Charlottesville Tomorrow Blog

Boyd questions expenditure to fix McIntire Skate Park

The McIntire Road Skate Park was built in 2000 with a mixture of City, County and private funds. Since then, the County has contributed to the park’s operating expenses because County residents make up half of the use of the City-run park. However, the park was recently closed for safety reasons due to deteriorating conditions. The City purchased $187,000 worth of replacement ramps and other supporting structures, and has asked the County to pay for half the bill.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080507-BOS-skatepark.mp3

“This happens to us quite often that the City does something and says ‘Oh by the way, here’s the bill’”, said Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) when the item came up on the consent agenda for the Board’s meeting on May 7.  He said he did not object to spending the money, but he did think the County should have had a say in the process. “Too often the City just assumes we’re going to cough up money for things.”

Pat Mullaney, the County’s Director of Parks and Recreation, said the bill from the City came as a surprise, but he supported his City counterpart’s unilateral decision to close the park. “We scrambled to find a way to participate, because especially in these hard times we have to maintain our partnerships,” Mullaney said.
Boyd said a joint City and County committee makes decisions about the operations of Darden Towe park, and suggested that the Skate Park be run in the same fashion.  Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) said he agreed with Boyd, especially considering the tight budgetary climate.

“We spent a good amount of time arguing about $10,000, $5,000 items on our budget this past year, and now we have a $93,500 expenditure that we didn’t know we were going to have,” Rooker said. “Those arrangements where we share expenses, we need to have an equal say in the making of expenditures.”

County Executive Bob Tucker said he would follow up with City Manager Gary O’Connell, but said that were not too many similar arrangements.  Mullaney said he would like to formalize his department’s arrangements with the City.

“I see our relationship with the City expanding in the future, and as times get tough partnerships are important, and we’re one community and we need to  work more together,” Mullaney said.

Boyd suggested the County’s “fair share” of these types of expenditures should come from the revenue sharing agreement. The County paid $13.6 million to the City for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Slutzky said without the revenue sharing agreement, the City would have annexed a large portion of the County’s tax base. Rooker said if the agreement is broken, the City could pursue annexation if the state moratorium on the practice is allowed to expire in 2010.  

Sean Tubbs

Chairman Boyd calls for renegotiation of City-County revenue sharing agreement

The Chairman of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors says it is time for the County to renegotiate the revenue sharing agreement with the City. At the end of the Board’s day meeting on March 5, 2008, Ken Boyd (Rivanna) called the agreement unfair. While his request to discuss the issue in closed session at a later date was accepted, three members of the Board expressed support for continuing the agreement.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080305-BOS-Revenue-Sharing-podcast2.mp3
 

The agreement ended Charlottesville’s annexation of County land and was approved by County voters in a referendum on May 18, 1982.  Soon after it went into effect, the General Assembly placed a moratorium on further annexations in Virginia. Charlottesville will receive $13.6 million in revenue sharing funds from the County in FY2009.

A recent article in the Daily Progress prompted Boyd to raise the issue at this time. He said he has often heard people say the agreement is a good deal for the County taxpayers because the agreement allows the County to bring in property taxes that otherwise would have gone to the City.  Boyd disagrees.

“We’re also maintaining the roads, the Master Planning process, the police, the emergency services, all of that for this area, which is a great expense to us that we’re already doing that we wouldn’t be doing if the City had annexed that property because we wouldn’t have that  expense, they would,” Boyd said.
Boyd said he read through the agreement, which he said was put into place to cover some of the costs that the County’s increasing urbanization was placing on the City.

“One thing that’s changed in the last 26 years is that we’ve become urbanized, and we’re incurring a lot of those same costs, but we’re still having to pay that to the City,” he added.  Boyd also pointed out that the County has paid $600,000 a year for the City to provide fire service to some areas of the County, and that the City keeps asking the County to do more to promote affordable housing.

Though he was speaking publicly, Boyd went on to suggest several ways he could get the County to enter into renegotiations. Because the agreement is a contract, both sides would have to agree to amend the terms. He suggested the County could withhold some of its payment, citing the City’s recent withholding of payment to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority due to a disagreement over cost allocation of landfill transfer services. Boyd also suggested that the Board that approved the agreement might not have had the authority to do so.

“I think it would be a bit draconian for us to hold back the payment on the City, but I do think we could look at the potential of capping this year’s payment,” Boyd said.

But Supervisors Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) and Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) pointed out that the voter’s passed the agreement in a referendum, ensuring its legality. Rooker also cautioned about discussing the legality of the contract outside of a closed session.

