The "Annexation Monster"

In my weekly appearance today on Coy Barefoot's radio show, Charlottesville Right Now (WINA AM 1070), we plan to briefly discuss some of the history of annexation, attempts to merge our localities, and the Charlottesville-Albemarle revenue sharing agreement.  Please call in between 4:30 and 5:00 PM at 434-977-1070 to share your insights.

In my research, I have benefited from the recent discussion on Jennifer's Charlottesville blog and the book Albemarle: Jefferson's County 1727-1976 which has some excellent information on the annexation of County land in the 1960s.  I also came across this illustration of the "annexation monster" on Rey Barry's website which he credits to local artist Charles Peale.  Apparently, the monster was in wide circulation to convince County voters to support a revenue sharing agreement that would end the City's annexation of County land.

Brian Wheeler

Comments

[Ted McCormack]

Brian, I listened with interest to your comments about the Charlotesville-Albemarle County revenue-sharing agreement. As one who has worked in the field of intergovernmental relations for over 25 years, you should know a couple of things. First, the revenue-sharing payment to the city is capped. Second, the revenue-sharing formula, like the one used by the state to distribute funds to support schools in Albemarle County, Charlottesville and all other school divisions, employs "true" real property values. True values adjust for inflation and assessment practices in order to ensure that property values in Albemarle can be compared with those in say, Wise County. If assessed values were used by the state, then localities, such as Albemarle, would be penalized for use value assessment and thus, would have no incentive to agree to use value as a program to protect farms and open space. If you would like additional information on the revenue-sharing plan in your area, I can send you a document by the National League of Cities that explains the plan in more detail. Send me an email at: ted.mccormack@dhcd.virginia.gov.

[Blair Hawkins]

Thanks for talking about annexations and revenue sharing. Some people may remember I ran as an independent write-in for Charlottesville City Council in 2000. My main plank was to stop revenue sharing because the free, unaccountable revenue is hurting city residents and city-county relations.

I disagree with Brian that the county cannot get out of an agreement that the current voters and their representatives did not enter into. I have given several speeches on this issue and once said no generation has the authority to enter into agreements that bind their children and grandchildren.

I once saw an old graphic from the '70s showing the real annexation monster-- how Cville has grown about 120 times its original land area. Thanks for talking about this issue.

[Ted McCormack,]

The statement that "no generation has the authority to enter into agreements that bind their children or grandchildren" may be a sentiment that you hold, but legally that is not totally correct. Yes, there is a premise of law that one governing body cannot "tie the hands" of future governing bodies unless there is explicit legal authority. However, every time a government issues bonds, it makes a promise that future generations will pay the debt. The Virginia law that authorizes revenue sharing agreements in general [Sect. 15.2-3400, Code of Virginia], as well as the law that authorized the Charlottesville-Albemarle County agreement, places a burden on future governing bodies to live up to the agreements. Without that you would not have an accord.

[Blair Hawkins]

You're right. For a specific program like a bond, there must be faith and credit. But for a broad policy such as entitlements or taxation, each generation must decide where to draw the line.

But think of the revenue sharing agreement as a treaty. Some treaties have an expiration date. Accords can be renegotiated or broken if negotiations fail. In Virginia, cities and counties are independent.

The revenue sharing agreement, in my opinion, can't be a valid "accord" if there is no mechanism for either party to renegotiate the terms. The Constitution, which is more binding and long-lasting, has a method where it can be revised.

Under revenue sharing, the county buys (or rents) the city's power to annex parts of the county. Since the statewide moratorium on annexations went into effect, the city hasn't had the power to annex. Therefore the county has continued to pay for the city's annexation rights even after those rights had ceased to exist. So, as I see it, the city actually owes the county a refund for the years since the moratorium. It's a hard argument to say someone should be paid not to exercise a power they don't have in the first place. And how we compel this practice in perpetuity.

[Blair Hawkins]

1. Graphic of city growth by annexations
2. Chart showing year and city square miles following each annexation.

Annexation Monster

[Ray Hyde]

I have made the observation that no generation has the right to tie the hands of future generations with respect conservation easements.

In my area, the government is actively pursuing and even purchasing conservation easements for the express purpose of taking that land off the books, as far as the future authority for land management by the government goes.

They are abdicating their authority to non elected agencies: for themselves and for their successors. In effect they are eliminating the right to vote on land use issues for their own grandchildren.

As Blair Hawkins says, "It's a hard argument to say someone should be paid not to exercise a power they don't have in the first place." That cuts both ways. It is also a hard argument to say that someone should be required to give up a right that they don't currently have, but to now hand it over on a permanent basis, in order to exercise rights that they do have.

This is what happens when the county demands a conservation easement on ladd that cannot be built on anyway ,under current zoning, before they will allow construction on the portion of the land that may be built on.

This is totally off topic, but I present it to provide some insight as to the basis and possible effects of the argument.

[cvilletom]

Ray - I don't follow the logic of this argument. Are you saying that when a locality like Albemarle County promotes the acquisition of conservation easements and a property owner voluntarily sells off the development potential of their land that they are overstepping their private property rights? Brian Wheeler