Albemarle’s $5 Million ACP Mitigation & The Big Blue Marble
By. Neil Williamson, President
The PBS series The Big Blue Marble was very popular in my elementary school years. This program was ground breaking in presenting environmental (and social) concepts to children around the world including the interconnectivity of all natural systems to one another.
Based on recent actions, we are confused if Albemarle County considers itself part of the world’s larger interconnected ecosystem or an independent environment.
In their recent discussions of proposed stream health guidelines in the development area, Albemarle County seems to claim independence from the larger ecosystem –
9. Require that all stormwater treatment be conducted on-site or that any nutrient credits purchased are from a nutrient credit bank located in Albemarle County in order to qualify for special exceptions to zoning requirements, density bonuses, or cluster provisions,
Despite our recent post [Snow White and Albemarle’s Stream Health Incentives] highlighting the fact that currently no such nutrient credit bank exists in Albemarle County, staff contends this concept of “Albemarle Specific” Credits were critically important to the environmental community.
With this understanding we were perplexed by Allison Wrabel’s front page Daily Progress article [$5M in pipeline funds to support new Albemarle park] .
Though the Atlantic Coast Pipeline route does not cross through Albemarle, $5 million in pipeline mitigation money is earmarked for the future Biscuit Run Park in the county….Being in the route of the pipeline is not a criterion to receive mitigation funds, Deputy Secretary of Natural Resources Joshua Saks said…
Philosophically, the existence of the federally approved mitigation offer ignoring geographic specifics and Albemarle’s acceptance of such funds indicate an understanding and acknowledgement of natural interdependence.
The Free Enterprise Forum believes intellectual integrity requires that Albemarle County drop its isolationist environmental stream health demands and join with the rest of the world on our journey through space on our shared Big Blue Marble.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
—————————————————-
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County.
Photo Credits:lermaster.weebly.com
Greene County Recommends Water Fee Change
By. Brent Wilson Field Officer
The short story is monthly water bills are increasing in Greene County.
The longer story requires understanding the political workings and billing rationale of the Rapidan Service Authority (RSA).
Statutorily, the RSA Board, not the Board of Supervisors, set the rates for water and sewer. Politically, the members of the RSA Board include two members from each locality (Greene, Madison, Orange) who are appointed by their respective Board of Supervisors for four year terms. Thus, the RSA Board generally does whatever the locality asks.
Currently, RSA charges a Facility Fee of $20 per month for each water hook up. This results in a single family residence paying the same as a larger commercial establishment (Restaurant, Retail, Hotel, etc.) – regardless how much water each consumes.
Brenda Garton
When an account establishes new RSA water service, a determination is made regarding the anticipated water use of the account and the “hook up fee” is calculated based upon the anticipated use/dwelling unit use. In most cases, commercial users pay a multiple of the Dwelling Unit (EDU) dependent on use. A restaurant may require 5 EDUs, while a chiropractor’s office is only 2 EDUs. Each year, annual water consumption is audited to determine if the proper EDUs have been collected.
At the September 28th Greene County Board of Supervisors meeting Interim County Administrator Brenda Garton, proposed having the commercial users be charged facility fees based on how many EDUs are purchased for each location in order to make the facility charge more equitable to consumption.
Further, Garton recommended that the Greene Supervisors request RSA to increase the Facility Fee to $30 effective July 1, 2019. Chairperson Michelle Flynn (Ruckersville) agreed that both issues should be acted upon and forwarded to RSA so that RSA can act upon them at the same time.
Michelle Flynn
Flynn asked Garton how quickly RSA would be able to make both changes. Garton estimated 2-3 months as the soonest but felt they would be accomplished by January/February, 2019 at the latest.
Flynn wanted to be sure to have ample time to publish the increase to give the public plenty of notice of the increased fees even though this issue has been discussed for months. Supervisor Bill Martin (Stanardsville) credited Garton with getting this project back on track and that the increased revenue will go to paying for existing and future debt of the water project.
Garton stated that RSA will have to have a public hearing to approve the two rate changes proposed.
Supervisor Dale Herring had a final question – the revised fees only apply to water – not sewer? Garton confirmed that this was the case. The board unanimously approved that a resolution be sent to RSA.
