Loading...
September 19th, 2014 Board Retreat Presentation - Growth StrategiesInventive Solutions for a Livable Environment 2 0 4 0 1 Community Development Team County Administration Planning and Zoning General Services Economic Development 2 Presentation Outline I. History (2-9) II. Reasons for Change (10-17) A.Water Costs (11-13) B.Unsupportable Market (14-16) C.Need Strategic Financial Plan (17) III. How Do We Become More Viable (18-63) A.Where Can We Grow? (19-27) B.Impact of Growth? (28-43) i. Land Use Considerations (29-39) ii. People Impacts (40-43) C.Can Growth Absorb Water Liability? (44-49) D.How Do We Support Change? (50-53) E.What Does it Look Like? (54-63) IV. Fiscal Impact of Change (64-68) V. Summary (69-71) 3 I. –History County Land Statistics •205,143 Acres of Land •9,186 Acres within Towns = 4.48% •20,857 Acres within DSD = 10.16% •175,100 Acres of Rural/Agricultural Land = 85.36% 4.48% 10.16% 85.36% Towns DSD's Rural/Ag 4 I. -History Growth History Historic Growth Rates •1980-1990 = 18.1% •1990-2000 = 16.6% •2000-2010 = 18.6% •17.8% Avg. Over 30 years 5 I. –History 1991 Comprehensive Plan 6 I. –History 2001 Comprehensive Plan 7 I. –History 2008 Comprehensive Plan 8 I. –History Conclusions •DSD was 62% Larger in 1991 •Parts Annexed by Smithfield •DSD Reduced by Previous BOS’s •Lack of Market & Amenities •Unable to Support IOW’s Needs 9 I. –History Conclusions County is Large Enough to Provide a Considerable Variety of Living Options •Utilizing Focused Development Best Utilizes Resources Preserves Rural/Ag. Character Most Fiscally Responsible 10 II. -Reasons for Change •3 Year Financial Plan (Adopted by BOS) •Escalating Water Costs without Customers •Land Uses and Zoning in Place Not Working for Development •Multiple Stalled Developments •Multiple Plan Revisions •Proffer Amendments/Reductions Year 1 –Backfill Existing $3.9 mil Deficit •Real Estate Tax Increase of $0.12, ($0.20 needed total) •Draw from Fund Balance •Debt Restructuring •Creation of Strategic Plans Year 2 –Decrease Fund Balance Draw Year 3 –Eliminate Draw 3 Year Plan = Short Term Fix 11 II,A. -Reasons for Change -Water Costs 3 Million Gallons Today, Using 1/6 6.75 Million Gallons in 2038 $250 Million Long Term 12 II,A. -Reasons for Change -Water Costs •2,000 Current Water Customers •10,000 More Needed for Current 3M Gallon Volume •24,000 Needed to Absorb Entire Contracts of 6.75M Volume 1 User = 1 Equivalent Residential Unit •Commercial, Restaurant, Etc. = Greater Water Use •Includes overage for fire suppression 13 II,A. -Reasons for Change -Water Costs Need 24,000 Total! Approved Development •1,900 Res. Units •1.3 M SF Commercial Undeveloped Potential •2,900 Res. Units •3.6 M SF Commercial 4,800 Possible Res. Units 14 II,B. -Reasons for Change – Unsupportable Market Population Insufficient for Commercial Need Economic Diversity Create Stand Alone Market 15 II,B. -Reasons for Change –Unsupportable Market •Currently 21,800 Pop. •62% of the County Applebee’s – 25,000 Pop. In 3 Mi. Starbucks – 25,000 Pop. In 3 Mi. Buffalo Wild Wings – 40,000 Pop. IHOP – 25-50,000 Pop In 3 Mi. 16 II,B. -Reasons for Change - Unsupportable Market •Need to Expand Tax Base •Citizens Wants Services in IOW –Don’t Want to Leave to Meet Needs •Rooftops Support & Attract Commercial, Retail, and Office •Can’t Follow Same Path and Expect Different Outcome 17 II,C. –Reasons for Change Lack of Long Term Strategic Plan Need to Eliminate Liability Through Focused Growth Plan by: •District Enhancements •Encouraging Rooftops •Incentivizing Business Investment •Diversifying Revenue Streams •Increasing Real Estate Values 18 III. How Do We Become More Viable? A.Where Can We Grow? B.Impact of Growth? C.Can Growth Absorb Water Liability? D.How Do We Support Change? E.What Does Change Look Like? 19 III,A. Where Can We Grow? •Focus Around Existing Development