Boyd agreed, but said the revenue sharing agreement would continue to rise. “This is becoming a huge expense for the County, and we have got to look at the unfairness of it,” he said.

Rooker said the City would take legal action quickly if the County withheld money, but said he would be willing to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the contract in closed session. County Attorney Larry
Davis confirmed Rooker’s suspicion that a second referendum would also be needed.

Slutzky encouraged his fellow Supervisors to stop discussing the legalities until a closed session could be held,  but made the observation that revenue sharing means the County has an effective tax rate (this year) of 58 cents per $100 of assessed property. According to the formula that calculates the payment, ten cents per $100 goes to the County.

“Let’s face it – we bought them off. We’ll give you money rather than have you annex us… I’m not convinced the County citizens are all necessarily worse off by virtue of this agreement,” Slutzky said
Thomas, who said she worked on a  committee that came up with the idea, repeated a comment she made earlier this week on WINA’s Charlottesville Live program, in which she said the County benefited from having a healthy Charlottesville, something made possible in part by the agreement.

Slutzky tried to explain what he saw as the rationale behind the agreement: “ As we urbanize, the goal as I understood it, was that we’re likely to impose by virtue of our urbanization cost burdens on [the City] to address our growth,” he said. When Boyd wanted an example, Slutzky said County residents take City roads to get to work. Boyd questioned whether the County should have to supplement the City’s economic development.  Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) said County residents should have some say over how the City spends the money.

“It’s taxation without representation,” Dorrier said. “An agreement’s not forever. Even the Constitution can be amended.”

Before the discussion ended, Slutzky pointed out that the City and County collaborate in many different areas, including the proposed regional transportation authority, the Rivanna Water Sewer Authority, and so on.

Sean Tubbs

Sally Thomas comments on Advance Mills bridge & revenue sharing with City

On March 4, 2008, Albemarle County Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) was a guest on WINA's Charlottesville Live radio program as part of the station's monthly Government Day episode. Hosts Rick Daniels and Jane Foy spoke with Thomas about the Advance Mills Bridge replacement project as well as the City-County Revenue Sharing Agreement.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20080304-WINA-Thomas.mp3

Advance Mills Bridge

VDOT recently announced that it would abandon a project to build a temporary replacement of the Advance Mills bridge on Route 743 in Northern Albemarle County.  The existing truss bridge has been closed since April 2007.

“It really comes down to a shortage of money,” said Thomas.  “VDOT just cannot make the dollars come out to support a temporary bridge….If people want to get mad, they should get mad at the state legislators who are just not coming up with more money to support the transportation system throughout the state.”

Thomas pointed out that because Advance Mills is a historic district, the Board of Supervisors takes responsibility for keeping the old bridge in service as long as possible.  For years VDOT has been urging the County to replace the bridge citing increasing maintenance costs, but the Board was reluctant to support a project that would result in a much wider bridge and a realigned and straightened roadway that would be out of character with the historic community.

On the prospect of having the historic truss bridge demolished in exchange for a permanent replacement on the same site, Thomas emphasized the positives.  “There’s no way the that old bridge could be saved any longer,  but the marvelous thing about the plan that VDOT has come up with…they are just going to replace the bridge, make it a two lane bridge…but they are not going to straighten the approach....”  Thomas also noted that the design of the permanent bridge would pay tribute to the old truss structure.

Revenue Sharing Agreement

Next, Thomas was asked by a caller whether the County could get out of the perpetual revenue sharing agreement with the City of Charlottesville, the subject of an in-depth article in today’s Daily Progress.  That agreement will transfer $13.6 million to the City next fiscal year.  Thomas reviewed the origins of the deal reached twenty-six years ago which put an end to the City’s annexation of County territory. 

“It’s a lot of money, that’s true.  At the time, it was a pretty brilliant idea because annexation was tearing this community apart,” said Thomas.  She gave an example of how the fear of annexation impacted County government decisions in the 1970s. The site for Western Albemarle High School in Crozet, which opened in 1977, was selected “farther out than it ought to be” to ensure it was out of reach of the City and could not be annexed. 

“We had no way of knowing that the General Assembly was going put in a moratorium, which they have never lifted, on annexation,” said Thomas.  Effective January 1, 1987, annexation by Cities was stopped in Virginia.  Since then, Albemarle has paid a total of almost $121 million to Charlottesville through the 2007-08 fiscal year.  The revenue sharing agreement remains in effect until:

• The County and City are consolidated into a single political subdivision; or
• The concept for independent cities presently existing in Virginia is altered by the State law in such a manner that real property in the City becomes part of the County’s tax base; or
• The County and City mutually agree to cancel or change the agreement.