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
Photo Credit: Greene County
Albemarle Rural Special Use Permits For Not So Special Uses
By. Neil Williamson, President
Tonight (May 8th), the Albemarle County Planning Commission is discussing what is and is not a by-right use on commercially zoned property not served by public water or a central system. The problem is there are 80 parcels in the rural area zoned as commercial and the powers that be want to significantly limit commercial activity in the rural areas (95% of Albemarle County).
This is how the regulators are seeking to deal with “stale” zoning, create a process that is nearly impossible to gain approval and thus remove the ability for so called ‘noxious’ uses without conducting a controversial and legally challenging downzoning.
We think there is an alternative. The Free Enterprise Forum believes that objective metrics could be established to have some of the ‘Special Uses’ be by right uses with independently verified performance standards.
Please let me explain.
In zoning parlance, there are three types of uses on a property:
- By Right (that which you can do without additional government approval)
- Special use (that which the government may allow you to do on your property) and
- Prohibited use (that which the government indicates you can’t do on your property)
The fact that the land in question here is currently zoned commercial means that at one time a planner somewhere thought it would be a good idea to have commercial activity in this vicinity. This more flexible planning philosophy has given way to a much more restrictive vision limiting commercial activity in the rural areas.
Under the new proposal, if any of the ‘special uses’ [including sporting goods (bait shops?), drug store, food/grocery stores, and many more] proposed on commercial zoned property without water service would be measured against the following Comprehensive Plan criteria:
Criteria for Review of New Uses
As new uses are proposed in the Rural Area,it is essential that they be able to meet the following standards. New uses should:
relate directly to the Rural Area and need a Rural Area location in order to be successful, (e.g., a farm winery has to be located in the Rural Area and would be unlikely to succeed in the Development Areas);
be compatible with, and have a negligible impact, on natural, cultural, and historic resources;
not conflict with nearby agricultural and forestal uses;
reflect a size and scale that complements the character of the area in which they will be located;
be reversible so that the land can easily return to farming, forestry, conservation, or other preferred rural uses;
be suitable for existing rural roads and result in little discernible difference in traffic patterns;
generate little demand for fire and rescue and police service;
be able to operate without the need for public water and sewer;
be sustainable with available groundwater; and
be consistent with other Rural Area policies.
Can you think of any proposal that could make it through this subjective labyrinth of approval?
Even if a staff recommendation could be acquired, do we anticipate any planning Commission making findings of any activity meeting all of these “standards”?
There has to be a better way. The Free Enterprise Forum has been impressed with the performance standard models we have reviewed where objective metrics were developed to verify the data points rather than subjectivity reflected above.
The Comprehensive Plan even speaks of creating such performance standards on the same page as this review criteria:
Performance standards will be needed for any new uses to ensure that the size, scale, and location of the new commercial uses recommended for the Rural Area are appropriate.
It is of prime importance that the appearance and function of new uses blend and not detract from the key features of the Rural Area.
New uses should not overwhelm an area in terms of their function or visibility.
We fear this proposal may indirectly and unintentionally create food and gas deserts in the rural areas that will put rural residents even further away from the services they require.
Considering this proposal impacts only 80 properties, we believe this would be an excellent candidate for developing objective performance metrics. Such an innovative program would protect the rural area AND Rural Property Rights – now would that be a good idea?
Respectfully submitted,
Neil Williamson, President
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County.
Photo Credit: Commonplacemagazine.org
Lack of Infrastructure Investment Dooms Albemarle’s Neighborhood Model
By, Neil Williamson, President
FORUM WATCH EDITORIAL
Almost thirty years ago, Albemarle County decided to attempt to focus population growth into 5% of its geographic area. On a philosophical level this policy makes perfect sense, put the population where it is most efficient to deliver government services. The promise was for a 5% bustling urban core surrounded by 95% natural beauty of (privately held) rural areas.
Albemarle Development Vision from Places29
Conceptually, the 5% development area was to develop with concurrent amenities and investments along with the development. The idea is for the smaller more compact home have access to amenities, employment and green space to make the development area home more attractive than a home on a couple of acres in the country.
As Charlottesville Tomorrow’s Sean Tubbs chronicled in a front page story in The Daily Progress this morning (5/1/18), Albemarle County has failed to build the infrastructure required to make the development area work. Further, they have done a poor job explaining to residents the need for development in the development area.
