[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6478835,"mediaKeyId","5707955-b94ccbd0331b13b885579b1affb91155","parentId",5707955,"title","Fairfax City officials outline scale and timing of $220 million school bond; council to consider awarding design contract next week","audioSeconds",4382,"startMs",28000,"endMs",4410000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5707955-b94ccbd0331b13b885579b1affb91155&start=28&end=4410","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5707955-b94ccbd0331b13b885579b1affb91155/thumbnail_28000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6478835/Fairfax-City/Fairfax-County/Virginia/Fairfax-City-officials-outline-scale-and-timing-of-220-million-school-bond-council-to-consider-awarding-design-contract-next-week","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478835-8d6eecc85f6658ee4212babc10dc18d0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770999849&Signature=KJTOJdDVlC4J~k0~DdoYQSjy-MNlwZElDIqgw-Gywj-kMi6OHG~7D3DSxhI4kohhUJvsVahZKgKzBATyfeeRH5ArSfj6wlqXx2vnnnNh1Hz2jcYuwnZc9CvtZA1opsEpgyGdPBC2Zu6cXDxYj5Fy1AYaWKDhusAhHTd0uiUXke-88GljnNV1LzJ0GW4JnSzuRHu5keCZyaDp5SWAVAb~NULuAXHd4WtKp2pVt0878spYy3hfjyonNWWZUhjykIs4geiRoTIMLWq2T8vuCHtNVhWkKiBRc5nieFw9Bzk6Zy~~KEBx-806gK~kgXJ7wRghJ~xKiIbowFuZyTlXs8q8IA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Fairfax City","date","2025-09-02T00:00:00Z","article","Fairfax City and the Fairfax City School Board held a joint work session Sept. 2 to review financing and timing for school projects approved in last year’s $220 million bond referendum, with City Chief Financial Officer JC Martinez and Davenport & Company LLC advising on the budgetary and credit implications.

Davenport advisor Kyle Laux said the city and school board had provided him a list of priorities—Daniels Run Elementary School, Providence Elementary School and the Fairfax High School roof—and that Davenport’s role was to analyze those priorities and the likely fiscal impact. “It is not for us to tell you which projects to do,” Laux said. “That’s obviously the purview of the governing bodies here.”

The presentation reported that planning costs of roughly $3.0 million for the schools are included in the FY2026 capital improvement program and will be funded from existing CIP dollars rather than new borrowing. The high school roof, originally budgeted at about $4.5 million for FY2026, was delayed one year in collaboration between the school board and city to help balance the FY2026 budget; the school board chair said delaying the roof risks higher future costs and described that choice as “kicking this can down the road.”

Why it matters: Davenport and city staff stressed the scale of the $220 million package relative to Fairfax City’s budget and credit profile. The city holds a top-tier (AAA) credit rating that lowers borrowing costs, but taking on large, generational capital projects will push debt-service ratios upward unless offset by strong fund balances, budgetary discipline or new revenues.

Key figures and timing
- Voter-approved bond: $220,000,000 (referendum passed last November)
- FY2026 planning appropriation: about $3,000,000 (from existing CIP funds)
- Deferred high school roof originally estimated: $4,500,000 (pushed into a later year)
- Planning interest-rate assumption used by advisers: 5% (conservative planning assumption); advisers said current market rates are in the low 4% range
- Value of one penny on the real-estate tax rate (planning estimate): about $835,000
- Projected stepped-up annual debt service if the full program is borrowed incrementally: roughly $1.8 million (initial), rising over several years to a peak around $16–17 million per year near the end of the decade, per Davenport’s illustrative cash flows
- Tax-equivalent impact (if the only revenue source were the real-estate tax and it did not grow): Davenport’s planning estimate is about 2.5 pennies in 2027, another ~2 pennies in 2028 and a larger increase in 2029 (roughly 9 pennies that year), producing a multi-year cumulative impact in the 15–20 penny range across several years depending on timing and revenue assumptions

Advisers and staff emphasized these are order‑of‑magnitude estimates for planning; they assumed no revenue growth and did not assume passage of any new local sales tax. Laux said the planning approach is intentionally conservative so decision-makers can adjust when more information is available.

