DIMOC 01-17-14 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
Eric R. Lawrence, AICP
Director
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
TO: Development Impact Model – Oversight Committee
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: January 17, 2014 DIM-OC Meeting
DATE: January 8, 2014
________________________________________________________________________
The Development Impact Model - Oversight Committee (DIM-OC) will be meeting on
Friday, January 17, 2014, at 9:00 a.m. in the Planning Department Conference Room of
the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202, Winchester,
Virginia. The DIM-OC will discuss the following agenda item:
AGENDA
1. Continuation of review and discussion regarding proffer expectations.
Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting.
ERL/pd
Enclosures:
Attachment 1: December 6, 2013 Board Work session draft minutes – DIM topic
List of Revenue Categories considered in DIM
DIM Scenarios
Attachment 2: October 8, 2013 DIM-OC meeting minutes
Page 2
Development Impact Model-Oversight Committee
January Meeting Agenda
January 8, 2014
Recap from October 2013 meeting
In spring 2013 the Board of Supervisors’ Business Friendly Committee recommended
that the Board consider reducing the rezoning proffer expectation. On August 14, 2013,
the Board referred the recommendation to the DIM-OC for review, evaluation, and
recommendation.
The DIM-OC met on October 8, 2013 and began their re-evaluation of the Development
Impact Model taking into account current economic conditions.
Ultimately, the DIM-OC is being requested to offer a recommendation if the proffer
expectation should be reduced, and as to how the DIM/proffer expectation might be
revised. It is foreseeable that the proffer expectation could be reduced to reflect a
policy decision regarding what percentage of projected impacts should be addressed, or
to reflect a credit for the contributions that result from new development.
On October 8, 2013 the DIM-OC forwarded an initial recommendation that the:
• Value of proffered transportation improvements which exceed those
necessitated by the development be considered as an offset from the DIM’s
capital impact projections.
o The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider this
recommendation at their January 8, 2014 regular meeting. An update
on the Board’s action will be provided to the DIM-OC.
The DIM-OC would consider two additional potential credits at future meetings:
• Tax contributions that may result from new residential development
o This concept would enable the DIM to calculate local tax revenue that
results from residential development, and reflect a portion of that
revenue as a credit against the projected impacts on capital facilities.
• Tax contributions that may result from new commercial development
associated with a residential development proposal
o This concept would enable the DIM to calculate local tax revenue that
would be generated from a proffered phased commercial component
of the rezoning application, and reflect a portion of that revenue as a
credit against the projected impacts on capital facilities.
Page 3
Development Impact Model-Oversight Committee
January Meeting Agenda
January 8, 2014
The annual review of the DIM (occurs each May or June) considers the various capital
improvement plan (CIP) facilities, population of countywide residents and school age
residents, demands for emergency service, etc. The annual DIM update also captures
the recently approved tax rates.
The proffer expectation as projected by the DIM has not placed significant emphasis on
local revenue generated by a residence. This stems from the Board’s directive in 2005
to not consider credits when projecting capital facility impacts.
Continuation of Review and Discussion Regarding Proffer Expectations
The DIM-OC will continue the re-evaluation of the DIM during their January 17, 2014
meeting. The review should see if there are any components that might prohibit
growth. The DIM-OC will
• Review what local tax revenues are considered in the DIM (Attachment 1:
Revenue Categories)
• Review the projected revenue and expenditure values for various residential
development scenarios (Below and Attachment 1: Discussion Scenario)
• Review how credits could be incorporated into the DIM output when
considering residential development
The DIM projects that county expenses (operational and capital $133,511) for a single
family detached dwelling will exceed the tax revenue generated ($73,924) by $59,587.
For a single family attached (Townhouse), the expense exceeds revenue by $39,868.
(See below and Attachment 1: Discussion Scenario)
At the October 8 DIM-OC meeting, it was demonstrated that capital expenditures
represent approximately 13 percent of the annual county budget when looking at the
last 10 year average. That is comprised by approximately 1.3% in capital expenditures
and 11.7% debt service. The DIM does not include nor project debt service costs, solely
capital costs.
The DIM-OC will be presented an overview of the Revenue Categories and the Scenarios
to lead discussion. Staff will offer additional thoughts, and encourage discussion by the
DIM-OC during the January 17, 2014, committee meeting. Ultimately, Staff is seeking a
recommendation from the DIM-OC on how the County might arrive at its proffer
expectation calculation to be used during the evaluation of future residential rezoning
applications.
