Fairfax Presbyterian Church

Project description

The project site consists of two parcels — 57-1-02-123A (3.02 acres) and 57-1-02-122 (5.23 acres) — totaling 8.25 acres. The site is currently used as a religious institution with an accessory day care center; the existing improved footprint is 43,000 square feet. No assessed value for the existing use was available at the time of extraction (confidence: low).

The proposal authorizes development of up to ten townhouses in the northeast corner of the property. All ten units will have three levels, three bedrooms, and two bathrooms. Per the most recent authoritative project documents (October 25, 2022 Summary of Commitments and associated narratives), all ten units are designated as affordable, with eight for-sale owner-occupied units and two rental units — the two rental units are described in later project narratives as sold to Homestretch. Earlier submissions (March 2021 Statement of Justification) described all units as owner-occupied; the tenure mix was revised in October 2021 and carried forward through the final submission.

The most recent narratives also state that the site will include up to 30 parking spaces in the southwest corner; earlier submissions referenced 38 spaces. Open space is stated at approximately 32% of site area and tree canopy coverage at approximately 36.5% of site area in the final narratives; earlier versions of those figures were higher and were revised downward through successive submissions. The project carries a status of Under Construction as of the city project directory record dated July 18, 2026.

No retail, office, or other commercial square footage is proposed.

Economic effects

New demand. The project is estimated to yield 9.0–9.7 occupied households (central: 9.5), computed as proposed units multiplied by an assumed occupancy rate. Applying Rutgers CUPR bedroom-mix multipliers for multifamily units, those households translate to an estimated 13.5–21.3 new residents (central: 17.1). Aggregate annual household income for the new residents is estimated in the range of $1,558,583–$2,099,758 (central: approximately $1,850,817), derived by multiplying households by the mean income of site census tract 51600300400 ($173,176, from Census ACS 5-year 2024, tables B19025/B11001) and a new-construction income premium assumption.

Spending clusters — screening estimates. Household spending by category was estimated using BLS Consumer Expenditure Survey 2023 data scaled by Engel-gradient elasticities per category. These spending pools were then allocated across retail destinations using a Huff model over individual retail points of interest, with a joint destination-and-mode choice formulation. The Huff capture figures below are screening estimates — they rank where new spending is likely to land and provide sensitivity bounds, but they are not predictions.

The top destination clusters by projected annual capture are:

• Fairchester Drive & Hill Street: $71,182–$141,189 (central: $100,844), drawing primarily on grocery, restaurants and bars, and comparison retail categories.
• Chain Bridge Road & North Street: $36,276–$76,282 (central: $53,348), with notable contributions from entertainment, restaurants and bars, and comparison retail.
• Fair Lakes Parkway & Fair Oaks Mall: $21,916–$34,547 (central: $29,469), driven largely by comparison retail and entertainment.

Smaller estimated captures go to Mathy Drive & Pickett Road ($12,958–$18,676, central: $16,692) and Blenheim Boulevard & Fairfax Boulevard ($9,769–$13,065, central: $12,309).

The Huff model also estimates the share of new spending captured at destinations inside the city boundary. For food-away-from-home (restaurants and bars), the in-city capture share is estimated at 0.61–0.70 (central: 0.65). For all retail categories combined, the in-city capture share is estimated at 0.58–0.65 (central: 0.61).

Project's own retail capture. The project proposes no ground-floor retail or commercial space. Accordingly, the project's own retail capture is $0, and there is no on-site destination competing for the new residents' spending.

Foot-traffic index change — screening estimate. The modeled change in the foot-traffic index across the 10 nearest commercial street segments is 0%. This figure is a screening estimate computed by allocating exact marginal walk-trip flows from the site against a sampled baseline betweenness index of today's pedestrian population; it is not calibrated to observed pedestrian counts.

Jobs ledger. The project removes 43,000 square feet of existing space. Dividing that square footage by the assumed square feet per office or institutional job (central: 350 sqft/job, range: 250–500) yields an estimated 86–172 jobs displaced from the existing structure (central: approximately 123). No retail square footage is proposed, so on-site retail jobs added are zero. The net on-site job change is therefore estimated at −86 to −172 jobs (central: approximately −123). This estimate is sensitive to the sqft-per-job assumption because the existing space is an older institutional building that may have operated at lower occupational density than a modern fit-out; the wide range reflects that uncertainty.

Fiscal effects

Current real estate tax. Based on the current assessed values of parcels 57-1-02-123A and 57-1-02-122 in the City of Fairfax Real Estate Assessment Database (Patriot WebPro, 2026 vintage), the site currently generates $245,093 per year in real estate tax, computed as current assessed value multiplied by the applicable rate.

