Hanover County proffers a big tax change

Building and buying a home in Hanover County is about to get a lot cheaper.

The Hanover County Board of Supervisors last month voted to eliminate all future proffers -– a tax on new homes developers pay once the county issues a certificate of occupancy and is then passed on to homebuyers. The county used the money to fund schools and other public facilities needed to keep pace with new development.

On Wednesday, builders with lots waiting to be built out might get even more good news, as the board is set to vote on how to handle any existing lots and their proffers. The board is expected to set a process for developers to either reduce or eliminate the $52.1 million worth of outstanding proffers on 4,300 pending lots in the county.

Wayne Hazzard

Wayne Hazzard

South Anna District Supervisor Wayne Hazzard said the board’s decision should translate into more development and lower housing costs for Hanover County.

“It was a bad policy that we never should have put in place,” Hazzard said. “There’s a lot more that goes into development than the proffer system, but removing that one stumbling block is a step in the right direction.”

Before the board eliminated its proffer system, Hanover’s $19,503-per-lot proffer was the highest in the region. Richmond and Henrico do not collect proffers, and Chesterfield has a rate of $18,966 per lot.

Todd Rogers, a residential real estate broker with Hometown Realty, said he has about eight properties with proffers of between $11,000 and $13,000. Once he can take out those fees, he said home buyers would see an immediate cost reduction of about 5 percent on a $250,000 home.

“I’ve been on the paying side of proffers since the system came out in 1990 and never liked it,” Rogers said. “It didn’t seem like there was any real motivation for the developers to pay these fees.”

Rogers said that he doesn’t expect a sudden boom in new development but that the decision should make the Hanover market more competitive with Richmond and Henrico.

“For the past four, five years, people have been very careful about choosing where they develop,” he said. “I think this is a great indication that Hanover County is open for business.”

Craig Toalson, CEO of the Home Building Association of Richmond, said the proffer system is outdated and detrimental to home buyers.

“If a builder spends $20,000 for a finished attic or basement, that’s an additional value the consumer can see,” Toalson said. “Consumers weren’t getting any added value out of the proffer system, and in some cases didn’t realize they were paying that extra tax.”

Hanover has collected more than $24.7 million in proffers since the system was instituted 22 years ago, according to the most recent data from the county. That amounts to an average of about $1.1 million a year. In January, the board will vote to replace the lost revenue from the proffer system with a mandatory $10 vehicle registration fee.

Angela Kelly-Wiecek

Angela Kelly-Wiecek

Chickahominy District Supervisor Angela Kelly-Wiecek voted against eliminating the proffer. She said that it will boost county growth but that the county hasn’t established a firm way to make up for the lost revenue.

“The question becomes, ‘How do we pay for that growth now that we’ve eliminated this source of revenue?” Kelly-Wiecek said. “The developers I’ve talked to are certainly delighted about the board’s decision. But they’ve also made it clear to me they would have supported a more measured, incremental approach to the elimination.”

Leave a Reply

12 Comments on "Hanover County proffers a big tax change"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
William T. Didlake
Guest
I agree with Angela Kelly-Wiecek. I am a business person and I know my real estate clients like this but I think to remove this all at once is not fair to the current home owners who had to pay more for thier homes. This is loss revenue for the county and now to ask current home owners to pay for this with increased cost for auto licneses is not fair. The county does not need a lot more residential growth. Growth is not the answer to all our financial problems in this country. We need to plan how to… Read more »
Jay
Guest
I don’t live in Hanover so I guess I don’t have a dog in this fight but: Removing the proffers all-together seems incredibly short-sighted. From what I understand, the proffer system was created to offset the costs of infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the additional growth. Theses costs don’t suddenly dissappear now that the proffer is gone. It’s only fair that the builder/new home owner would shoulder the costs of the increased burden caused on public utility. The expenses have to be paid somehow; by charging a registration fee they’re simply passing the costs on to other taxpayers. More than… Read more »
Andrew Moore
Guest

This is a senseless and short-sighted action for Hanover County. There is nothing wrong with growth, provided the long term economic equation works. When you eliminate ALL proffers, you stimulate short-term development, but fail to account for the short-term costs of expanded infrastructure and the long-term costs of maintenance. This will benefit a handful of developers and builders at the expense of all of the citizens of Hanover County.

Doug B.
Guest

Sounds like its good for developers, bad for existing residents. Looks like my taxes are going up, and my home value is decreasing. Residential development is a drain on county resources. They need to promote commercial development.

Charles Batchelor
Guest
That lower proffers will lower the price of homes is a myth. (And, if it were true, the headline for this article could be, “County to reduce all citizens’ asset values.” Ouch.) This is a good example why the Richmond Home Builder’s Association has lost much of their credibility with the county staffers and many elected leaders in the area. It’s fairly well understood that the price of residential real estate is mostly determined by the market. Supply and demand, not the cost of building the house, is mostly what drives the selling price. But, yes, proffers stink. The big… Read more »
Sheryl Smith
Guest
I was appalled that there was no public comment period before eliminating proffers. This is a loss of revenue for the county, and one of the proposed methods of replacing it is by creating a vehicle tax. People should havehad a say in this before the board voted! I went to the Board of Supervisors’ meeting and was appalled that the public was not allowed to speak. Ms. Kelly-Wiecek did her best to stop the board from a hasty decision, to no avail. Mr. Hazzard scoffed at all the budget data showing the loss of future revenue, demanded to know… Read more »
bobby
Guest
i think you all have forgotten one important part of this change. residents will be paying 10 dollars per car per year as an added tax to make up for the proffer removal.i think it makes sense to pay for roads by the users. if the proffer dollars were earmarked for specific spending , that would be one thing, but putting it in the general fund to be spent as wanted is incorrect. somehow we need to get government spending in line. i applaud Wayne in his effort to get it started at the local level. i hope the state… Read more »
Brian Glass
Guest
In 2003 I wrote a Real Esate column on proffers for the Richmond times Dispatch. I was against them then and applaud Hanover County for finally removing them. Here’s why: The original definition of a proffer, was a “voluntary” contribution on the part of a developer. Hanover and Chesterfield Counties made them involuntary, and basically each new home owner paid the added cost to the price of a new home. That homeowner pays that price forever since it is not deducted from the appraised value of the house. Home owners in the area that didn’t pay proffers could, therefore ,also… Read more »
Charles Batchelor
Guest
Nonsense. The problem with the price of housing is the home builders and the real estate industry overall, not our local governments. The cost of construction hasn’t dropped as much as the values have here, and look at markets such as Atlanta. Developers–and, yes, the buyers–need to pay for the impact that their construction will have on the existing taxpayers. The citizens in Chesterfield County are fed up with these real estate developments that do not pay their way. The governments have put roads, schools and parks in place and there is often plenty of acres on which to build.… Read more »
Rob
Guest
I have a question: If I live in Hanover county, sell my house and build a new house, why should I have to pay a proffer? This is a case of “last one in and shut the door”. Change will always come. People move to Hanover because it is a great place to live. If you moved here 20 years ago, the same argument then stands today, more traffic, the need for more schools, etc, etc., same argument 40 years ago. If you want a rural feel, you can move out further. If you do not want more development, buy… Read more »
Susan Amos Wilcox
Guest

How about helping the citizens that already have homes in Hanover that are struggling or the schools that have faced 60 million dollars in deficits since 2009. School programs and teachers are being cut and our children are losing out. Perhaps we cut a bunch of you and get our teachers back so our kids will have a better chance at a better education. Narrow minded and short cited – out for the mighty dollar bunch of people !!!

Ruben Foster
Guest

you seem angry

wpDiscuz