Category Archives: budget

Fluvanna Increases Taxes, Reduces Capital Spending and Pulls From Fund Balance to Make FY19 Budget

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

Last month, the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors passed a FY19 budget that included a real estate tax rate of $0.939, an increase of three cents.

Part of the reason for that increase was health insurance was slated to increase $435,000. After some renegotiation, staff got a final figure of an increase of $228,000. However, the budget was already built with the larger figure.

Supervisors have decided to keep the budget as is and at the completion of the year will return that money to the fund balance, the county’s savings.

The budget included $127,000 operational cut, including $14,000 from nonprofits. Supervisors were presented with options to restore some of the cuts or at least make the nonprofits whole. Instead, the majority of the board decided to proceed with the cuts and if the departments needed to, the department head can come to the board to ask for additional money.

“Your (department) budgets are tight already. It is detrimental,” said Steve Nichols, county administrator. He noted the budgets were already very lean.

Nonprofits won’t get that opportunity because the county will send in pledges and some of those nonprofits will be part of the $14,000 cut. These cuts are reducing the amount the county will pledge to the individual nonprofits.

At the May 16 meeting, the supervisors will finalize which nonprofits will be cut.

The FY19 budget does include pulling $403,000 from the fund balance to balance the budget. The supervisors also took another $1.3 million for the capital improvement plan.

Nichols2014

Steve Nichols

“Frankly, if we can save some money, it would be great to put it back into the fund balance,” said Nichols.

The projected FY20 budget needs about $2.3 million, or 7.7 real estate tax cents, to balance.

The tax rate will get some relief next year because the county is doing a reassessment and property values are increasing. Whenever that happens, the tax rate adjusts inversely. But still, the need for additional tax revenue will be there for next year.

The budget has two factors that are not decreasing: employees (salary and benefits) and debt service. Debt service will stay level but employee salary and benefits will continue to rise.

While the county is aggressively trying to attract new businesses to help alleviate the tax burden on rooftops, any business coming will not have immediate impact.

The next meeting is May 16 at 7 p.m. with a proceeding 6 p.m. session.

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Advertisements

No Increase for Greene County Real Estate Tax Rates

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

In the next to final step in their FY2019 budget process, The Greene County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to maintain the same real estate tax rate forclip_image001 the coming fiscal year – $.775/$100 of the assessed value.

 

County Administrator John Barkley presented an overview of the budget process that started last July, 2017 and will conclude with at the May 8, 2018 Supervisor meeting when the budget is voted upon. The process included three workshops, advertising the rates, tonight’s presentation and the May 8th vote on the final budget.

Barkley highlighted that the county is investing in training of county personnel but, other than the school system, there are no increases in headcount. In addition, the county is focused on improved technology for improved services. The budget has 16 departments that are reflecting reductions in spending.

clip_image002

John Barkley

Barkley then showed that Greene County’s Real Estate Tax Rate ($.775/$100) is in the middle of the surrounding counties – higher than Madison ($.680/$100) , but lower than Albemarle ($.839/$100) and Orange ($.804/$100).

The proposed budget does have an increase from $61,281K to $63,592K, an increase of over $2 million. The rate is able to stay the same since there is a significant increase in the number of houses in Greene County which is the primary contributor to increased local funding of over $1.5 million from real estate taxes.

Two other reductions that stand out is a 12% reduction in Greene County’s share of the funding of the Central Virginia Regional jail. The other significant reduction is over $400,000 reduction in debt service as borrowings are being fully paid off. The budget for capital expenditures is approximately $750,000 ($550,000 for all departments except the school system and $200,000 for the schools) even though there are significant projects in the near future – such as interconnectivity of the Sheriff, Rescue Squad and Fire Departments, the water impoundment project and the school renovation project.

The meeting shifted to comments from the public with four citizens speaking. Keith Bourne again brought up the elimination of 2 additional officers from the Sheriff’s budget. He suggested, as he has in past meetings, that the source for funding these positions could be by eliminating the $250,000 deficit incurred by the Solid Waste Facility by raising the tipping fees.

Current Tipping Fees for Greene County Landfill

30 Gallon Single (household garbage) $1.00
50 Gallon Single (household garbage) $2.00
90 Gallon Single (household garbage) $3.00

Tammy Durrer continued this discussion stating that the citizens of Greene County should not be required to subsidize the Solid Waste Facility. Her research came up with a fact that is unique to Greene County vs. neighboring counties. Greene County allows citizens from other counties to dispose their trash with no premium being charged. Albemarle County for example charges an additional $10 for people outside their county.