    Source: County of Albemarle FY2008 Budget

“If we had a dying city in our midst, we would be a really sorry County.  Charlottesville is a pretty healthy City and part of that health is, in fact, the revenue sharing money,” said Thomas.  “Would we wish that they recognize that they got that money and maybe do some other things with it?  Well Sure.”   

When pressed by the caller to indicate whether she thought Albemarle was getting any value out of the agreement, Thomas answered in the affirmative. 

Brian Wheeler

Councilors float ideas for City's upcoming budget cycle

The two City Councilors elected in May of 2006 have jointly proposed a series of reform initiatives to guide Council through its next budget cycle. At a November 13th news conference, Councilors Dave Norris and Julian Taliaferro outlined several proposals they said would usher in the "fiscal responsibility" that the two men campaigned on.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20071113-Norris-Taliaferro.mp3

Watch the video below:

Norris said the changes were being announced this week in advance of the City's budget process, which officially gets underway next Monday with a preliminary Council discussion on budget development.

The suggested reforms are meant to make city government more "citizen focused," according to Taliaferro. He said he wants the City to better measure its performance so that "citizens in the City are getting value for the tax dollars that they're spending." Part of that will include making more comparisons with other Virginia cities.

Taliaferro also suggested that City Council hold an annual public hearing and work session devoted to listening to citizens' ideas about how the City can save money and become more efficient. The former City Fire Chief also vowed to restore a program where City employees would receive incentives for making suggestions in their own departments, and said the City would increase its efforts to save money through energy conservation.

Norris said he wanted the budgetary decision-making process to be more transparent.

"All new major expenditures must be fully vetted in the public realm," Norris said. "Information on the status and the funding streams and anticipated outcomes of all major city projects needs to be made available to the public on an ongoing and accessible manner." He said more people would accept and understand special programs like Art-in-Place and the Sister Cities program if the process was more public discussion. Norris said the City also had to invest more on its infrastructure.

"We strongly feel that in recent decades, the City of Charlottesville has been penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to deferring maintenance and badly needed upgrades to our City infrastructure in order to save short-term dollars," he said. "And now we're suffering the consequences."

As one solution, Norris suggested changing the way the City spends money received from Albemarle County as part of the revenue sharing agreement. Currently, half of the money goes to capital projects. Norris would like to change that ratio to at least 75 percent. Last year, the City received over $13 million from the County, raising the possibility that several million could be added to Charlottesville's Capital Improvement Program.

"It's a way to try to get our arms more around the issue of infrastructure cost without adding even more to the property tax burden of our residents," said Norris. "We expect to see a substantial increase in revenue sharing dollars from Albemarle County. Our belief is we should take advantage of this opportunity and use some of those new dollars for some of the capital cost, particularly the capital cost that we incur in trying to manage the growth that we're seeing in Albemarle County." He specifically mentioned road improvements, and opened the door to the possibility of partnering with Albemarle County to pay for new roads and trails.

Norris also called for the creation of a dedicated source of City funding for affordable housing projects, and suggested dedicated a half-cent or cent on the property tax to such a fund.

Finally, Taliaferro predicted the City would have a budget surplus, and that he and Norris were assessing the feasibility and legality of a tax refund.

Sean Tubbs & Kendall Singleton

Biscuit Run: A detailed look at the discussion on parks, transportation, and water needs

The Biscuit Run development took a giant step forward at last week’s meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The project made its first appearance before the Board since being recommended for approval by a unanimous Planning Commission last May.  During a two and one-half-hour work session, proffers dominated the Board’s discussion.

Developer Hunter Craig has volunteered numerous proffers as part of his rezoning request in order to mitigate the impact of the new development on the community.  Proffers are used to fund infrastructure needs like parks, schools, roads, libraries, and public safety. 

By the end of the meeting, the Supervisors had:

• accepted $1 million as an up front cash proffer to support a new City-County public transit authority;
• requested an estimate of the revenue sharing dollars that would be received by the City of Charlottesville as a result of Biscuit Run;
• accepted a 402 acre park proffer (the development is on 828 other acres);
• heard the developer object to VDOT's analysis of road needs;
• determined water and sewer needs would be adequately addressed;
• made recommendations for a future road connection to Mill Creek South; and
• provided feedback on affordable housing proffers.

Attorney Steve Blaine, representing Craig, pointed out that Biscuit Run’s proffer proposals had come together in response to specific issues raised by the community and prior to the development of the County’s new per-home cash proffer expectations.  Reconciling these proffers with the County’s emerging cash proffer policy is one of the key considerations before the Board. 

