Archives

Spotsylvania News

Jeff Branscome writes about Spotsylvania County.

Share
RSS feed of this blog

$34 million and 5,925 homes and stores

During a work session today on the Summit Crossing rezoning, the financial analysis put the project into perspective in a way no one has done yet. With the rezoning, Tricord is proposing a TIF to fund a new I-95 interchange and Summit Crossing Parkway and a CDA assessment would cover any bond debt shortfall that the TIF does not pay.

It is estimated the bonds would need to cover $131 million over the life of the CDA (2011-2040), but that is not the total cost of the infrastructure. There are other sources of revenue, about $29 million, that Tricord anticipates from grants and the federal government, or they pay it.

 

"Ultimately it falls back to us. So, yes, we do have skin in this game," said Tricord executive Mike Jones. 

 

 

After computing the numbers using a bunch of assumptions, the Davenport financial advisor provided this statement: The county would end up "paying" $34 million for a new interchange and the parkway. The advisor punched in the project’s demand on service costs to the county to support the development, bond debt (although it’s not really the county responsibility, the TIF takes revenue from the project that the county would otherwise get) and came up with the total $34 million the county would end up paying for the lifetime of the CDA.

 

Ryan Clarke, an advisor for Tricord, said this project provides a plan of finance to build this interchange that the county board says it wants.  

 

"We believe these public infrastructure improvements are going to open up that entire area and bring in other revenue to the county," Jones said.

 

Good deal? Bad deal?  

 

Post tags: | | |

Permalink: http://news.fredericksburg.com/spotsygovt/2008/12/09/34-million-and-5925-homes-and-stores/

  • lgross

    What would you say if the interchange got built
    and a company like Cabela or Whole Foods or a
    true Regional Mall like Potomac Mills decided to
    locate there?

    or WalMart decided to open up a distribution
    center near there?

    or the Interchange made the new Hospital the
    preferred hospital because of ease of access
    from I-95?

    The BEST jobs – are those jobs that are created
    by selling products and services to folks outside
    of the county – NET taxes ….

    to a certain extent – it boils down to whether or
    not – an interchange – would ultimately add
    enough commercial to be of benefit to
    Spotsylvania.

    For the answer to that question – check on
    Silver’s efforts to get an Interchange near
    Celebrate or Stafford County’s efforts to get a
    new interchange near their Hospital.

    What is Spotsy’s worst case here?

  • gramps

    the “base case/stress case” county shortfalls (-$14 mil/-$218 mil) presented in the Davenport Analysis? Can we presume the 30 year “road costs” will be paid by either Tricord or some other entity? From yesterday to today, this went from a “not very good deal” to and “excellent deal???” OR…..my conclusions yesterday were all wrong?? Can someone clarify?

  • lgross

    To some extent, it boils down to whether or not –
    a new interchange is in the best longer-term
    interests of the county.

    There is no way to look at the hard numbers for
    the potential commercial development that could
    occur at the interchange that would be In
    Addition to the nominal revenue numbers from
    what is specifically being proposed.

    if one assumes that eventually the land
    proposed for development will be developed
    anyone but piecemeal … one parcel at a time it
    would completely max out the existing Route 1
    and Massaponax interchange.

    So.. the question is – if you don’t prepare for a
    new interchange – how do you deal with that land
    in terms of future development?

    do you just have a policy that the land will not be
    developed … ?? is that realistic?

  • dantelvock

    Gramps, not sure what you are basing that on. Supervisors gave no indication at all if it was a good or bad deal. I think they showed concern with the cash proffers Tricord has proposed with the rezoning so they asked staff to review them to ensure they are fair in this current market. The proffers are $113 million less than what they should be, based on the county’s guidelines. Tricord says the county’s methodology is flawed.

  • dantelvock

    Larry
    The worst case scenario is 112 single-family homes on the 925 acres and no plan to fund an interchange.

  • gramps

    In my previous posts (there were two, one responding to your post while the BOS mtg was in progress, the second was earlier today on this blog post.), My comment about bad deal going good or vice-versa was my own conclusion, not someone on the BOS. The Davenport presentation analyzes two cases detailing the county cash flow over 30 years on the Tricord proposal. On page 40 of the Davenport doc we see the base case which nets to -$14+ million in county cash flow. On page 42 the stress case nets to -$218 mil in county cash flow. My question, once again, is how do we conclude that these negative net cash flows are good for the county tax payers, with or without the I-95 interchange? Also how does the interchange maintence costs over that 30 years impact net cash flow?

  • misty40

    in my opinion would be over 2,000 homes built with the minimal road improvements listed in the proffers through phase 4. The interchange, the remaining two lanes of summit crossing parkway, etc., aren’t shown until phase 5 – after over 2000 homes could be built and whether or not any commercial happens. What happens if county can’t sell the bonds? Even higher special assessments? And on ground not part of the rezoning request, per Davenport? Do other owners know this could happen?

  • lgross

    Dan – is that the “by-right” current zoning without
    doing any rezones in the current proposed area?

    What about all the other “by-right” within a 5-
    mile radius of Massaponax?

    Here’s the essential question:

    Will Spotsylvania GROW in the area around
    Massaponax – much like the area around and
    west of Route 3 did grow?

    This is what I mean when I say .”..in the longer
    term interest of the county”.

    Don’t misunderstand. I’m not advocating MORE
    growth.

    I’m asking – what infrastructure will we need if we
    grow on the undeveloped land in and around that
    area?

    My basic premise is that you can either prepare
    for the growth that your current zoning allows or
    you can deal with the infrastructure needs AFTER
    the fact like we have traditionally in the past.

  • lgross

    so..the worst case scenario will be that all the
    land in that area will eventually be developed to
    it’s current “by-right” allowed potential and.. it will
    happen incrementally, piecemeal and ad-hoc
    without a viable transportation infrastructure
    upgrade plan.

    Like we see in the comp plan.. where they draw
    lines on a map to denote future roads but there
    is no CIP for any of them.

    Again – I’m not advocating growth.

    I’m advocating – recognizing that you cannot
    stop growth (unless the BOS wants to downzone
    the whole area around Massaponax).

    We are already committed to a very substantial
    ultimate build-out of residential in that area.

    What is the RESPONSIBLE way to prepare for the
    inevitable infrastructure needs if it gets
    developed according to the current allowed
    zoning?