Revenue options and state timing
City and school officials discussed a potential 1% local sales-tax option under consideration in parts of Virginia. Davenport estimated a 1% sales tax for Fairfax City could generate roughly $12–14 million per year—an amount close to the peak debt service projected for the school program—but advisers and staff cautioned that even if the measure were enacted at the state level, a local referendum and implementation steps mean revenues would not realistically appear until FY2028. Laux and Martinez reiterated they did not assume those revenues in the FY2027 budget and instead modeled the program with conservative assumptions.

Cumulative CIP pressures and other projects
City staff told councilmembers the city’s five‑year CIP also includes several large non-school projects—property yard replacement, Fire Station 3, upgrades to the Willard Sherwood Center and a police garage addition—whose combined proposed cost could add the equivalent of roughly 10 cents on the real-estate tax rate over the same multi-year window if fully financed. Staff emphasized those other projects have not been fully appropriated and remain subject to council decisions.

Council responses and next steps
Most council members who spoke expressed support for completing school renovations and repairing the high school roof, while also raising concerns about cumulative tax burden and sequencing of CIP projects. Councilmember Peterson asked staff about the combined, cumulative tax impact of all proposed CIP projects; staff said those projects could add roughly 10 cents over multiple years in addition to any school-related increases, depending on timing and whether council approves full appropriations.

On process, the council was told an item to award a contract to start the design work for the school renovations will appear on the Sept. 9 council agenda. City staff said the design contract’s total value exceeds the $3.0 million currently available, and the Sept. 9 action would commit the city to the design procurement while staff plan to fund the remainder in future budgets. The council will vote on that award next week unless the item is deferred.

Public-private partnerships and other levers
Several council members asked staff to pursue public-private partnership options (PPEA/P3 solicitations) for some non-school CIP projects to reduce the city’s up-front burden. City staff said they would begin preparing materials for a formal solicitation and noted prior requests for information had yielded only limited private-sector responses. At the meeting’s close staff said they would begin pursuing PPEA/RFI work unless there was objection.

What the meeting did not decide
There were no final authorizations to issue bonds or to raise taxes at the Sept. 2 session. The council will consider the design contract award on Sept. 9 and will determine budget and financing choices through the FY2027 budget process and later budget years.

Ending
Staff and Davenport said they will return with more detailed budget scenarios during upcoming budget deliberations. Officials reiterated that timing for any additional revenues (notably a state-enabled local sales tax) and future interest‑rate movements will materially affect how the city sequences borrowing and budget responses.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Fairfax City - Joint School Board and City Council Work Session","oneSentenceSummary","Fairfax City and the Fairfax City School Board held a joint work session Sept. 2 to review financing and timing for school projects approved in last year’s $220 million bond referendum, with City Chief Financial Officer JC Martinez and Davenport & Company LLC advising on the budgetary and credit implications.","taxTitle","Fairfax City, Fairfax County, Virginia","taxId",59088,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6478830,"City staff outline limits of development proffers for schools; level‑of‑service study set to inform any policy",1679,4511000,6190000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5707955-b94ccbd0331b13b885579b1affb91155&start=4511&end=6190","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5707955-b94ccbd0331b13b885579b1affb91155/thumbnail_4511000.jpg","/articles/6478830/Fairfax-City/Fairfax-County/Virginia/City-staff-outline-limits-of-development-proffers-for-schools-levelofservice-study-set-to-inform-any-policy","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6478830-4b381845af460f055534076931afd900/orig.mp4?Expires=1770999849&Signature=FlMmrgSQhjxBXjeap3muP~p91DYk5HxKyg34MtAahLJcpSOeB80EuS9mkdqWwkQIUmFzXD0lOrUU7MpgqJDDQtBj2JpV4-S2n4f6q3ux9iEvhi7uT6YUIU7G4wvU-UKC6GeWIEMeDpmKm1vrK0vPaJkjo32DLvtZayXflSb-LNcdW35joAgp~A7VVsvVd1uT2r6hARYFfhRHrQXO7ie8hO6u8zmLac2F~jhobFZc7d9FaAXxHpN1bW0D1ytso-AopCf-sVamseDMdQNDBnKIS2wIP0qTHeQ4SeKXROcEylLV2WC7k9KtnPEfuPO32QepKfhl8cZ-9Lx5hZRFUG118A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff, supported by legal and school officials, briefed the Fairfax City Council and the Fairfax City School Board on Sept. 2 about how development proffers (voluntary commitments from developers during rezonings) are treated under Virginia law and what limits apply when proffers are sought to help offset school costs.