Page 4
Development Impact Model-Oversight Committee
January Meeting Agenda
January 8, 2014
“Attachment 1: Discussion Scenario” contains DIM scenario runs that will offer the DIM-OC a better understanding of the projected
impacts and offsets generated by the model. The model projects revenue and expenditures over a 20 year period. A summary of the
scenarios is below.
20 year projection
As projected in the
Development Impact
Model (DIM)
Revenues
Expenses
Potential
Assignable Revenues
(based on 1.3%
capital portion of
budget)
Unmet Capital Facility Impacts
Per dwelling
Operating
Capital
Before revenue
credit applied
After 1.3%
revenue
credit applied
1 Single Family Detached
Dwelling (SFD)
$73,924 $113,580 $19,931 $961 $19,600 $18,639
1 Single Family Attached
Dwelling (Townhouse)
$50,240 $76,819 $13,289 $653 $13,062 $12,409
100 SFD $7,392,448 $11,358,041 $1,993,067 $96,101 $19,600 $18,639
20,000 SqFt Retail $2,082,033 $498,588 $23,195 $270,664 NA NA
100 SFD plus 20,000 sq ft
Retail
$9,474,480 $11,856,629 $2,016,262 $123,168 $19,600 $18,368
ATTACHMENT 1
Revenue Revenue
Category Name
General Property Taxes Current Real Property Taxes
Current Public Service Corporation Taxes
Current Personal Property Taxes (w M&T)
Personal Property - General
Personal Property - Mobile Home
Personal Property - Machinery & Tools
Penalties
Interest & Cost on Taxes
Newspaper Ad for Delinquent Accounts
Admin Fee for Liens
Other Local Taxes Local Sales and Use Tax
Utility Taxes-Telephone
Utility Taxes-Electric
Utility Taxes-Gas
Gross Receipts Tax-Utilities
Business and Professional Occup. License
Motor Vehicle License
Bank Stock Taxes
Recordation Taxes
Tax on Wills
Additional Tax on Deeds of Conveyance
Room and Meals Tax
Street Lights
Permits, Privilige Fees & Licenses Dog Licenses
Land Use Application Fees
Transfer Fees
Franchise Fees
Development Review Fees
Building Permits
Electrical Permits
Plumbing Permits
Mechanical Permits
Special Inspections
Sign Permits
Permits-Commercial Burning
Explosive Storage Permits
Blasting Permits
FM Training Services
Annual Blasting Permits
Annual Buring Permits
Land Disturbance Permits
Fines & Forfeitures Court Fines & Forfeitures
Revenue from Use of Money/Property Interest on Bank Deposits
Rental of General Property
Rent on Recreational Property & Facilities
Sale of Salvage & Surplus
Sale of BOCA Books
Parks and Recreation-Firewood
Parks and Recreation-Surplus
Parks and Recreation-Clearbrook Concessions
Parks and Recreation-Sherando Concessions
Sale of Fire Report
Charges for Services Excess Fees of Clerks
Sheriff Fees
Law Library Fees
Emergency 911 Fees
Handgun Permit Fees
Miscellaneous Clerk Fees
Donations Adopt./Reclaim. Fees
Spay Neuter Fees
Parks and Recreaton Fees
Sale of Maps, Surveys
Sale of County Code
Sale of GIS Mapping
Miscellaneous Recreation Donations
Donations-Other
Forfeited Property
Refunds-Harardous Materials
Drug Awareness
Recycling Refund
Specialized Reports
Recovered Costs Recovered Costs - Meth Grant
Clarke County Container Fees
Winchester Container Fees
Refuse Disposal Fees
Recycling Revenue
Fire and Rescue Merchandise
Container Fees-Bowman Library
Reimbursement-Juvenile/Domestic
Litter-thon
Reimb. - General District Court
Reimb. - Engineering
Reimb. - Elections
Winchester Economic Development
Rembursement-LFSW Conservation District
Task Force Secretary
Reimbursement-Economic Development Commission
Reimbursement-Street Signs
Reimbursement-Sherando Maintenance
Fire School Programs
Non-Categorical Aid ABC Profits
Wine Taxes
Motor Vehicle Carriers Tax/Titling Tax
State Reimb. 2006 PPTRA Runout
Shared Expenses Shared Expenses-Commonwealth Attorney
Shared Expenses-Sheriff
Shared Expenses-Comm. Of Revenue
Shared Expenses-Treasurer
Shared Expenses-Medical Examiner
Shared Expenses-Clerk
Shared Expenses-Regis./Elec. Board
Categorical Aid Public Assistance Grants
Virginia Commission of the Arts
Litter Control Grants
Four-for-Life
Emergency Services Fire Program
Grants-Parks
JJC Grant
Rent/Lease Payments
Spay/Neuter Assistance-State
Gypsy Moth-State
Forfeited Asset Fund
VA Biosolids
Victim Witness Grant
Wireless 911 Grant
Telecommuting Center
National Park Service
Forfieted Assets Federal
Non-Revenue Receipts Funding From Fund Balance
Applicant:Discussion Scenario
Residential Units (number)1 Units
SFD 1
SFA 0 Residential Input Data
MFD 0
Non-Residential (sq. ft.)0 Sq. Ft.