Blaine described the development’s proffer contributions as being valued at $30.86 million.  However, County staff told the Board that the proffers actually represented a shortfall of between $17.4 to $30.7 million.  In part, this shortfall is the result of staff’s calculation that $12 million in proffers should not be counted unless the Board granted some exceptions to their new guidelines.  One example is the 402 acre district park which has an estimated value of $5.3 million.  This amount is included in the applicant’s total, but excluded by staff because a park this large is not a specific project currently in the County’s Comprehensive Plan or capital improvement budget. 

Thus County staff asked the Board to weigh the value of the applicant’s proffers versus the cash that might be paid for each of the development’s 3,100 homes (for example, a one-time charge of $17,500 per single family detached home as required in the County’s new guidelines).  Supervisor Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) stated that he thought the cash proffers, estimated by the developer at $11,711 per unit, showed a deficit of about $3,000 per unit that the applicant would need to make up in their rezoning request.

COUNTY AGREES TO 402 ACRE DISTRICT PARK

In their deliberations, the Board agreed new ideas like the park had to be considered on a case by case basis.  Blaine pointed out that had the new cash proffer policy been in place in the beginning, the Biscuit Run development would have looked much different and “innovative things” such as the park would have been absent.

Pat Mullaney, Director of Albemarle County Parks & Recreation, was asked about the value of the park proffer.

“This park will be here forever, and as the County grows that property becomes more and more valuable.  They print money every day.  They won’t make any more land….Accepting this park land is directly in line with your strategic plan objective to increase the total combined acreage, either in conservation easements or in qualifying public park land.  I really don’t want to see us miss this opportunity to set this land aside.  It’s one of the best things we can do for the quality of life of our citizens in the future….Parks are forever.  It may be a hundred years from now, but someone is going to thank you for protecting this park land.”

During questioning about the construction of the road and bridge to allow access to the park, developer Hunter Craig made it clear to the Board that he could do other things with the 402 acres of rural land.

“I have a verbal offer for over nine million dollars for that piece of property.  So if you would like, we would be more than happy to just give you that five and one-half million in cash [the estimated proffer value].  We were doing that to be community-minded.  It is my heartfelt belief and desire that the entire community will benefit.  There are not enough fields for [soccer], youth lacrosse, and this was entirely meant to be a community benefit.”

In a separate cash proffer of up to $1.8 million ($500 per home built), Craig has offered to build one or more playing fields.  Chairman Ken Boyd (Rivanna) said that this was a proffer he had personally advocated for with Craig in an effort to get additional playing fields for the community.  The Board reached consensus that the district park was a benefit to the community and an acceptable proffer.

DEVELOPERS SAY VDOT OVERSTATES TRANSPORTATION NEEDS

At multiple points in the meeting, Supervisor Sally Thomas (Samuel Miller) asked questions about the scope of the general transportation proffers as compared to the needs identified in memos from VDOT.  Thomas asked, “How do we get from a memo from VDOT that says that the figure, just on Route 20 [improvements alone] ought to be $12.974 million to something called 'general transportation fund contribution' of $7.75 million?”

Blaine responded by quoting from the memo saying it was provided for “informational purposes only and did not necessarily reflect improvements that are needed entirely due to the impacts associated with the proposed rezoning.”  Blaine continued:

“I think what VDOT was attempting to do was to make certain that the County understands that there is planning needed for the widening of Route 20.  What we found in the public hearings and the meetings with the community is there’s not necessarily a consensus right now for the widening of Route 20.”

Blaine shared his view that VDOT had overstated the share of costs attributable to the development, including the needs for widening Route 20. VDOT's March 2007 analysis addressed improvements required only to Route 20, Avon Street, and Old Lynchburg Road. The total cost of the improvements for these three roads alone was estimated to be $88 million (in 2014 dollars) with VDOT suggesting the pro-rata share that should be proffered in cash by the developer totaling $32 million.

Further, Blaine indicated VDOT had oversimplified the cost allocation and he cited the comprehensive transportation study conducted for Biscuit Run. 

“We have spent eleven months on a traffic study that recommended various improvements, and that’s what the staff’s recommendation is based upon and what our proffers are based upon.  And so the VDOT memo does not provide anything other than a planning tool and a suggestion, and we disagree with it if it is suggesting that our fair share is $14 million [for Route 20 improvements].”