Market Demand in Newport DSD Infrastructure is in Place Area Formerly in Newport DSD 20 III,A. -Where Can We Grow? –3 Alternatives 1.Increase Development Potential in DSD 2.DSD Expansion –Nike Park Rd. 3.DSD Expansion –Rt. 10 21 III,A. -Where Can We Grow?Alt. 1 -Existing DSD 22 Summary –Alt. 1 -Existing DSD •7,045 Acres in Newport DSD •3,392 Acres Undeveloped •1,894 Acres Useable Current Scenario (3 units/acre) •2,886 Residential Units •3.6 Million SF Commercial Higher Density Scenario (10 units/acre) •12,284 Residential Units •7.1 Million SF Commercial 23 III, A. Where Can We Grow? Alt 2. -Nike Park Rd. Newport DSD 24 Summary –Alt 2. -Nike Park Rd •2,292 Acres in Nike Park Expansion Area •1,811 Acres Undeveloped •1,148 Acres Useable Low Density Scenario (3 units/acre) •3,444 Residential Units •No Commercial Considered Higher Density Scenario (12 units/acre) •13,776 Residential Units •No Commercial Considered 25 III,A. -Where Can We Grow? Alt. 3 -Route 10 Newport DSD 26 Summary –Alt. 3 -Route 10 •3,056 Acres in Rt. 10 Expansion Area •2,765 Acres Undeveloped •1,603 Acres Useable Low Density Scenario (3 units/acre) •4,584 Residential Units •No Commercial Considered Higher Density Scenario (7.25 units/acre) •10,999 Residential Units •No Commercial Considered 27 3 Alternatives = Drawn Conclusions 1.Increased Potential in Existing DSD Existing Infrastructure Better Utilization of Land and Investment Not Enough Capacity to Support Projected Commercial SF 2.Expansion -Nike Park Road Surrounded by Existing Development Other Plans Support (Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study) Water/Sewer Needs Exist Important Existing Civic Institution (Nike Park) Preserve Jurisdictional Boundaries 3.Rt. 10 Expansion X Least Development Pressure X Would Require Largest Infrastructure Investment X Most Expansive/Land Consumptive 28 III. -How Do We Become More Viable? A.Where Can We Grow? B.Impact of Growth? C.Can Growth Absorb Water Liability? D.How Do We Support Change? E.What Does Change Look Like? 29 III,B. -Impact of Growth -Considerations i.Land Use Considerations ii.Population Impacts 30 III,B,i. –Land Use Considerations -Current Land Uses 31 III,B,i. –Land Use Considerations What Type of Growth?: Focused Growth (Mixed Uses, Compact Development Patterns, Preserve Rural/Ag. Lands) X Sprawling Growth (Single Use Areas, Require More Land & Infrastructure) Conclusion: Focused Growth Is Not Happening, Need Land Use & Zoning Changes 32 III,B,i. –Land Use Considerations Needed Changes Expand the DSD Revise Land Use Definitions •Adjusted to Match Zoning •Creation of Urban Residential Classification Add Mixed Uses •Fewer Business Only Districts, Business Uses •Integrated Within Community Consistent With Comprehensive Plan Conclusion: More Market Friendly, More Housing Options (Price Point, Size, Style), Diversity in the Community 33 III,B,i. –Land Use Considerations Current DSD -Proposed Land Uses 34 III,B,i. –Land Use Considerations Current DSD -Proposed Land Use Summary •Balance of Mixed Use & Business/Employment •Adds Urban Residential Use Results: •1,894 Useable Acres •9,474 Residential Units •1.1 M SF Commercial Current Land Use Scenario •2,886 Residential Units •3.6 M SF Commercial 35 III,B,i. –Land Use Considerations Nike Park Rd. –Proposed Land Uses 36 III,B,i. -Land Use Considerations Nike Park Rd. -Proposed Land Use Summary •Kept Residential Focus •Adds Urban Residential Use Results: •1,148 Useable Acres •4,114 Residential Units Current Land Use Scenario •Rural Agricultural •Less than 250 Residential Units 37 III,B,i. –Land Use Considerations Revised Land Statistics •Minimal Change of 1.33% •Focused Change for Future Needs •4,600 Acres vs 11,500 Acres at Build Out •Compact Development Saves Land, Less Cost to Implement, Most Efficient 4.48% 10.16% 85.36% Towns DSD's Rural/Ag Current