Retail 0 Sq. Ft.Go to Scenarios tab for non-residential inputs
Office 0 Sq. Ft.
Budget Summary
Revenues $73,924 Source: BudSum W169
Expenses - Operating $113,580 Source: BudSum W174 - Capital
Expenses - Capital $19,931 Source: BudSum W111 + BudSum W154
10 Year Average Capital
Expenditures 1.3%
Revenues - assignable $961
Total Cost of
Capital Facilities Per Unit
Fire And Rescue $564 3%$564
General Government $43 0%$43
Public Safety $0 0%$0
Library $496 3%$496
Parks and Recreation $1,766 9%$1,766
School Construction $16,731 85%$16,731
Total $19,600 100%$19,600
Net Cost of Capital Faclities $18,639 $18,639
OUTPUT MODULE
Source: | CAFR *Capital Projects & Debt
Service
Applicant:Discussion Scenario
Residential Units (number)1 Units
SFD 0
SFA 1 Residential Input Data
MFD 0
Non-Residential (sq. ft.)0 Sq. Ft.
Retail 0 Sq. Ft.Go to Scenarios tab for non-residential inputs
Office 0 Sq. Ft.
Budget Summary
Revenues $50,240 Source: BudSum W169
Expenses - Operating $76,819 Source: BudSum W174 - Capital
Expenses - Capital $13,289 Source: BudSum W111 + BudSum W154
10 Year Average Capital
Expenditures 1.3%
Revenues - assignable $653
Total Cost of
Capital Facilities Per Unit
Fire And Rescue $419 3%$419
General Government $33 0%$33
Public Safety $0 0%$0
Library $379 3%$379
Parks and Recreation $1,350 10%$1,350
School Construction $10,881 83%$10,881
Total $13,062 100%$13,062
Net Cost of Capital Faclities $12,409 $12,409
OUTPUT MODULE
Source: | CAFR *Capital Projects & Debt
Service
Applicant:Discussion Scenario
Residential Units (number)100 Units
SFD 100
SFA 0 Residential Input Data
MFD 0
Non-Residential (sq. ft.)0 Sq. Ft.
Retail 0 Sq. Ft.Go to Scenarios tab for non-residential inputs
Office 0 Sq. Ft.
Budget Summary
Revenues $7,392,448 Source: BudSum W169
Expenses - Operating $11,358,041 Source: BudSum W174 - Capital
Expenses - Capital $1,993,067 Source: BudSum W111 + BudSum W154
10 Year Average Capital
Expenditures 1.3%
Revenues - assignable $96,102
Total Cost of
Capital Facilities Per Unit
Fire And Rescue $56,400 3%$564
General Government $4,300 0%$43
Public Safety $0 0%$0
Library $49,560 3%$496
Parks and Recreation $176,600 9%$1,766
School Construction $1,673,100 85%$16,731
Total $1,959,960 100%$19,600
Net Cost of Capital Faclities $1,863,858 $18,639
OUTPUT MODULE
Source: | CAFR *Capital Projects & Debt
Service
Applicant:Discussion Scenario
Residential Units (number)0 Units
SFD 0
SFA 0 Residential Input Data
MFD 0
Non-Residential (sq. ft.)20,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail 20,000 Sq. Ft.Go to Scenarios tab for non-residential inputs
Office 0 Sq. Ft.