The Biscuit Run transportation study also called for the widening of the 5th Street bridge over Interstate 64 to allow for two full-length parallel turn lanes, a need not yet addressed by VDOT, County staff, the applicant’s proffers, or the Board of Supervisors (see diagram prepared by Charlottesville Tomorrow at left). 

By the end of the meeting, when Chairman Boyd was encouraging board members to submit their questions in advance for the next work session, he suggested the board not revisit matters already addressed by the Planning Commission.  After Thomas again mentioned that some of VDOT’s concerns had not been fully addressed, Blaine told the Supervisors that the Planning Commission had fully vetted the transportation issues.  “Their findings were supported by a unanimous, enthusiastic recommendation,” said Blaine.

WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY WILL BE ADEQUATE

Supervisor Thomas asked the Gary Fern, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), to address the adequacy of water and sewer infrastructure to support Biscuit Run.  Fern started his response by saying he didn’t know of any unresolved water or sewer issues.  He assured the Board that water would be available for the development and he detailed the two memorandums of understanding that outline the developer’s agreement to help pay for increased sewer capacity in the future.  Fern said he had no concerns about the agreements reached between the County and the developer.

ROAD CONNECTION TO MILL CREEK SOUTH

Interconnecting our neighborhoods is a goal of the County’s neighborhood model form of development.  However, a proposed road interconnection between Biscuit Run and Mill Creek South has been a hot potato bounced around by the developers as they have received conflicting feedback from Mill Creek residents and County decision makers. 

Supervisor Lindsay Dorrier (Scottsville) raised concerns he had recently received from Mill Creek residents who were opposed to the road connection.  He favored a bicycle and pedestrian only connection to the existing neighborhood.  Other Supervisors like Sally Thomas, David Slutzky, and Dennis Rooker expressed their support for a future vehicle connection.  Thomas had feedback for both the timing and design of the connection.  She suggested that it might start as a pedestrian/bicycle connection then be upgraded for vehicles only after the elementary school was built or a certain amount of retain space was built.  She asked for a revised plan that showed this road being built as a “T-intersection” with a stop sign which would minimize cut-though traffic.  Slutzky indicated that he did not want to specify when the connection would occur out of deference to the neighbors’ concerns, but that he was confident the community would ask for it in the future and that the proffers gave the County the flexibility to establish the road when needed.

WHAT’S NEXT

The Board of Supervisors has allocated another hour and a half for a second work session on August 8, 2007 at 2:00 PM.  A public hearing will be held in September 2007.

Brian Wheeler

County Executive presents budget recommendations

On Friday March 2, 2007, Albemarle County Executive Bob Tucker unveiled his recommended County budget for fiscal year 2008.  The total operating and capital budget is over $315 million dollars.  The proposed operating budget alone is $266.1 million, representing a 6.7% increase over the prior fiscal year.  The budget is based on maintaining the 2006 property tax rate of $0.74 cents per $100 of assessed value.  Local taxpayers saw annual property assessments increase on average 14.9% last year (almost 30% over two years).  Assessments are projected to increase 11.5% next year and 5.2% on average in each of the four years after that. 

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070302-CoBudget.mp3

As part of their process, the Board of Supervisors will set the tax rate for calendar year 2007 at their budget meetings in April.  Any change from the current rate would be retroactive to January 1, 2007 and would impact the current year's budget.  At the Board's direction, Mr. Tucker set aside $3.5 million in a "reassessment reserve fund."  This represents about 2 cents of the current property tax rate revenues.  The Board of Supervisors will decide in their budget work sessions how to allocate those funds.

Revenue sharing with the City of Charlottesville has increased over 30% from last year representing $13.2 million in this budget.  Ten cents of the Albemarle County tax rate goes to revenue sharing and the total contribution in this budget is based on County property values from calendar year 2005.

Here is the schedule for the upcoming decisions in Albemarle County [see calendar for details]:

• March 7, 2007 * Public hearing on County Executive's recommended budget
• April 4, 2007 * Public hearing on Board of Supervisors budget and proposed tax rate.
• April 11, 2007 * Board of Supervisors adopts budget and 2007 calendar year tax rate.

Brian Wheeler

City-County officials jockey on Biscuit Run proffers

City wants Biscuit Run to pay for roads; Supervisors suggest City's revenue sharing income and economic development dollars could be re-allocated to transportation

On February 21, 2007, the Policy Board of the Metropolitan Planning Organization held their monthly meeting. In responses to matters from the public and under other business, the Board held two significant discussions on the proposed Biscuit Run rezoning in Albemarle County.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070222-MPO-BiscuitRun.mp3

City Councilor Kevin Lynch and Dave Norris asked for the County’s consideration of traffic impacts as they review the rezoning application.  Mr. Norris expressed disappointment that the current proffers under review by the County Planning Commission addressed only one of three priorities identified by the City earlier this month: $150,000 to improve traffic signal timing and synchronization (Intelligent Transportation Systems, or ITS).  “It took that as something of a slap in the face to the City,” said Mr. Norris.  Biscuit Run is expected to add more than 30,000 vehicle trips a day on the area’s road network. 

