Making a clarification–AGAIN

I’m probably as hard-line as anyone on the costs of growth and having growth pay for itself
but the nexus connection between proffers and capital investments is not very good.

Mr. Logan pointed out in an earlier meeting that schools last longer than 30 years
(usually) and that allocating the capital facilities costs over 30 years on each new home is
disproportionate and I would agree.

Your CIP tells you how much NEW facilities will cost … and what the share of those costs
are – for each existing taxpayer.

So we accept the fact that SOME new capital facilities are fairly and equitably part of every
taxpayers responsibility.

The question is what new capital facilities are needed – as a direct result of new growth and
not replacing worn out old facilities?

I think a fire station is a good example. We just built a bunch of new ones that served two
separate purposes. First, the old ones were at the end of their useful function but 2nd, we
have more people and needed MORE and NEW ONES due to growth.

How much of this cost belongs to all taxpayers coming out of their property taxes and how
much of this cost belongs to new people as proffers?

The same goes with respect to schools and roads.

But our current way of calculating proffers seems to assume that new facilities will only
serve new residents and only last 30 years.

Why is this important?

Here’s why.

The 35K that would ostensibly be charged to a new resident in Berkley District will not result
in a new school or a new fire station before such things are built in other districts to benefit
other people.

In all likelihood, a new resident in the rural areas will not be getting a new school or a new
fire house or new roads.

NOW.. IF THE COUNTY had decided to accept the offer to designate transportation districts
where impact fees could have been charged – and those fees dedicated to facilities in
those districts then those fees would be fair – because they’d be going into a fund that
would be used to build facilities that benefited the people in those districts.

Why the county chose not to do this is beyond me. It would have required some work but it
would have yielded a much more fair and explainable nexus for proffer/impact fees than
what we have right now.

35K for a single-wide on a rural lot is a great, great way to make it impossible for a young
couple just starting their local careers as deputies and teachers to not be able to work
locally and afford a place to live.

People who live and work locally and need affordable housing are essentially being given a
35K penalty for not commuting. right?

So the way to pay that 35K penalty is to become a commuter to earn the extra money to
pay for it – right?

Hi Scott,

Proffer guidelines were used to calculate what the 3-acre lots is costing because the proffers are what some supervisors and county staff say are the true costs of a single-family home. Although no rezoning was necessary for these lots, they were created by changing the zoning ordinance. Therefore, the only thing one has to use is the proffer guidelines if you are trying to determine what a home costs the county in services.

This is called an upzoning. When you upzone, you create more lots that can be developed with no way for the county to have the development pay its way because no rezoning is required.

Are you saying that a home built in rural Spotsylvania requires no services?

I’m in favor of proffers to offset the infrastructure
costs needed for new development.

But there is no standard, accepted, agreed-to
methodology and lots of questions associated
with the various different ways that they are
done.

The recent legislation that allowed certain
counties, including Spotsylvania the option to levy
comprehensive impact fees in return for taking
over maintenance of it’s secondary (usually rural)
roads but they also had to agreed to a much
more rigorous method of accountability for the
impact fees themselves and the proceeds could
only be spent for improvements within the
districts they were collected in.

Even though the county turned down the ability to
levy impact fees, the proffer, impact fees,
designated growth area issue continue in this
session of the GA.

But my other concern is this. Our current growth
management policies make housing everywhere
much more expensive – making affordable
housing stock for the folk who live and work
locally harder to afford and, in effect, the policies
actually encourage more people to leave the
county to work elsewhere, i.e. become commuters
- and I’m not convinced this is a good thing at
all.

So.. in effect, we’re trading proffers for more
commuters…. more folks driving more often for
longer periods of time – on roads that are more
crowded and congested – driving the demand to
improve/widen/build new roads… and carpool
parking lots… etc…

Somehow.. we need to better address the
affordable housing issue for deputies, teachers,
and others who live AND work locally.

We blather on and on about SMART GROWTH but
we forget how it is defined – as – living AND
working in the same place. Smart Growth is NOT
living in Spotsy and commuting 50 miles to a job.

At least that’s not how Smart Growth is defined so
maybe we ought to re-think what we “think”
Smart Growth is – and is not and why it ought to
be a goal (or not).