Budget Summary
Revenues $2,082,033 Source: BudSum W169
Expenses - Operating $498,588 Source: BudSum W174 - Capital
Expenses - Capital $23,195 Source: BudSum W111 + BudSum W154
10 Year Average Capital
Expenditures 1.3%
Revenues - assignable $27,066
Total Cost of
Capital Facilities Per Unit
Fire And Rescue $0 #####DIV/0!
General Government $0 #####DIV/0!
Public Safety $0 #####DIV/0!
Library $0 #####DIV/0!
Parks and Recreation $0 #####DIV/0!
School Construction $0 #####DIV/0!
Total $0 #####DIV/0!
Net Cost of Capital Faclities ($27,066)#DIV/0!
OUTPUT MODULE
Source: | CAFR *Capital Projects & Debt
Service
Applicant:Discussion Scenario
Residential Units (number)100 Units
SFD 100
SFA 0 Residential Input Data
MFD 0
Non-Residential (sq. ft.)20,000 Sq. Ft.
Retail 20,000 Sq. Ft.Go to Scenarios tab for non-residential inputs
Office 0 Sq. Ft.
Budget Summary
Revenues $9,474,480 Source: BudSum W169
Expenses - Operating $11,856,629 Source: BudSum W174 - Capital
Expenses - Capital $2,016,262 Source: BudSum W111 + BudSum W154
10 Year Average Capital
Expenditures 1.3%
Revenues - assignable $123,168
Total Cost of
Capital Facilities Per Unit
Fire And Rescue $56,400 3%$564
General Government $4,300 0%$43
Public Safety $0 0%$0
Library $49,560 3%$496
Parks and Recreation $176,600 9%$1,766
School Construction $1,673,100 85%$16,731
Total $1,959,960 100%$19,600
Net Cost of Capital Faclities $1,836,792 $18,368
OUTPUT MODULE
Source: | CAFR *Capital Projects & Debt
Service
ATTACHMENT 2
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT MODEL – OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE (DIM-OC)
Held in the Planning Department conference room of the Frederick County Administration
Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on October 8, 2013.
DIM-OC MEMBERS PRESENT: JP Carr, Bob Hess, John Lamanna, Gary Lofton, Paige Manuel,
Steve Pettler, and Kris Tierney
DIM-OC MEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Madagan and Roger Thomas
STAFF PRESENT: Eric Lawrence
OTHERS PRESENT: Patrick Barker, Wayne Lee, and Al Orndorf
CALL TO ORDER
The Development Impact Model – Oversight Committee (DIM-OC) meeting was called to order
at 9:05 AM.
Staff provided an overview of the Board of Supervisors’ Business Friendly initiative, and the
resulting recommendation that the County consider a reduction in the proffer expectations.
On August 14, 2013, the Board referred the recommendation to the DIM-OC for review,
evaluation, and recommendation.
The referred directive stated:
“Reduction in Proffer Requirements
The Land Use and Development Subcommittee recommended a reduction in proffer
requirements for future rezoning applications, as well as amendments to existing
proffers in order to create viable projects that will deliver needed transportation
improvements and other benefits. The economics of the current proffer model or
development impact model do not allow for construction. The Committee examined the
model and determined there were numerous capital items contemplated and
incorporated into the model, but those projects were not being built in the current year.
It is anticipated none of these government capital projects will be built at any time in the
near future, if at all. Further, the Development Impact Model does not fully account for
Page 2
Development Impact Model – Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 8, 2013
business, personal property tax, or other revenue that is of significant benefit to
Frederick County, in addition to property taxes.
A re-evaluation of the Development Impact Model taking into account current economic
conditions would be appropriate. This recommendation should be referred to the
Development Impact Model Oversight Committee for evaluation and recommendation to
the Board.”
DIM-OC DISCUSSION
The proffer expectation is renewed annually as part of the annual DIM update (most recently
renewed/updated in June 2013). This process began in 2005 when the Board adopted the DIM,
and directed that the DIM be utilized to project the fiscal impacts that land use changes would
place on the County’s capital facilities. The County only considers impacts on capital facilities
which are consistent with state law and enable cash proffers aimed at mitigating capital facility
impacts, but not operational impacts. Additionally, the current proffer expectation solely
considers impacts new development places on the County’s capital facilities; the expectation
does not contain credits for potential contributions via taxes or proffered improvements. The
DIM-OC is now being asked to think beyond simply annually updating the DIM, and to consider
policy revisions that affect the degree by which new development should address its projected
impacts.