Supervisors Dennis Rooker (Jack Jouett) and David Slutzky (Rio) explained that they needed to let the Planning Commission conduct their review process and that they had not even seen the City’s recent letter formalizing its request for three transportation improvements that could be supported by Biscuit Run’s proffers: improvements on Old Lynchburg Road; traffic light synchronizations (ITS); and the Fontaine-Sunset Avenue Connector road.

In early February, Mr. Lynch said he would give the County “a month” to demonstrate that they were serious about getting the Fontaine-Sunset Avenue Connector built.  When that issue was raised, Mr. Rooker pointed out his preference for that $12.8 million road and bridge to be built by the developers of the Granger property (Coran Capshaw) and by UVA at the Fontaine Research Park.  He expressed reluctance to have Biscuit Run proffers applied to "alleviate" another developer’s responsibility for building roads. There was consensus that the Fontaine-Sunset Avenue Connector was a key road priority for both localities.

Mr. Rooker explained that he did not like this growth in the County and that it was actually the City that benefited directly from residential growth outside their borders in the form of increased contributions from Albemarle as part of the 1982 revenue sharing agreement.  In FY 2008, that agreement is expected to send the City an additional $3 million for a total of about $13.21 million, irregardless of the property tax rate set for Albemarle in 2007. Mr. Rooker said, "The question I would be willing to put on the table is, 'Is the City willing to take the increase in the revenue sharing payment to put into regional transportation?'" Mr. Slutzky suggested the City could also redirect money from economic development to transportation needs. Mr. Rooker said the County might be able to match contributions from the City for some of the many transportation projects on their shared priority list that VDOT is not addressing with state dollars.   

Mr. Lynch responded that it might be beneficial to have a discussion between the City and the County to ensure local government is not subsidizing growth. "I have argued for years to pull out of [the Thomas Jefferson partnership for Economic Development (TJPED)]....I am all for having some discussion as to how we can better manage what we do, as two localities, so we don’t end up subsidizing essentially the development community,” said Lynch.  Supervisor David Slutzky provided a fourth vote on the Board of Supervisors that allowed the County to join TJPED in 2006.  Albemarle County has also recently joined the Chamber of Commerce and created a $250,000 "jobs development opportunity fund," two initiatives that Mr. Slutzky also voted to support. Mr. Rooker voted against all three initiatives and he has voiced his opposition to public funds being spent towards what he sees as efforts to encourage more growth than what is already happening in the community.

Brian Wheeler

Rooker predicts tax rate will be lowered, but overall taxes will increase to address County's needs

This morning, Albemarle County Supervisor, Dennis Rooker (I-Jack Jouett), appeared on WINA's Charlottesville Live with Jane Foy and Rob Schilling, and spoke with callers about tax rates, the budget, and expanding businesses in the community.  The highlight of the radio program was when Mr. Rooker predicted the County's tax rate would be lowered in this year's budget and then Keith Drake, Chairman of the Albemarle County Republican Party, called in and debated the exact meaning of that statement and the effect on local taxes.

Podcast produced by Charlottesville Tomorrow * Player by Odeo

Listen using player above or download the podcast: Download 20070213-WINA-Rooker.mp3

There are two perspectives being expressed by these local leaders and I'll do my best to outline their positions here.  First, some terminology per state law [link to Code of Virginia]:

Current Real Estate Tax Rate - The rate per $100 of assessed value that is applied to real estate.  In Albemarle County, the current rate is $0.74 per $100.  That is about $2,368 annually in property taxes for homes assessed at the median sales price in Albemarle (4Q 2006).

Lowered Tax Rate - A tax rate local government must advertise that would, in effect, offset increased property assessments.  This rate has to be calculated and advertised, but local government makes a choice each year, only after a public hearing, as to whether this rate should be adopted or another tax rate set if deemed necessary.

Proposed Tax Rate - The rate per $100 of assessed value that is applied to real estate and proposed for adoption for the current calendar year. [Warning: The new tax rate is set for the calendar year, so adjustments up or down from the current tax rate are retroactive to January 1st. Having a fiscal year that runs from July 1 to June 30 makes this interesting in the budget process].