Ms. Clark, moderating the presentation, introduced the topic and said the session would cover the state enabling authority, recent legal changes, how proffers are accepted, and school‑specific considerations. City staff member Mr. Harden and planner Eric Foreman led the substantive discussion.

State law and key constraints
City staff emphasized the 2016 amendments to the Virginia Code that tightened rules for residential rezonings and monetary proffers. The changes require proffers to address impacts “specifically attributable” to the new development and to provide a “direct and material benefit” to that development; courts have placed a high burden on localities to justify restrictive or denial decisions. Staff noted several operational constraints:
- Monetary proffers must be applied to capital projects that expand capacity and cannot be used to pay operating costs or routine repairs.
- Proffered funds applied to capital projects must begin being used within 12 years of acceptance; otherwise they may be subject to state reversion.
- Not all areas are treated the same: rezonings within small‑area plans or activity centers that meet statutory criteria have exemptions that allow more flexibility.

School proffers: formulas, limits and examples
Eric Foreman summarized how school proffers generally must be linked to student generation. That requires two elements: an estimate of how many students a new housing unit will generate and an assessment of how much new school space (square footage) and construction cost that student yield would require. Foreman noted Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) maintains a commonly used methodology to convert expected students into a dollar proffer; the FCPS method (last updated in 2022) produced a recommended contribution of $14,956 per expected student.

Using the city’s student‑generation ratios and FCPS’s per‑student metric, staff showed sample illustrative contributions:
- A 400‑unit multifamily project (illustrative) could generate roughly 32 students and a recommended contribution on the order of $478,000 under the county methodology.
- A 50‑unit townhouse project could generate about 11 students and a recommended contribution near $164,000 in the illustrative scenario.

Foreman emphasized these sample figures are ballpark estimates and not “surgically precise.” He cautioned that proffers can only be used for capacity‑enhancing construction or renovation. Maintenance‑type work (for example, routine roof repairs that do not add capacity) generally does not qualify as a use of proffer funds under state law.

Staff cautions and process
Staff highlighted other important constraints: once a proffer is accepted with a rezoning, it cannot be renegotiated later to adjust for actual student counts; proffers are voluntary and historically in Fairfax City have been proposed by applicants on a case‑by‑case basis. City staff said they currently lack a formal citywide proffer policy and that adopting one would require careful choices about geography (accept proffers citywide or only in activity centers), formulas and level‑of‑service standards.

To inform that work, the city has engaged a consultant to produce a citywide level‑of‑service study (transportation, parks, public safety and schools). Staff said the consultant’s report is expected in late spring to early summer 2026 and would inform recommended proffer formulas and thresholds.

Council discussion and next steps
Councilmembers asked procedural and policy questions—how often the FCPS per‑student amount is updated (staff said 2022, generally every 5–6 years), what happens if collected proffer money is not spent within 12 years (state reversion), and how proffers could interact with existing planned school renovations. Several councilmembers urged caution and data‑driven analysis; Councilmember Hall asked whether proffer schedules should be considered now or postponed until the level‑of‑service study completes.

At the meeting’s close staff reported a majority of council members supported pursuing public‑private partnership (PPEA/P3) solicitations for selected CIP projects and directed staff to prepare materials and next steps for formal solicitations and to continue work on level‑of‑service analysis.

Ending
City staff said they would return with recommendations after the level‑of‑service study and that any formal proffer policy would be brought to council for deliberation; staff reiterated proffers are not a guarantee of revenue for the schools and are limited by statute to capacity‑adding capital projects.","City planning staff and legal advisors briefed council and the school board on post‑2016 proffer law, the narrow uses allowed for school proffers, sample per‑unit proffer estimates using FCPS methodology, and a citywide level‑of‑service study that will inform any proffer policy; council directed staff to pursue PPEA/RFI materials.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Fairfax City officials outline scale and timing of $220 million school bond; council to consider awarding design contract next week

City staff outline limits of development proffers for schools; level‑of‑service study set to inform any policy