Condition 4.48% 11.49% 84.03% Towns DSD's Rural/Ag Proposed Scenario 38 Current Scenario •2,900 Res.Units •1,900 Approved •1,589 School Age Pop. •864 –EL •293 –MS •432 -HS •5 M SF Commercial –Not Supportable •Short of Water Volumes Proposed Scenario •13,600 Res.Units •1,900 Approved •5,131 School Age Pop. •2,790 –EL •946 –MS •1,395 -HS •2.4 M SF Commercial –Supportable •Meets Water Volumes III,B,ii. -People Impacts Long Term (25+ Years) Build Out 39 III,B,ii. -People Impacts Development Comparisons Suffolk •Added 32,000 Population from 1990-2010 (20 years) •Largely in Harbourview/North Suffolk •No Proffers Assessed •Connection Fees &Taxing District Funded Short Pump (Henrico County) •Added 24,500 Population from 2000-2010 •3,500 +/-Acres •CDA, Proffers, Connection Fees Funded IOW Proposed •Could Add 30,000 Population over 25+ years •5,400 +/-Acres •Proffers, Permitting & Connect Fees, Taxing District •22.6% Growth Rate, Only 5% Over Past 30 Years 40 III,B,ii. -People Impacts How Do We Pay for This? •Proffers -$181.6 Million at Current Proffer •Permit & Connection Fees (Utilities) •$124 Million at Current Value •Increased Real Estate Values –320% •Current Scenario $1.5 Billion •Proposed Scenario $4.7 Billion •Spinoff Tax Revenues (Meals, Sales, Etc.) •Special Taxing District –Overlay Rate TBD 41 III,B,ii. -People Impacts How Do We Support This? Transportation Enhancements •Studies Provide Initial Solutions •Brewer’s Neck Corridor Study •Route 17 Corridor Master Plan •Regular Updates Will Be Needed Utilities Enhancements •Master Water & Sewer Plan Underway •Rate Study Underway 42 III. How Do We Become More Viable? A.Where Can We Grow? B.Impact of the Growth? C.Can Growth Absorb Water Liability? D.How Do We Support Change? E.What Does Change Look Like? 43 3 Million Gallons Today, Using 1/6 6.75 Million Gallons in 2038 $250 Million Long Term III,C. -Can it Absorb the Water Liability? 44 III,C. -Can it Absorb the Water Liability? 2 Options 45 III,C. -Can it Absorb the Water Liability? Chosen Option -1 •1 Reasonable Expansion Alternative •Phase 1 = 2.6 miles -$7.4 M Includes Tank •Phase 2 = 3.0 miles -$3.75 M PH. 1 PH. 2 46 III,C. -Can it Absorb the Water Liability? Chosen Option -1 •Phased Utilities = DSD Builds Out First •Phase 1 = 2-3 Years •1,800 Units to Recoup Investment (Easily Achievable) •Phase 2 = Construct as Needed, After DSD Build Out •1,000 Connections to Recoup Investment PH. 1 PH. 2 47 III,C. -Can it Absorb the Water Liability? Summary •24,000 Users Needed to Meet Water Volume 2,000 Current Users 1,000 Users Need Connecting 1,900 Approved Users 13,600 Potential Users •18,500 Total Potential (Does not Include Commercial/Office/Retail) * 1 User = Consumption Equivalent to 1 Residential Unit ** Sewer is Development Driven, Same Route, Development Implemented 48 How Do We Become More Viable? A.Where Can We Grow? B.Impact of the Growth? C.Can Growth Absorb Water Liability? D.How Do We Support Change? E.What Does Change Look Like? 49 III,D. -How Do We Support Change? Taxing District •Marginal Tax (TBD) on All District Properties •Provides Direct Benefits within District Infrastructure Enhancements Transportation Enhancements Aesthetic Enhancements Enhanced Livability for Residents 50 III,D. -How Do We Support Change? Taxing District Benefits •Those Benefitting Pay •Example -Carrsville Residents Don’t Pay for Brewer’s Neck Widening •Dedicated, Reliable Revenue Stream •Pays for Added Amenities •Improves Property Values 51 III,D. -How Do We Support Change? Taxing District Examples Hampton Roads •Rt. 17 (Harbourview) & Downtown –Suffolk •Sandbridge, Town Center, Bayville Crk. –VB •Downtown Business District –Norfolk •Greenbrier –Chesapeake Statewide •Chesterfield •Fairfax •Loudon •Alexandria 52 How Do We Become More Viable? A.Where Can We Grow? B.Impact of the Growth? C.Can Growth Absorb Water Liability? D.How Do We Support Change? E.What Does Change Look Like? 53 Harbourview, Suffolk Unified Landscape Architectural Detailing Pedestrian Friendly 54 Peninsula Town Center, Hampton Unified LandscapeArchitectural Detailing 55 City Center at Oyster Point, Newport News Pedestrian Friendly Gateway -Sense of Arrival 56 Isle of Wight Pedestrian Friendly?Sense of Arrival?Unified Landscape? 