Effective Tax Rate Increase - The difference between the proposed rate and the lowered rate. This effective tax increase has to be calculated and advertised by local government as part of their public hearing announcements. 

Dennis Rooker's position:

• "A tax increase occurs, whether it is by assessment or raising the tax rates, and I acknowledge that." (WINA, February 13, 2007)
• "I think we probably will have some lowering of the tax rate this year in the County [with the 2007-08 budget]. To suggest that it ought to be lowered the exact amount [to offset] the increased assessments, really ignores the fact that the County is growing....About 80% of our budget goes to personnel expense. Obviously we give raises.  We have to raise salaries in order to retain and hire good people year to year. Benefits increase year by year.  I think the average [annual] increase in medical benefit costs over the last ten years has been in excess of 10%." Other factors like the increased cost of revenue sharing with the City and state/federal mandates result in structural increases to the budget.  (WINA, February 13, 2007)
• "We lowered our tax rate to $0.74 [from $0.76] which is the lowest tax rate in the state of any
  county with more than 90,000 population." (October 10, 2005 candidate forum)

Keith Drake's position (Sources: Albemarle GOP eNewsletter--Vol. 9, #4, February 6, 2007 and WINA February 13, 2007):

• Albemarle County will have to advertise a lowered tax rate of $0.58 from $0.74. "You can vote to raise it [above $0.58], and you may raise, 2 cents, maybe 4 cents, to account for growth, to account for some moderate increases in services..."  Thus, Mr. Drake argues the real estate property tax rate should be no more than $0.60 to $0.62 for 2007. [County staff estimate 1 cent on the tax rate is $1.6 million in revenues for this budget, thus this proposed rate would roughly reduce the County's annual revenues by $19.2 to $22.4 million]
• "It's a dirty little secret of local government, but state requires that when real property assessments go up, the tax rate MUST go down. No debate.  No vote.  It is automatically reduced."
• Any new rate set by the Board of Supervisors above $0.58 will be an increase in taxes. Elected officials cannot claim there are lowering taxes if they vote to set a new tax rate above the "lowered tax rate."
• In 2005, the Board of Supervisors raised the effective tax rate from $0.62 to $0.74 when it passed a budget that adjusted the previous tax rate downwards from $0.76 to $0.74.

Thus you can see why I chose the headline for this post very carefully!  The public should be aware of the fact that people have different points of view as to how characterize the annual setting of the tax rate and what Virginia law intends by requiring government to advertise the specifics about this issue in advance of the public hearing.   Further, elected officials typically direct the County Executive (or City Manager) to prepare a budget based on certain assumptions on the tax rate around November.  Proposals to significantly raise or lower the tax rate thus could be expected to be addressed at that time and not just right after the updated property assessments are calculated (i.e. government has a projection in November as to how assessments will impact revenues). 

There is no disagreement on the bottom line... every year, local government sets a tax rate.  If assessments are increasing and the rate isn't lowered as an offset, then revenues will increase and government will make decisions in their budget as to how to best invest those new resources in the community.

Here is the schedule for the upcoming decisions in Albemarle County [see calendar for details]:

• March 7, 2007 * Public hearing on County Executive's recommended budget
• April 4, 2007 * Public hearing on Board of Supervisors budget and proposed tax rate.
• April 11, 2007 * Board of Supervisors adopts budget and 2007 calendar year tax rate.

Brian Wheeler

City holds transportation work session

City evaluates road priorities, options for calming traffic, and critiques the County's failure to construct connector roads and bypasses

The Annexation Monster.  Source: Rey Barry's website in which he credits the illustration to local artist Charles Peale.

There was a time when Albemarle County feared Charlottesville’s increasing grasp over County land in the form of annexation.  That’s when this illustration of the Annexation Monster first appeared.  The City and County put an end to annexation in February 1982 with a revenue sharing agreement that has the County taxpayers perpetually making annual contributions to the City’s general fund (in FY 2008 that agreement is expected to send the City about $13.21 million). 

(L to R) Bill Lucy, Cheri Lewis, Dave Norris, and Jim Tolbert

Yet, observing the City Council and City Planning Commission in a joint work session on transportation last week, it sounds as if we now have a "Vehicular Commuter Monster" extending its tentacles and choking City streets.  County encroachment on City roads is among the top concerns of City leaders and residents.  For example, at the last City Council meeting the Fry’s Springs neighborhood demanded the closure of Old Lynchburg Road at the City line to cut one of those traffic tentacles.  City leaders in this work session gave these concerns serious consideration and added their own ideas about ways to send the County a message on traffic.