Mallory Lamb presented information related to how understaffed Greene County is in the Sheriff’s Department. She presented data from Page County (14,000 citizens) and Patrick County (18,000) vs. Greene County’s population of 19,000 (counties that have similar population to Greene County). Here is how the number of reports, total deputies and deputies funded by the county compare (as presented by Lamb).

image

clip_image003

Steve Smith

According to these figures, Greene County generates more reports with significantly fewer deputies. Lamb also suggested that eliminating the subsidizing of the Solid Waste Facility by raising rates and charging a premium for citizens from outside Greene County would fund two additional positions – the budget that Sheriff Smith presented. Per the chart above, the number of citizens per deputy in Greene County is more than twice that of Page and Patrick County’s.

The final adoption of the Fiscal Year 2019 budget is scheduled for May 8, 2018.

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Citizens Ask Sheriff’s Budget Request Be Fully Funded

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

“Matters from the Public” provides citizens the opportunity to address elected officials on any issue that is not on the governing bodies agenda for a public hearing.  On April 10th, the Greene County Board of Supervisors heard from two citizens regarding restoration Sheriff Department FY19 funding.

The Board previously held budget review meetings and made recommendations that will be formally considered on April 24th at 6:30 pm. One of the Board directed changes to the departmental requests was to reduce the Sheriff’s Department requested increase of nearly $400,000 to $157,236 – which was the value of 2 new deputy positions.

Under “Matters from the Public”, Keith Bourne offered an offset to the increase requested by Sheriff Smith that was reduced by the Supervisors – $241,966. His suggestion was to eliminate the subsidy for the land fill/recycling center and have their tipping fees raised to have all costs paid for and, therefore, not require taxpayer funds to support the center. His logic was that this would encourage citizens to do more recycling to minimize the cost to dispose of trash. Those funds could then be used to fully fund the budget request of Sheriff Steve Smith.

clip_image002

Sheriff Steve Smith

Some though think that raising the tipping fees would cause people to stop bringing their trash to the landfill and disposing of it themselves.  In addition to the potential increase in illegal dumping, an increase in cost could decrease use, which could lessen the tipping fees received and increase the need for more of a subsidy.

In speaking with Supervisor Dale Herring (At-Large) about the reduction in Smith’s budget request, he indicated that the supervisors eliminated all headcount increases in the departmental requested budgets.  Herring clarified that the School Board receives a total dollar amount from the Supervisors and they, not the supervisors, determine whether to spend funds on increased headcount and the supervisors would have no say in that matter.

The other citizen, Mallory Lamb, brought up the issue that the school system has been able to keep unspent funds this past year of $700,000 and have accumulated over $3.5 million to date. This is the only department that is allowed to keep any unspent funds and is allowed to use those funds for capital expenditures. This means that these funds could be used for equipment or buildings but not for people or supplies.

This citizen asked that the Board of Supervisors fully fund Smith’s budget request  and explained that the Sheriff’s Department has underspent their budget by approximately $250,000 the past four years. And that looking at these sources of revenue – increased tipping fees or the accumulated unspent funds the past four years be used to fund Smith’s requested budget.

Possibly the policy allowing the school system to “bank” unspent budgets should be reviewed for all county departments. It is important to note schools is not a county department but a separate entity with its own elected Board to oversee spending decisions.  In addition, while other department have limited outside state and federal funding, the significance of variable, attendance based, state and federal funding create an additional level of complexity in school funding.

While most departments have needs for operating expenses vs. the schools having a large need for building and equipment the policy might be offered for expense items. The commitment to recurring operating expenses, such as personnel, would have to be managed so that it can be afforded ongoing. Reviewing spending patterns that show a consistent unspent balance to support a new expenditure could be put in place. However, this begs the question, why is a department consistently favorable to the budget that is submitted.

If the Sheriff’s Department is spending $250,000 less than budgeted for four straight years – why is the request for the prior year’s budget amount plus an additional $400,000 more for next year? Shouldn’t it only be for an additional $150,000 ($400,000 gross increase less $250,000 unspent)?

The final approval of the budget for all departments in the county rests with the Board of Supervisors. If a department is consistently spending $250,000 below budget for four straight years, why would the next year’s budget continue to be the prior year’s budget plus new items? It seems that the Board of Supervisors should look at the historical actual spending of a department, not just the prior year budget.

So if every department’s budget was calculated by using the most recent actual full year spending and a current year to date actual spending, maybe there would be funds available to fund some of the manpower requests, especially for the sheriff’s department which protects the citizens of Greene County.