After reviewing the DIM, two questions posed to the DIM-OC were:
(1) Should credits be included within the DIM’s Proffer Expectation, and
(2) What is the best method by which the credit might be incorporated into the DIM’s
Proffer Expectation?
As part of the discussion, the DIM-OC considered:
• New residential building permit trends. It was noted that for the first eight months of
2013, 265 new residential building permits were issued, up 31 percent as compared to
the same time period in 2012. If the trend continues, the County could issue 400
building permits for new residential construction by the end of 2013.
o Based on trends to date, 2013 will see the greatest number of residential
building permits since 2007 when 515 permits were issued.
o The years 2009-12 were averaging 286 permits annually.
Page 3
Development Impact Model – Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 8, 2013
• Capital portion of the FY2014 budget. It was noted that only 1.6% of the current year
budget is for capital expenditures.
o Or an average of 13% capital/debt over the past 10 years (2003-2012)
o If credit is incorporated into the DIM, should the credit reflect the annual portion
of the budget dedicated to capital, or a 10 years’ average of capital and debt as a
portion of the budget?
• The amount of cash proffers received and spent since 1995. The cash proffers account
to date (7/2013)
o Revenue received : $ 9,427,391
o Expenditures : $ 6,407,874
o Balance : $ 3,019,517
o It was noted that in FY2013, the County received cash proffer payments of
$1,185,263.
o The increase in cash proffer payments received most probably reflects that more
of the new residential construction is occurring in the UDA, and more of the new
lots being developed have cash proffer commitments. It is expected this trend
will continue as the supply of lots without proffers diminishes.
• The cash proffer expectations from other jurisdictions. The DIM-OC discussed the
proffer values received from other jurisdictions, and associated policies pertaining to
credit for tax contributions and proffered transportation improvements. The DIM-OC
learned that our current proffer expectation is lower than many of the jurisdictions
located east and southeast of our county. Frederick County’s current proffer
expectation for a single family detached house is $19,600 per unit. The proffers from
other jurisdictions range from $19,793 to $45,923. Jurisdictions considered included:
Loudoun, Prince William, Fauquier, Albemarle, Stafford, and Spotsylvania Counties. It
was noted that Prince William County recently directed staff to evaluate its proffer
expectation as its School Board believed the values were too low.
The DIM-OC began discussions to consider policy revisions which affect the degree by which
new development should address its projected impacts. The DIM-OC considered three potential
scenarios in which proffer projections might be considered. The DIM-OC considered if the
proffer expectation should be reduced, and as to how the DIM/proffer expectation might be
revised. It is foreseeable the proffer expectation could be reduced to reflect a policy decision
regarding what percentage of projected impacts should be addressed, or to reflect a credit for
the contributions that result from new development.
Page 4
Development Impact Model – Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 8, 2013
These contributions might be in the form of:
• Tax contributions that may result from new residential development
o This concept would enable the DIM to calculate tax revenue resulting from
residential development, and reflect that revenue as a credit against the
projected impacts on capital facilities.
• Tax contributions that may result from new commercial development associated
with a residential development proposal
o This concept would enable the DIM to calculate tax revenue that would be
generated from a proffered phased commercial component of the rezoning
application, and reflect that revenue as a credit against the projected
impacts on capital facilities.
• Value of proffered capital improvements (such as transportation) that may be
considered as an offset from the DIM’s capital impact projections.
o Staff did learn that in some jurisdictions, the value of proffered
transportation improvements, above and beyond what is generally
expected/required by ordinance with a new development, may be utilized as
a credit against the projected capital facility impacts.
It was noted that proffers are ordinances, and therefore may not be changed administratively.
This was an important note because simply reducing an existing cash proffer commitment was
neither feasible nor legal for staff to implement administratively. Once proffered by a property
owner and then accepted by the Board of Supervisors through a rezoning approval, staff is
obligated to enforce the approved proffer statement. Therefore, it is envisioned that should
the proffer expectation policy or value be revised by the Board of Supervisors, future rezoning
applications would benefit from the credits program. For those rezoning applications that had
previously been approved, and remain undeveloped, the property owner could seek a minor
proffer revision to renew their cash proffer commitments to reflect the latest DIM and proffer
expectation.
