a project increase of 21,409 units. Spread 21,409 units over 25 years averages to
856 units a year.
Summary of the three
potential build out options:
Average
Dwelling Units
Historical Average 550-700
units per year
Potomac Water
Agreement 1,000-1,200
units per year
2004 Comprehensive
Plan 850
units per year
These numbers are
based on the assumption that the infrastructure can keep pace with the proposed
growth.
Staff would like
confirmation that we should proceed with an allocation based APFO.
Staff would like to
have suggestions on the next steps in the APFO process.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has no recommendations at this time.
BACKUP INCLUDED:
Allocation Flow Chart
Future Residential
Subdivisions (Map)
Sub Regions Allocations
methods (1-5)
Historical Building Permit
Activity
REVIEWED BY DEPARTMENT HEAD: Charles W. Boyd
CONCURRENCE BY:
Date Date
FINANCE ________ _______ LEGAL ________ ________
CITIZEN SERVICES ________ _______ FPD ________ ________
DEPT. PUBLIC
WORKS ________ _______ PLANNING ________
________
ENGINEERING
________ _______ CIP ________ ________