Inversely, if any department is overspending their budget compared to previous year, it would prompt the question as to why and look for some corrective action.

It is unfortunate is that the different funding source complexities and governance structure results in the school system to march to a different budget beat than the other county departments.

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at http://www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Fluvanna Proposed FY19 Budget has $400K Deficit

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

The needle has slipped across the record known as the FY19 Fluvanna County budget.image

County administrator Steve Nichols briefed the Board of Supervisors on April 4th on updated numbers. The big shocker was the health insurance quote for next year is an increase of $435,000. There were some additional revenue numbers that meant at $0.929 real estate tax rate, the supervisors will still be $400,000 in the hole.

There were four tentative nods at $0.929 but unless the supervisors cut personnel or the school budget, they will need an even bigger increase.

At the public hearing on the tax rates, capital improvement plans and budget, one person spoke. Perrie Johnson, School Board member, spoke as a resident. She spoke in favor of funding the schools.

Since the last meeting in March, the county found another $68,000 in tax revenue. The expenditures grew as the supervisors approved a new pay raise policy that added another $32,000 to the budget.

The new policy is employees will receive any pay raise as long as they are on-board six months before the start of the raise and off probation period. The previous policy was must be on board before the start of the fiscal year and not receive a pay increase in the fiscal year the raise is given.

The vote to set the new policy was unanimous however supervisors were uncommitted to budget. They are slated to approve a budget on April 11.

Eager2016Cropped

Patricia Eager

Patricia Eager (Palmyra District) ask if the board desires to pull more from the county savings, the fund balance. “You don’t want to go too far down that road,” replied Tony O’Brien (Rivanna District).

That leaves either cutting expenses or raising the tax rate. Per state code, the highest rate the supervisors can institute is $0.945 [The rate advertised for public hearing].

One issue the county doesn’t project is significant new tax revenue coming in immediately to help next year’s budget. Expenses aren’t getting cheaper considering the vast majority of the county’s budget.

The silver lining is this year the county had two new debt service payments starting for FY19 that equated six cents. There is no expected debt payments to start in FY20 but also no significant debt retirements.

“We shouldn’t have the problems we are looking at this year,” said O’Brien.

There is hope the county will get a lower number for the health insurance increase. The issue is the county has had several high claims and have only been with the insurer for a single year.

The supervisors next meet on April 11 at 6 p.m to adopt a final budget. The budget calendar does have a possible overtime week of April 18.

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum

Photo Credits: Fluvanna County

Fluvanna Budget Discussion Includes New Business

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

It takes three to tango during budget season and the Fluvanna County  Board of Supervisors is working its way to a final budget number.  During the latest work session the supervisors left with four nods on stopping at a real estate tax rate of $0.929 per $100 assessed. The current rate is $0.907.

The supervisors got a boost by additional tax values and increasing fees for items like trailers.

But to get to $0.929 and fund the schools its full request of $600,000, the supervisors will pull money from the county’s savings, the fund balance. It is a practice that is highly discouraged because the fund balance is typically used for one time expenses. But school staff is confident the school system will return a few hundred thousand to the fund balance when the current fiscal year is complete.

At the end of the March 28 work session, only Don Weaver (Cunningham District) didn’t give a nod to the budget but he said he would think about it.

Supervisors will have a public hearing on the budget on April 4 at 7 p.m.

Also on March 28 the supervisors held two public hearings on industrial sites in the Zion Crossroads area.

The first hearing was for the old Cosner Brothers location. M&M Salvage owns the property and trying to rezone the front part to I-1 and the back portion to I-2.

The property currently has a zoning violation issued against it for non-conforming use. The property is being used by contractors for the Colonial Gas Pipeline, per the owner. County staff has ruled it is being used as a contractor’s yard, which is a by-right use for an industrially zone property but the property is currently zoned A-1.

“I think you are able to consider this [a violation],” said Fred Payne, county attorney, to the supervisors.

Next to the property is a small cluster subdivision, Fox Glen. Residents continually complain to staff of work consistent with a contractor’s yard.

“People are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their property and it is being interrupted,” said Charles Hess, who lives in the subdivision.

Residents have complained of the loud noises and lights used to work early in the morning and evenings. One complaint listed a 1 a.m. start time.

“This I-1 and I-2 use next to the residential is less than ideal,” said Tony O’Brien (Rivanna District).