It was noted that if cash proffer expectations are reduced, the projected capital impacts will
remain. In essence, someone has to cover the costs of new residential construction and its
impacts on capital facilities; either the developer/homebuilder/homeowner or countywide
through contributions from all taxpayers. It was commented that current residents should not
be expected to bear the cost of new growth through increased real estate taxes.
Page 5
Development Impact Model – Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 8, 2013
The DIM-OC felt that offering credit for proffered transportation, above what is typically
expected to address transportation mitigation, would be appropriate. This practice is occurring
on some of the larger, more heavily transportation-proffered projects. Additionally, the practice
of crediting a project reflective of proffered transportation values is also occurring in other
jurisdictions. It was noted that projects that offer extensive road rights-of-way such as for
planned Route 37 ought to receive credits to mitigate their projected residential impacts. How
one arrives at the value of the transportation credit will be through discussions with the
applicant, VDOT, and the County Transportation Planner.
The DIM-OC felt credits for real estate tax contributions from residential and proffered phased
commercial uses warranted additional discussion. At issue was arriving at the projected value
of the credit. Based on the FY14 budget, only 1.6% of the budget was dedicated for capital
expenditures. Therefore, was it appropriate to only credit 1.6% of real estate tax
contributions? On a $400,000 house, at the current 0.585% real estate tax rate, less than $40 a
year is contributed towards capital, or less than $800 over 20 years. That does not result in
much of a credit to offset the projected $19,600 capital impacts over 20 years.
DIM-OC Action. The DIM-OC recommended approval of a policy modification to enable credit
for transportation. A resolution for consideration by the Board of Supervisors should
accompany the DIM-OC’s recommendation.
The DIM-OC will continue discussion regarding possible credits for residential and proffered
phased commercial real estate tax revenue. The discussion would further evaluate how
budgeted capital and debt obligations should be treated within the DIM, and within the
resulting proffer expectation.
Next meeting of the DIM-OC will be in late November or early December, 2013. Date and
time to be determined.
Staff will distribute to DIM-OC, and include with the report to the Board, the materials included
in the discussion.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 AM.
Page 6
Development Impact Model – Oversight Committee
Meeting Minutes
October 8, 2013
Support Materials Referenced During Discussion:
August 2013 Residential Building Permit Report
Jurisdictional Proffer Expectation Comparisons
Cash Proffers Received Table
PROFFER COMPARISON WITH ADJOINING COUNTIES
COUNTY
SCHOOLS
NON-SCHOOL*
TOTAL*
TRANSPORTATION
SF TH MF SF TH MF SF TH MF SF TH MF
Fauquier $21,424 $13,390 $5,951 $7,207 $7,207 $7,207 $28,613 $20,597 $13,158 $0 $0 $0
Prince William $14,462 $11,685 $5,033 $5,331 $5,046 $3,606 $19,793 $16,731 $10,887 $17,926 $15,196 $10,887
Stafford $20,999 $17,228 $9,302 $8,265 $10,522 $9,354 $29,264 $27,750 $18,656 $16,250 $11,375 $6,499
Spotsylvania $18,418 $12,700 $3,473 $6,493 $4,973 $3,523 $24,297 $17,673 $6,996 $8,374 $6,414 $4,544
Loudoun
Eastern $37,791 $22,153 $11,294 $21,679 $18,232 $12,464 $59,470 $40,385 $23,758 $0 $0 $0
Central $33,450 $19,608 $9,996 $16,284 $13,695 $9,362 $49,734 $33,303 $19,358 $0 $0 $0
Western $31,024 $18,187 $9,272 $14,899 $12,530 $8,566 $45,923 $30,716 $17,838 $0 $0 $0
*Does not include transportation proffers. Non-school categories vary by jurisdiction, but generally include parks, emergency services, library, solid waste and general
government.
Neither Fauquier nor Loudoun have defined proffers for transportation improvements. Contributions are defined by the specific impacts on a case-by-case basis.
PROFFERS 1995‐2013
Total
FY1995 15,423
FY1996 171,035
FY1997 126,082
FY1998 83,516
FY1999 172,182
FY2000 268,464
FY2001 132,668
FY2002 334,236
FY2003 434,810
FY2004 568,650
FY2005 1,018,169
FY2006 956,831
FY2007 734,707
FY2008 824,963
FY2009 882,922
FY2010 473,690
FY2011 263,346
FY2012 780,434
FY2013 1,185,263 *1
Total 9,427,391
*1 7/12‐6/13