Spotsylvania News

Jeff Branscome writes about Spotsylvania County.

RSS feed of this blog

Summit Crossing financial implications

At tomorrow’s Board of Supervisors meeting the supervisors will discuss for the first time the financial impacts of Tricord’s Summit Crossing project.

You can read the information that will be discussed here



here and here  

Of all of those, this one appears to be the most interesting.  

According to the county’s financial consultant and county staff, Tricord is proposing to pay a third of the cash proffers that are required under county guidelines, and the project will have a negative total impact on the county’s cash flow through 2040, which is the life of the special mechanisms (a Community Development Authority and a Tax Increment Financing) Tricord proposes to build the I-95 interchange and the parkway.  

According to a chart in the information linked above, the total county revenue from Summit Crossing would be $917 million, and the expenses would be $616 million, for $300 million of net revenue. 

When you add in debt service for the Community Development Authority, that takes away $324 million. The CDA special assessments would raise $8 million in additional revenue to pay the debt service. So the total cash flow to the county is negative $14 million.  

Feel free to comment here on what the documents mean to you.


Post tags:


  • lgross

    I don’t pretend to know the bottom line for the
    financial.. and I don’t believe I saw a
    recommendation or conclusion from Davenport
    but there are two development paths for Spotsy
    and in the past.. they have basically allowed
    development – on per project basis – and then
    dealing with the fallout of the cumulative

    This path is essentially a Master Plan proposal
    for a large area in the County – complete with a
    new I-95 Interchange – which it is safe to say –
    few other likely options for funding it.

    I think Tricord has put forth a credible proposal
    that deserves a hard look and if the county is
    capable of it – some give and take on the

    The county might ultimately turn it down but if
    they do then what they have essentially voted for
    is a continuation of ad-hoc development.

  • gramps

    provided by Dan’s links, here are my conclusions. Using the Davenport analysis, the county stands to see a shortfall of at least $14 million and possibly as high as $218 million over roughly a 30 year span. On average, that is about $466,000 per year to $7,266,000 per year. That is the downside. I presume the upside is the I-95 Interchange? I have no idea if that is a cost beneficial tradeoff. Perhaps one of the BOS members or the county staff members will comment.

  • lgross

    I come to a somewhat similar conclusion except
    to ask this:

    If that same area develops the way land has
    been traditionally and historically developed –
    does the county come out better, the same or

    In other words, are we seeing – codified – the
    truism that “development does not pay”?

    As i sit here… watch the BOS meeting – blink in
    and out – of broadcast..

    what a frustrating deal – and it’s been this way
    for weeks if not months…

    first it was the sound.. they fixed it.. now the
    whole blame broadcast goes away….

  • dantelvock

    Davenport just explained that you could think of it this way: The county would get a new interchange, a new U.S. Bypass and Summit Crossing Parkway and other improvements proposed with this project for about $34 million in service costs over the 2011-2040 period of the bonds. There’s some additional perspective on the project.

    Larry, to answer your question, if it were byright, you get none of it. Just houses.

  • gramps

    To lgross I say…I have no idea of the answer to your question. Hope you get the BOS meeting back in focus on TV. Unfortunately, my TV is DTV satellite with no public channel.

  • gramps

    Thanks Dan, for the update. I presume that you are saying that the new info from Davenport means the county would be in arrears, on average over 30 years, about $1,600,000 per year to about $8,400,000 per year when the “road service costs” are factored in?? Wow…makes one wonder if we can really afford the Summit Crossing project?