Supervisors denied the rezoning 5-0. The owner filed an appeal of the non-conforming use to the Board of Zoning Appeals. BZA will hear the case on May 15.

LKQ is coming to town thanks to approval of its special use permit, 5-0. The supervisors added provisions to increase buffer areas near residents and restrictions on hours of operation.

The property was previously rezoned, at the direction of the Board of Supervisors, in December. The property is located behind the Cosner Brothers property and was once the back half of Cosner. It is 90 acres.

Residents of Fox Glen aren’t exactly touching it but the subdivision is about 200-300 feet from the property line. LKQ offered to increase its buffer from 50 feet from property line to 75 feet. The company will build an eight-foot fence and plant trees.

LKQ is a salvage yard company that recycles parts mostly from totaled cars. The company buys cars wholesale then goes through the cars to sell parts to repair cars.

The company will fill the property with stripped cars and once it needs more space, it crushes cars. Supervisors put restrictions on hours the company can work in yard to pull parts. Restrictions were also placed on crushing cars to six days a week. Work inside the building have no restrictions.

“This is a very clean facility,” said resident William Hensley, who toured a similar LKQ facility.

LKQ is expected to pay $200,000 to $300,000 in taxes. A penny of real estate taxes is less than $300,000.

“I would love to keep Fluvanna green,” said resident Tom Payne. “But we are going to have to keep Fluvanna with another green (money).”

Some neighbors still were not pleased of the salvage yard coming to town.

“Would you like your daughter or son or grandkids to live there?” said Jeff Wagner.

Katie Ward, said she purchased the neighboring property months after Fluvanna started negotiations with LKQ, “We were robbed to have our voices heard.”

Ward distributed flyers before the meeting of a FOIA request she had that showed the county in discussions with LKQ as far back as February 2017.

The Fluvanna Board of Supervisors will meet on April 4 for a regular session at 4 p.m. followed by a 7 p.m. public hearing session on the budget.

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum

Photo Credits: Fluvanna County

Fluvanna Supervisors Work Budget & Encourage Economic Development

By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

The local government budget season is nearing its climax. On March 14, the Fluvanna County  Board of Supervisors will meet to pick a tax rate to advertise.  Once advertised, the rate can be reduced but it can not be increased.

BOS FRONT (L-R): Mozell Booker (Vice Chair), Patricia Eager REAR (L-R): Don Weaver, Mike Sheridan (Chair), Tony O'Brien

Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors

The supervisors will meet for a work session at 7 p.m. but expect a long night. This will be the first time the supervisors go line by line to determine what should and should not be in the budget.

The county administrator proposed nearly a three cent increase in real property tax in his budget. Steve Nichols didn’t include any additional money for the schools in his budget.

The School Board unanimously passed a budget that requested an additional $1 million in local funding. The largest portion of the request includes $700,000 for salary increases.

Nichols’ budget also doesn’t any salary increases for the county staff. It does include one additional staff member but the departments requested four new positions.

The county’s budget situation will only get tighter in future years without new development. The proposed LKQ salvage yard is estimated to bring in about $300,000 of tax revenue, the equivalent of a penny of real estate taxes for all land owners.

The supervisors have actively followed staff recommendations to make development easier. Besides the Shovel Ready Sites program passing, the county made a change to collection of the land use back taxes for the Zion Crossroads community planning area.

The old rule was when a property changed zoning, it was out of the land use program. The owner would then have to pay five years of back taxes. The recently passed rule is the landowner can request a zoning change, the zoning change can occur but paying five years worth of taxes is not collected until the use of the land changes.

The problem was previously landowners trying to sell and develop land had to pay for zoning changes plus the five years of taxes before even listed the property for sale. Now the landowner can factor in paying the taxes into the sale of the property. Plus, the “five years of back taxes” may include the new zoning. Commercial land is valued higher than agriculture.

Supervisors also reduced fees to rezone. Applications to rezone now will only cost $1,000. Previously they cost $1,000 plus $50 per acre. If a property owner has multiple parcels to rezone but submits one application, it is still just $1,000.

The next supervisor meeting is the budget work session on March 14. It is shaping up to be a long one, bring snacks if coming. Cookies will probably be available.

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum

Photo Credits: Fluvanna County

Groundhog Day in Fluvanna?

By Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer

The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors’ budget calendar begins in earnest when the calendar flips to February. The county administrator will present a budget proposal that will kick off the vast majority of discussion the supervisors will have regarding the fiscal year 2019 budget.

groundhog day gobblers knobPredictions of actions by this, or any, governmental body can be as reliable as Punxsutawney Phil, but there are times that early session decisions truly foreshadow future votes.