Sean Tubbs reports on two developments planned for the Pantops area that went before the Pantops Community Advisory Council:
Rita Krenz, a Pantops committee member who said she was speaking as a resident of the Overlook Condominiums, said there are big issues with the plan.
“I think I speak for my neighbors when I say traffic is a problem that is not going to go away,” she said. “It’s unwise to put more residential units on this side of [Free Bridge].”
Krenz said the property was zoned in 1980 and much has changed since that time. She said if Pantops develops simply according to the plan as it exists now, it will hurt efforts to use the Rivanna River as a pastoral setting.
At one time there was some momentum for appropriate concurrent infrastructure spending along side private sector investment.
From December 8, 2004 staff report:
At the Board of Supervisors strategic planning retreat in October 2003, the Board identified the County’s growth and urbanization as a critical issue and established a new strategic planning goal related to urbanization. At this year’s retreat, the Board continued its focus on growth and urbanization by providing direction to staff regarding the desire to pursue an “Urbanizing County” level of service for the County’s transportation and streetscape needs. For transportation needs, this level of service focuses on providing “essential link” transportation projects, minimizing the use of private streets, and continuing to rely on VDOT for street maintenance. For streetscape needs, it includes the County becoming more involved in the construction and maintenance of streetscape in development areas, as determined by master plans. For streetscape outside master planned areas, construction would be considered through the CIP process, based on the availability of funds. In both transportation and streetscape, the County would continue to expect development to provide a significant portion of the initial infrastructure. Emphasis added – nw
A funny thing happened on the way to Albemarle urbanization. Elements of the Neighborhood Model of development [which had been sold as “A” model not “The” model] became part of the Albemarle County code forcing developers to put in curb, gutter, street trees and other Neighborhood Model “amenities”. Developers built sidewalks interior to their development and Albemarle County has failed to connect the developments and thus failed to create the “walkability” they promised.
In November 2014, then Albemarle County Executive Tom Foley acknowledged the lack of planned transportation infrastructure investment:
Mr. Foley stated that the Board has set up specific funding in the Capital improvement Program (CIP) for master planned areas but that was for new developments. He stated that there was some money designated for interconnecting streets, but there has not been a focus on infrastructure funding for sidewalks and things in existing neighborhoods. Mr. Foley noted that the County never even got to the new areas due to limited capital funding
The vision of the Neighborhood Model was to have a variety of housing types and sizes as well as owned and rented properties intermingled to promote diversity. Interestingly, the residents don’t seem to be interested in this diversity of housing types.
Again from Sean Tubbs article:
“It’s [the proposed development] a mixture of one- and two-bedroom apartments,” said Trey Steigman, a vice president at MSC. “These are not condominiums but for-lease apartments.”
Steigman said he did not know what the rates would be, but they would at least be market rate. The one-bedroom units would have an average of 700 square feet and the two-bedroom units would average about 1,000 square feet. . .
…“Those units are tiny,” said one resident of the Overlook Condominiums. “Who can live in 700 square feet?”
The unasked question that is inferred by this inquiry is perhaps more insidious ‘Who would want to live near someone who wants to live in such a tiny space’. In addition, there is a palpable tension between owners and renters reflected in this discussion.
This is just the latest example of how Albemarle’s growth management (growth restrictive) policy is undermined by existing neighborhoods (often recently built) who oppose new development via the rezoning process. Most often the rationale for the opposition is the failure of Albemarle to meet existing resident expectations for services. The lack of political will to stand up for the concepts and aspiring density rhetoric in the Comprehensive Plan is disappointing.
Tipping Point? An interesting byproduct of the Growth Management Plan and Magisterial design – about the same time the development area was designated, the magisterial districts were redrawn so that every supervisor had a portion of the growth area in their district. With the level of development most districts are now population dominated by development area residents – mathematically speaking if you win Mill Creek and Glenmore neighborhoods, you win the Scottsville District. Will this new electoral reality result in super representation of the development area concerns stated above? Should it?
The Free Enterprise Forum does not believe the current development area reality comes close to the aspirational vision that was endorsed by the Development Initiative Steering Committee (DISC) or DISC II (AKA son of DISC).
Despite significant private sector investment in infrastructure (roads, water, sewer, parks, sidewalks, etc.), Albemarle County has failed to create the connective linkages between developments (and in existing neighborhoods) to make the community vision a reality.