57 III,E. -What Does Change Look Like? Taxing District Enhancements •Gives IOW Community Character •Uniform Feel •Create a Gateway, Sense of Arrival in IOW •Improved Facilities/Amenities for Citizens 58 III,E. -What Does Change Look Like? Crafting Community Character •Identify Unique & Desirable Features Uniform Landscaping Architectural Design Character Connective Pedestrian Facilities Uniform Lighting and Signage Gateways Other Enhancement Options •Route 17 Corridor Master Plan Supports Concept (Adopted 2007) •Stricter Enforcement by PC/BOS Needed 59 III,E. -What Does Change Look Like? Enhanced Infrastructure IOW Rt. 10 Gateway 60 III,E. -What Does Change Look Like? Added Services Service Options to Consider •Recycling Pickup •Debris Pickup •Garbage Pickup •Enhanced Public Safety •Additional Signage •Facilities Improvements at Parks 61 III,E. -What Does Change Look Like? Proposed District 62 IV. -Fiscal Impacts of Change Real Estate Proposed Land Uses •15,500 Homes @ $304k* Avg. Value = $4.71 Billion Proposed Value = $39.8 M Current Land Uses •4800 Homes @ $304k* Avg. Value = $1.45 Billion Current Value = $12.3 M *304K Value = Constant for Comparison 63 IV. -Fiscal Impacts of Change -Business Attraction •Currently -21,800 Pop. •Existing Land Use -32,600 •Proposed Land Use -51,000 Applebee’s – 25,000 Pop. In 3 Mi. Starbucks –25,000 Pop. In 3 Mi. Buffalo Wild Wings – 40,000 Pop. IHOP –25-50,000 Pop. In 3 Mi. 64 IV. -Fiscal Impacts of Change Current IOW Debt Per Capita General & Schools Utilities $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Debt Per Capita $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Debt Per Capita 65 IV. -Fiscal Impacts of Change Future IOW Debt Per Capita Debt per Capita in 2013 = $4,038 Similar VA Municipalities Average = $1,946 Similar VA Municipalities Higher = 1 of 33 Potential Population = 66,562* * Does not include growth outside Proposed DSD Boundary 66 IV. -Fiscal Impacts of Change Cost of Doing Nothing •Utilities Debt Doubles by 2020 •Limited Growth Won’t Offset Debt •Continued Tax Increases Needed 67 IV. -Fiscal Impacts of Change Chmura Independent Economic Analysis Do Nothing •Do Nothing = $187 M Shortfall •$187 M Shortfall = $1.07 Tax Rate Countywide 68 IV. -Fiscal Impacts of Change Chmura Independent Economic Analysis Proposed Development •Pays for Itself & Water •No Long-term Countywide Tax Increase 69 V. -Summary Q -Where Can We Grow? A.Existing DSD & Nike Park Rd. Corridor Q -Impact of Growth? A.30,000 Pop. Increase, 25+ Years Q -Can Growth Absorb Water Liability? A.Yes! Water won’t drain tax base Q -How Do We Support Change? A.Taxing District, Proffers, Tax Base, Permit/Connection Fees Q -What Does Change Look Like? A.Enhanced Livability 70 V. -Summary Cont. •DSD Shrunk in 2001 to Protect Ag. Lands •Proposed DSD Only 1/2 of 1991 DSD •Growth Supports & Utilizes Water Contracts •Focused Growth Protects Ag. Lands (84%) •Supports/Attracts Needed Business •Land Use Changes Reflect Market Conditions 71 V. -Summary Cont. •Phased Growth Supports Market with Cost Effective Infrastructure •Proposed Growth Supported/Enhanced With Special Taxing District •Taxing District Enhancements Paid by Users •Growth Reduces Financial Burden on All of IOW 72 Next Steps •Joint Retreat of BOS & PC •Public Input Period •PC Comp. Plan Amendment & ZO Amendment Public Hearing •BOS Comp. Plan Amendment & ZO Amendment Public Hearing •BOS Taxing District Ord. Public Hearing 73 Questions?