The last few years the board has been able to hold the Real Estate tax rate steady. This year the supervisors had a budget work session in December to help steer staff as Steve Nichols, the county administrator, prepares his budget proposal.

Mozell Booker (Fork Union District) and Tony O’Brien (Rivanna District), the two left leaning supervisors, told Nichols they were ok with a slight raise in the tax rate if necessary. Booker even saying a $0.92 per $100 assessed real property rate was ok. Currently the rate is $0.907.

Patricia Eager (Palmyra District) and Don Weaver (Cunningham District), the two right leaning supervisors, advocated for low as possible. Eager even suggesting a decrease in tax rate.

A decrease in the real property rate will be difficult because the county will begin paying for the Zions Crossroad water project and trying to decrease business related taxes to help jump start development in the ZXR area.

The past four years, Mike Sheridan (Columbia District) has been the one to bridge the gap between the two sides. Last year during a work session Sheridan even suggested the $0.907 tax rate where the supervisors ended up.

In an interesting sign during the 2018 organizational meeting, when nominations for chairman started, Booker quickly nominated Sheridan with a second from O’Brien. Booker has advocated multiple times for a roving chairship after she lost the gavel two years ago.

Sheridan, abstaining from the vote, was unanimously elected chairman. Then Eager quickly nominated Booker for vice chair with Weaver seconding. She was elected unanimously, Booker abstaining from the vote.

Such unanimity could be a sign of further cooperation or it could be a sign of lines being drawn with a budget season just ahead.

Nichols will present his budget on February 7 at 7 p.m.

——————————————————

The Free Enterprise Forum’s coverage of Fluvanna County is provided by a grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS®and by the support of readers like you.

Bryan Rothamel covers Fluvanna County for the Free Enterprise Forum

Photo Credits: Onwardstate.com

 

Greene County Revises Water/Sewer Connection Payment Timing

By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer

In 2008, Greene County developed a policy to sell Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s) for water and sewer connections.  At the time, concerns were raised regarding the allowance of the speculative purchase of EDU’s, prior to the actual need.  As the cost of EDU’s increased (currently $10,000 for water and $10,000 for sewer) the timing of the EDU’s purchase has become an issue, especially for smaller builders.

At the only December meeting for the Greene Supervisors, Planning Director, Bart Svoboda, explained, numerous conversations with builders that have highlighted the cash flow problem this policy creates. So an alternative policy of charging for the EDU’s as a requirement for issuing a Certificate of Occupancy was proposed for Board consideration. However, the contractor runs the risk of EDU’s not being available if he waits until the project is ready to be occupied.

Chairperson Michelle Flynn (Ruckersville) asked if a builder could opt to buy the EDU’s the way they have up until now? Svoboda answered that yes, the contractor effectively would have the option as to when to buy the EDU. He could buy the EDU like the current policy provides and, therefore, he is sure he has the water and sewer connection before the project is started. Or he could wait until the project is ready for occupancy and then purchase the EDU with no guaranty that water and sewer will be available.

clip_image001

Jim Frydl

Supervisor Jim Frydl (Midway) commented that the risk of water and sewer not being available is small.

The argument for delaying payment is that paying for the EDU closer to when the property can be occupied allows for the revenue stream of the business/residence to begin and provide the funds to pay for the EDU connections.

Some other Virginia localities do not allow the purchase of EDU’s until the building permit is issued for a specific parcel.  Such a policy significantly impacts the ability to “speculatively” purchase EDU’s at a a lower rate than the cost of such EDU’s at redemption.   This potential reform was not discussed on Tuesday.

At this point County Administrator, John Barkley, clarified that any changes to the EDU policy must first be approved by Greene’s Supervisors and then it can be approved by RSA.

Supervisor Bill Martin commented that the current reservoir project will relieve the limitation of water in Greene County. At that point Chairperson Michelle Flynn proposed that the option to pay when connected be approved and that motion was unanimously approved.

image

Marie Durrer

Frydl Farewell

The last action taken at the final 2017 meeting was to thank Frydl who completed his second term. Frydl was defeated in his bid for a third term by Marie Durrer, former Clerk of the Circuit Court in Greene County.  Durrer will be sworn in in January.