You can LISTEN to the audio podcast of this meeting by downloading it from Charlottesville Tomorrow's Publications Page.  It was too big to post on the blog.

I’ll admit it.  I am part of the problem.  I have not lived in the City since I was a student at UVA and I have been commuting into downtown Charlottesville every year since graduating in 1990 (my employers have always had offices in the City).  Yet had public transit been available from my past homes in Crozet or Ivy (West), Troy (East), 29 South, or 29 North, I would have gladly ditched my car. 

This meeting was intended to facilitate the City’s updating of transportation goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan.  Staff intended for this to be a “free flowing discussion,” and their expectations should have easily been met.  At the start of the meeting, Jim Tolbert, Director of the City’s Neighborhood Development Services, asked that the focus of this meeting be generally on roads in the City and not public transit and other modes of transportation, areas on which staff believe there is already broader support and consensus.  During this past year, as the County’s growth areas have seen major rezoning requests come forward (e.g. North Pointe, Biscuit Run, Old Trail), the City and County have been advancing a plan to form a regional transit authority (RTA).  Obviously, traffic congestion is a regional problem as commuters are also coming from localities beyond Albemarle where housing is cheaper and jobs are scarcer.

So back to the work session… Here are the major issues that received discussion:

• Traffic coming into City via Albemarle County
• Traffic calming options in the City
• The merits of improving the street grid with new interconnections
• The absence of traffic and employment data for the decision makers to consider

Here are some specific highlights from the discussion:

• 00:24:13 -- Jim Tolbert: "One solution to cut-through [traffic in the City] is to make the arterials flow better [improving the level of service]... If you do that though, then the other side of that is, do you encourage even more of that traffic to come through Charlottesville that might better be served going around us with some of the projects that we have [in the County]? If you look at this map it clearly shows an Eastern Connector need, a Southern Connector need, probably shows a connection on the West that is needed....Do we want to improve the roads that we have to encourage more traffic to use those roads?  I'm not sure."
• 00:28:16 -- Kevin Lynch: "I brought a couple maps from 2000....I think it frames the problem in a way that is more obvious to me in that we're in the middle of this area and we've got all these pipes coming in from the County....We are already at most of our 2015 [traffic projections]....This is a similar map...looking at projections for 2020.  We were projecting 4200 cars a day on Old Lynchburg Road by 2020 and [today] we've got 5300...On every [road] I can see, we are higher on the existing map then we were projecting in 2020....I think part of that problem is... we are in the center of this growing region.  Albemarle County created the development area in 1980 and since 1980 they have essentially built a city the size of Charlottesville around Charlottesville and they've built exactly two roads.  They have built Berkmar Drive... and the [road in front of Monticello High School].  That's it.  Two roads to handle a City the size of Charlottesville."
• 00:46:20 -- Kevin Lynch: "We gotta say no Meadowcreek Parkway.  We don't want to put another pipe into the City until [the County] builds something that connects around. That's part of what has been driving our strategy, build the Eastern Connector, build the Southern Parkway, then we will do the Meadowcreek Parkway, otherwise we are just putting more pipes into the center."
• 01:40:00 -- Bill Lucy: Mr. Lucy suggests two policy recommendations: 1) extend UVA prohibition on students with cars to include second year students, or if they have a car, require it to be parked in a UVA parking lot and not in City neighborhoods; 2) prohibit Charlottesville High School sophomores from parking at the school.
• 01:51:30 -- David Brown: "I think the interest among some members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in a transit authority is to create something where they can see some efficient transit that goes from Pantops up [Route] 29 without having to go on Main Street....I think that is a real positive trend."
• 01:58:00 -- Kevin Lynch: "In the case of proffers for Biscuit Run. They've talked about $3 million in proffers the City could get.  My take on it is I'd rather not have your proffers.  I'd rather you build a road, take that $3 million and build a bridge over Moore's Creek so you can build the [Fontaine Ave/Sunset Connector].  Those are the kind of decisions I think we need to have.  We have gone along since 2000 with supporting the County not wanting the [Western 29] bypass, or at least not pushing for the 29 bypass.  At the time they said this really wasn't the right road, we need a grid of streets....I don't see that flexible network.  At the time on the [Metropolitan Planning Organization], if the City had voted to build the bypass, we could have had it built."
• 01:59:20 -- David Brown: "To be fair, the City Council at the time, I don't know about the current City Council, was not unanimously in favor of the road, that's for sure."

Brian Wheeler

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