Based on the comments from Pantops, it soon might be too late to ever catch up.
Respectfully Submitted,
Neil Williamson
Neil Williamson is the President of The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization covering the City of Charlottesville as well as Albemarle, Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson County.
Greene Planning Commission Approves 105 Apartments
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
A proposed affordable housing apartment project on US 29 in Ruckersville took a step forward Wednesday night.
The Mark-Dana Corporation came before Greene County’s Planning Commission on December 20th seeking a two-step approval – 1) rezone a tract of 8 acres in Ruckersville from B-2, Business to R-2 , Residential and 2) a Special Use Permit (SUP) to increase the density to allow 105 apartments to be built on the 8 acres. The current owners of the property are John and Wanda Melone of the Melone Family Trust. If the rezoning and SUP of the property are approved, the Melones plan on selling the property to the Mark-Dana Corporation to be developed.
Greene County Planner Stephanie Golon presented the rezoning application identifying the property as just south of the Blue Ridge Café and the Ruckersville Gallery antique store on Route 29 South. The 8 acres requesting to be rezoned sits to the west of 7 acres, both parcels owned by Melone Family Trust.
Golon mentioned that the parcel is located at the south end of the area identified as mixed use in the Comprehensive Plan. The feedback from the departments in Greene County did not have any concerns other than the school system – Superintendent Andrea Whitmarsh responded that the Ruckersville Elementary School was at capacity already and the addition of 105 apartments would add to the overcrowding. This is part of the school’s justification for expanding the school system.
The other main issue of the presentation is the Mark-Dana Corporation will be applying for financing through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Progam which will help provide affordable housing in Greene County. Under this financing program, units constructed must remain affordable for forty years past the date of occupancy.
David Koogler
David Koogler, chairman of the Mark-Dana Corporation, reviewed the project for the commission stating that the units will have a brick frontage, they will be three stories in height and there will be one, two and three bedroom apartments. Koogler explained that his parents started the business and they now have 23 properties with 15 of them in Virginia and the balance in Texas.
The hearing then moved to comments from the public which brought up several concerns – the project is barely cash positive with only 30 students estimated, another 2 students would cause the project to be cash negative. The other issue brought up was the demand on the water supply. The White Run project won’t be completed for five years after the apartment project is completed (2019 vs. 2024). However, Simon Fiscus Director of Skyline CAP spoke in favor of the project as a way to provide more low income housing for the county.
Commissioner Frank Morris brought up the question of how many housing units this parcel would allow by right. Planning Director Bart Svoboda answered that based on 8 acres it would accommodate 48 units. Commissioner William Saunders asked if the possible lack of water can be a reason to reject the rezoning request. Svoboda answered no, since there are EDU’s available.
Chairman Jay Willer brought up the fact that if this rezone to R-2 is approved it would be the first residential rezoning in the growth area of Ruckersville. The vote was then taken and was approved 4-1 with Commissioner Morris voting against the rezone.
With the rezoning approved, the commission turned to the Special Use Permit request to allow 105 apartment units on the eight acres, up from the 48 units allowed by right in R-2. Koogler added to Golon’s presentation about the number of new residents in the apartments. Koogler stated that historically some of the apartments are rented by residents already living within the county the apartments are constructed. Therefore the net increase which generates a need for additional resources from the county is less than the total number moving into the apartments.
In the SUP public hearing, again, the input from the pubic focused on the pressure on the school system. Inversely, Fiscus again stated the need for more affordable rental units. Morris brought up his concern about setting a precedent of going above the “by right” number of units per acre. McCloskey asked Svoboda if a condition of the SUP could be that it restricted the property to affordable housing. Svoboda answered that no, under state code, that type of restriction could not be applied to the property.
Willer asked Mr. Koogler one last question – how long does the restriction of the property last?. Koogler answered that the restriction lasts 40 years and stays even if the property is sold.
At that point the commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit to the Board of Supervisors.
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
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.
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.
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
Fluvanna Water Project Out To Bid
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
They said the day would never come.
On November 1st, 2017, Fluvanna County put the Zion Crossroads water and sewer project out to bid.
Decades of discussion have culminated in the supervisors advertising for bid the $11.9 million project.