Projected real estate tax. Because no commercial square footage is proposed, the projected assessed value is derived entirely from the residential component: 10 units multiplied by an assumed assessed value per unit. The assessed-value-per-unit assumption is anchored by three apartment-class comparables from the City assessment database (parcels 48-3-02-011-A at $360,982/unit, 57-1-02-031-C at $359,599/unit, and 57-2-20-006-A at $458,932/unit, all built since 2011). The projected assessed value ranges from $3,595,993 to $4,589,325 (central: $3,609,825). Applying the FY2027 city real estate tax rate, the projected annual real estate tax is $38,567–$49,221 (central: $38,715). This implies a real estate tax decrease of approximately $195,873–$206,526 per year relative to the current site tax, computed as projected minus current real estate tax.

The projected value per acre, at $435,878–$556,282, is substantially below the current value per acre of $2,770,000 — reflecting that the proposed 10-unit development occupies only the northeast corner of the 8.25-acre site, leaving the majority of land outside the taxable residential footprint.

Other recurring revenue lines. Additional revenue lines estimated for this project include:

• Personal property tax on resident vehicles: $3,345–$14,422 per year (central: $7,690). The fiscal narrative notes describe this as a rough estimate: the city rate is fixed, but vehicles per household and average vehicle assessed value are assumptions, not observed data.
• Meals tax on captured in-city dining: $1,300–$2,641 per year (central: $1,894), computed as restaurant spending multiplied by the in-city capture share from the Huff model multiplied by the city meals tax rate.
• Local sales tax share on captured in-city retail: $721–$1,388 per year (central: $1,017), computed as in-city captured retail spending multiplied by the local-option sales tax share under Virginia Code § 58.1-605.

Service costs — two methods. Two cost framings are applied, and the net fiscal range intentionally spans both.

The naive per-capita method allocates all general-fund expenditures (non-school and school) on a per-resident basis, treating fixed citywide costs as if they scale with every new resident. It produces an annual service cost of $80,907–$136,070 (central: $105,809), computed as new residents multiplied by the non-school general-fund per-capita rate ($5,254 per capita, derived from FY2027 adopted budget figures) plus estimated students multiplied by the net local cost per pupil ($19,961, derived from the FY2027 FCPS tuition contract net of state education revenue). This is the upper-bound cost framing.

The marginal framing applies a marginal cost factor to the non-school per-capita cost, on the basis that fixed services such as roads and administration do not scale proportionally with infill residents, while school costs continue to follow the student estimate directly. It produces an annual service cost of $27,712–$85,617 (central: $47,413), computed as new residents multiplied by the non-school per-capita cost multiplied by the marginal cost factor (central: 0.35, range: 0.25–0.55) plus estimated students multiplied by the net local cost per pupil. This is the lower-bound cost framing.

The fiscal notes observe that the naive per-capita method may overstate costs for infill development by allocating fixed costs that do not actually grow with new residents, while the marginal framing may understate costs if the project triggers service-capacity expansions.

Estimated K-12 students are 0.5–1.2 (central: 0.8), computed as 10 units multiplied by an assumed students-per-unit rate (central: 0.08, range: 0.05–0.12). The implied annual school cost is $9,980–$23,953 (central: $15,968) under both framings, since school costs follow the student estimate directly in both methods.

Net annual fiscal impact. Combining all revenue lines and the cost range across both methods, the net annual fiscal impact is estimated at −$337,229 to −$205,134. The naive per-capita method alone yields −$337,229 to −$258,329; the marginal framing alone yields −$286,776 to −$205,134.

Comparison with external estimate. The October 24, 2022 Planning Commission Public Hearing staff report (Attachment 1, Analysis, Z-21-00099) states, verbatim: "Staff anticipated fiscal impact estimate for the proposed development of ten affordable townhomes ranges from -$52,000 to -$85,000." This analysis's net range of −$337,229 to −$205,134 does not overlap with the staff report's range of −$85,000 to −$52,000. The staff figure is reported as published and is not combined with or averaged into the figures above.

Several methodological differences visible in the metric methods and notes are plausible explanations for the gap. First, and most consequentially, this analysis treats the loss of real estate tax revenue from the existing institutional use as a direct cost of the project — the current site generates $245,093 per year, and that revenue goes away; the staff report may not have treated the existing tax base as a foregone revenue item if the existing church use was tax-exempt or otherwise excluded from the baseline. Second, the two analyses may apply different per-capita service-cost rates and different treatments of school costs. Third, the staff report's methodology is not reproduced in the extracted text available to this pipeline (the relevant passage appears beyond the 60,000-character per-document extraction budget), so a full reconciliation of line-item assumptions is not possible from the available documents. Council members wishing to reconcile the two figures should request the staff report's detailed line-item workup for direct comparison.

Not evaluated in this version

Several analytical components are deferred from this version of the report. Bike-lane corridor effects, trail connectivity, broader multimodal network analysis, environmental and stormwater impacts, and a systematic comparable-places analysis have not been computed and are not addressed in the findings above. These components may be added in a subsequent version if the relevant data and scope are available.