Brent Wilson is the Greene County Field Officer for the Free Enterprise Forum a privately funded public policy organization.  The Free Enterprise Forum Field Officer program is funded by a generous grant from the Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS® (CAAR) and by readers like you.  To support this important work please donate online at www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Albemarle’s $52 Million Rain Tax Department

By. Neil Williamson, President

rain gifFarmers count on rain to feed their crops; Albemarle County is counting on the Rain Tax (AKA Storm water “fee”) to grow government by over Twenty new full time employees and a 10 year budget that exceeds $52 million. [corrected 12/5 9:44]

Please let me explain.

In 2013, Albemarle County thought it needed a Rain Tax (a fee paid by all land owners based on the percentage of impervious surface) in order to meet state mandated Chesapeake Bay regulations for pollutants.

In late 2014, staff projected the costs to be nearly $2.5 Million a year.  During the preparation of Albemarle County’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL  Action Plan they found they would receive credits for the many stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) – both private and public – that were already built. Albemarle’s Water Resources Program Manager, Greg Harper Harper explains:

While the County is required to achieve 5% of its long-term required pollutant reductions by July 1, 2018, the current status of reductions is as follows:

pollutant reductions achieved as percent of total, long-term requirement

phosphorus  68%

nitrogen 99%

sediment 137%

All (100%) reductions must be achieved by 2028. As you can see, we are theoretically complete with required nitrogen and sediment reductions and two-thirds complete with phosphorus reductions. [emphasis added-nw].

When it was determined that Albemarle was well on its way to meeting those requirements, the Free Enterprise Forum wrongfully thought this would be the end of the discussion of a rain tax [see Singing in the Rain].

Instead, gifted with this “fee” authority from the General Assembly, Albemarle tasked staff to come up with a plan to spend the money to address the county’s greying stormwater infrastructure – .

image

Make no mistake this is the beginning of an Albemarle County Public Works Department with Twenty new full time employees  (corrected 12/5 9:44 am) and an annual budget of roughly $5 million absent any check on its further expansion based on a dedicated revenue source

While the Free Enterprise Forum is not questioning the need for many of these infrastructure improvements, we believe these projects should compete with other capital projects in the biannual Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).  Such project competition breeds efficiency and promotes transparency just as a dedicated revenue source reduces sunlight, breeds complacency and presents the opportunity for mismanagement and malfeasance.

Respectfully Submitted,

Neil Williamson

———————————————————————-

Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa  and Nelson County.  For more information visit the website www.freeenterpriseforum.org

Photo Credits: giphy.com, Albemarle County

Local Government Spending Index Released

Study Finds Disparity in Local Government Spending

Charlottesville, VA – As political candidates are vying for election and local governments are starting their FY2019 budget process, a new study shows that the rate of increases in local government spending vary dramatically. The “Choices and Decisions” report, conducted by the Free Enterprise Forum, is based on an independent locality-specific local government spending index (LGSI). The report, which studied fiscal years 1990-2016, identified Nelson County as the locality with the greatest increase in LGSI with Albemarle County a close second.

Free Enterprise Forum President Neil Williamson said, “The goal of the LGSI is to inform and promote dialog. The comparison of local spending trends, combined with population data provides citizens an objective tool to evaluate spending decisions. Equipped with this data, citizens can ask better questions of elected officials during the elections and budget season”.

The LGSI is based on self-reported data required to be provided to the Commonwealth of Virginia’s Auditor of Public Accounts. The numbers focus exclusively on the operating budget of each municipality. This number will not include capital expenditures thus avoiding having single-year spikes in capital spending skew the results or interpretation of the data.

It has been theorized that inflation adjusted spending would largely track changes in population and school enrollment. While a correlation was found in some localities studied, this trend was not universal:

Albemarle County – adjusted for inflation, Albemarle County’s total spending increased by over 152% during the study period while population and school enrollment increased by 55% and 36% respectively.

clip_image004City of Charlottesville – During the study period (1990-2016), Charlottesville experienced a population increase of almost 23%, the second smallest of the municipalities being studied. In addition, Charlottesville experienced a cumulative growth in school enrollment of just over 1%. In contrast, inflation-adjusted operating expenditures increased over 80% during the study period.

It was also theorized that growth in inflation-adjusted per capita spending among the localities would be similar because of the high percentage of programs mandated by the state and operated by the localities.

In contrast, the analysis clearly indicates wide variation in per-capita spending decisions made by the localities. During the study period, four localities had roughly 50% increase in per capita spending, while two, Albemarle and Nelson, increased per capita spending by over 60%.

The Free Enterprise Forum is a privately funded public policy organization dedicated to individual economic freedom. The entire report, and supporting documentation, can be accessed under Reports Tab at www.freeenterpriseforum.org