The request for bid will be done in three parts. The pipes, the mechanical and the water tower are all in separate requests in hops of getting better bids by companies that would otherwise have to subcontract.
After the supervisors completed a series of motions, the room applauded as the long chapter of Fluvanna politics is nearing a close. The project is expected to take 18 months to construct.
Economic Development? Supervisors also initiated a rezoning process for an undisclosed business trying to relocate in the Zion Crossroads area. The project would be an investment of $8 to $10 million and bring about 40 jobs to the county. The business would be disclosed once the public hearings occur.
The property is currently zoned agricultural and is seeking an industrial zoning. The county is also working with the business to get a hookup to the aforementioned water project once water is flowing.
In other water news, after a closed meeting, the supervisors pledged $5,000 to Caroline County for proposed legal advice on fighting Aqua America’s proposed rate increases. Lake Monticello is served by Aqua. Caroline County has several subdivisions also served by Aqua, estimated at 30 percent of its population.
Caroline reached out to other home owners associations and locality governments for assistance in teaming together to fight against Aqua’s request. Caroline estimated the cost of legal advice and State Corporation Commission expert help at over $75,000.
Other presentations during the November 1st meeting included one from an official from Fluvanna Girls Softball League (FGSL). FGSL wanted the county to loan $25,000 to the private organization to field improvements at the Carysbrook field. Work included leveling the infield and outfield as well as replacing the backstop and adding an outfield fence.
The proposed loan was $25,000 paid over five years with 2 percent interest. Unfortunately, supervisors were briefed by the county attorney they have no legal authority to loan money to FGSL, a private organization. Because Carysbrook is county property, the county could construct the requested work and FGSL can voluntarily contribute to the county’s coffers.
Chris Fairchild, FGSL official, said even if the supervisors said they didn’t want to be paid back, FGSL wants to pay for the improvements. Supervisors and the parks and recreation department will work with FGSL to get work scheduled as previously planned.
Over the course of the last 15 years, FGSL has invested $168,000 in field improvements including construction of dugouts and concession stand.
Supervisors were briefed on preliminary budget projections of the Fluvanna County Public Schools system. Chuck Winkler, superintendent, is projecting a request of $2.2 million over last year’s budget.
That estimate included standards of quality changes that are partially funded by the state. He included the entire figure but noted if the state implemented, it would have a huge state budget implication. He said the likelihood of being passed was slim, but included it as a precaution.
Also in Winkler’s increase were pay raises and increase in health care costs. He also had additional money for technology improvements. He noted that if technology was funded again by Capital Improvement funds, it lowers the county’s per pupil spending.
The supervisors will next meet on November 15 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
Fluvanna Finances $8 Million for ZXR Water Project; Discusses Refinancing School Debt
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors have a tentatively agreed to finance the Zion Crossroads (ZXR) water project with $8 million of debt. The county was approved to finance up to $8.5 million through the Virginia Resource Authority.
The ZXR project is projected to cost $10.2 million. The county has $4 million in cash savings, most commonly called the fund balance. Supervisors debated how much they would feel comfortable financing between $6 million and $8 million and for how long.
“I would encourage you to go $8 [million],” said county administrator Steve Nichols.
Tony O’Brien
Tony O’Brien (Rivanna District) said, “The more flexibility we have in regards to the fund balance, the better.”
The county was advised by staff to go no more than 25 years on the bonds to avoid financing a project longer than the project’s replacement cycle. The estimated lifespan of the project is 50 years for the water tower, 15 to 20 years for mechanical parts and 70 to 80 years for the pipes.
“You should view this debt as an investment,” said O’Brien.
Don Weaver (Cunningham District) said, “It is definitely an investment.”
Also at the June 7 meeting, supervisors decided it will sit back and watch the market in regards to how to reinvest $58 million worth of bonds. In third quarter 2018, the school bonds will have about a 100-day span where money can be reinvested. The proceeds of the investments would be profit for the county.
“I don’t think you will make less [later] than you are going to make today,” said Patricia Eager (Palmyra District).
The county explored a float agreement where the county would now offer companies an opportunity to invest money when the chance arises in 2018. The companies would pay the county now for the opportunity later.
Another option is to buy state and local government series (SLGS) securities. However, the government regulates when those can be purchased. Currently SLGS securities are not allowed to be purchased but it is expected to open again.
