Leesburg reports FY25 revenue gain; Compass Creek and data-center taxes skew results as council reviews CIP projects and assistance program

At a Leesburg Town Council work session, town finance staff reported that the town recognized $84,400,000 in general fund revenue for fiscal 2025, an increase of $7.8 million, or 8 percent, from the prior year. Staff told council that the total includes $3.4 million in data‑center computer equipment tax revenue and that the figures presented are preliminary and unaudited.

The revenue increase outpaced spending: the town recorded $82,600,000 in general fund expenditures through the fourth quarter, a 5.2 percent increase from the previous year. “The numbers that are presented in your packet and in the presentation are preliminary and unaudited,” Tamara Kiesecker, the town’s management and budget officer, told council. Kiesecker said year‑end accounting adjustments are still possible.

Staff said Compass Creek’s annexation and build‑out materially boosted property tax receipts in FY25, producing about $1 million in real‑estate tax and contributing to the $3.4 million in business personal property taxes tied to data‑center equipment. Excluding Compass Creek, staff said the town collected about 103 percent of budgeted revenues, similar to last year.

Council members asked how other development projects affected the numbers. Kiesecker said development fees rose due to projects including Crescent Park, which submitted plans and generated community development fees, and that availability fees from developers (she named Stack and Microsoft as recent payers) are held in capital reserves and earn investment income that bolstered utility fund balances.

On expenditures, staff pointed to higher contractual costs—snow removal, office leases for public works and community development, and mobile‑tower leases—and lower-than‑expected debt service costs after the town’s 2024 bond sale received favorable terms.

Utilities fund operating revenues totaled $33,200,000 in FY25, a 12.8 percent increase, with expenses of $28,900,000 (about 88.3 percent of the operating budget). Kiesecker said two late supplemental appropriations of roughly $500,000 for sanitary sewer work skewed some percentages.

The council also reviewed the Leesburg Customer Assistance Program, which the council funded with a $100,000 appropriation in August. Kiesecker said 21 residents received assistance totaling just over $9,000; 18 applications were determined ineligible. At the end of FY25, the program balance was $77,563, plus an $11,500 balance for the program administrator, leaving roughly $89,000 available. Kiesecker told the council the program carries forward to FY26 under the legislation council adopted.

Doug Wagner, the staff member overseeing the Capital Improvements Program, gave project updates: police facility renovations are on schedule for completion in 2026; Morven Park Road work is mostly complete on pipe utilities with full‑depth asphalt replacement to follow and a January 2026 completion target; Evergreen Mills Road design and utility relocations are under way with construction bid anticipated this winter and project completion estimated in 2028–29; Lawson Road pedestrian crossing is being rebid with construction expected this winter and completion in 2026; and Veterans Park at Balls Bluff began construction in May 2025 with phase 1 expected to open in summer 2026 and a planned phase 2 start in 2029.

Council members asked for more detail on several items: quarter‑by‑quarter uptake for the assistance program, reasons applications were ineligible (Kiesecker later reported 8 exceeded the income threshold, 7 were unresponsive or lacked documentation, 1 had already reached the annual maximum, 1 was not a town resident and 2 sought reimbursement for already‑paid utility bills), and whether available paving funds would be constrained by personnel or contractor capacity.

Staff reminded council of upcoming budget work sessions and dates for future presentations, including additional budget/CIP updates and the fiscal‑year audit. No formal council action on the FY25 numbers or CIP swaps was taken at the work session; staff recommended further review during upcoming budget deliberations.

Ending: Council scheduled follow‑up budget and CIP discussions in October and November and asked staff to return with additional details about the assistance program and capital project timing.