As the opportunity to reinvest the bonds gets closer, the float agreement becomes less advantageous because companies would not be ‘betting’ on the market. Another issue with the float agreement is the county would pay fees which would take away maximum income.
If SLGS window is closed during the reinvestment period, the county could purchase treasury bonds for a similar rate.
“In other words, [by not doing anything now] we are taking a risk?” said Mozell Booker (Fork Union District).
Eager responded, “Not a very big risk.”
The county administration recent discovered a new ‘bed and breakfast’. Staff has discovered 20 to 25 homes are listed on popular sharing economy website airbnb, where owners can rent out spare rooms to strangers.
The state now allows localities to regulate this new type of lodging options. Many localities have had an adversarial relationship with airbnb because many owners are failing to pay lodging (and business) taxes. [Albemarle County is considering a new lodging tax and business tax ordinance this Wednesday]
However Fluvanna has no lodging taxes. County staff asked the supervisors for direction regarding the issue. Weaver found no issue if renting your own home was legal.
“Have you had any issues?” Weaver asked and received a no. “Then leave it alone.”
County attorney Fred Payne said, “I think [the market] is so new, it is still shaking down.”
Staff offered an opportunity to require airbnb hosts to register with the county. “I think it is a very fluid market,” said O’Brien.
Staff research and return to the board with opportunities or regulations.
The next Fluvanna Board of Supervisors meeting is June 21 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 Credit: Fluvanna County
Greene Supervisors Set 2018 Tax Rates
By. Brent Wilson, Field Officer
The good news for Greene County residents is on April 25th, the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved keeping their personal property tax rate steady for 2018 at $.775/$100.
The bad news is the tax bill is going up. According to County documents, due to increased assessments and other revenue, the county’s total budget is increasing by 5.22% ($61.267,707). The assessment increase alone creates “an effective tax increase” of $.055 per $100.
Supervisors Chair Michelle Flynn (Ruckersville) asked County Administrator John Barkley to review the process up to this point and she explained that approval of the budget will be on the agenda for the May 23rd meeting. Barkley started by thanking all of the counties departments, staff, managers and especially Finance Director Tracy Morris , Economic and Tourism Director Alan Yost and Planning Director/Zoning Administrator Bart Svoboda for their work on the budget.
Barkley outlined the process from the first meeting on March 7th, a workshop with the School Board, another workshop and the advertisement on the March 26th of the proposed rates. Funding for core services are being provided for, a solid foundation for the county’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to go forward has been established and the county is investing in cross-training of staff.
Barkley did address how the county will partially be funding the increased budget – property assessments have increased approximately 5% which will generate over $1.4 million of additional tax revenue to the county. In addition, drawing down of the Reserve Fund (currently at over $14 million) by $4,158,981 will balance the proposed budget.
This being a public hearing four residents addressed the supervisors.
School Board Chairperson Leah Paladino (Midway) thanked the board for working with the School Board through the joint work sessions during a period that has several significant increased expenditures before addressing additional staffing needs.
School Board Chair Leah Paladino
Virginia Retirement System (VRS) Increase $326,000
Health Insurance $548,000
2% Raise $481,570
Greene County Schools Superintendent Dr. Andrea Whitmarsh spoke in support of a request made during the meeting by the Jefferson Madison Regional Library to add 4 hours each week. Whitmarsh stated that many areas of the county are without internet service and the expanded hours will help students have internet access to help with their school work.
Bob and Joann Burkholder also spoke, both in support of the water impoundment project stating that work should continue.
All five supervisors expressed support of maintaining the tax rate and highlighted various areas that the county will benefit from the budget to be approved next month. Supervisor Dale Herring (At-Large) explained that 17 departments budgeted reductions while 13 departments requested no increase in their budget and that the increase in the budget is being driven by costs of the regional jail, health insurance and VRS costs being pushed to the county. The Board unanimously approved keeping the tax rate the same and the detailed budget will be reviewed at the May 23rd meeting.
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
Fluvanna Financing Fun
By. Bryan Rothamel, Field Officer
The Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors approved debt financing plan for Zion Crossroads water project at the April 19th meeting.
The project doesn’t have final design or numbers yet, but the possible funding source will be the Virginia Resource Authority (VRA).
The supervisors approved applying in the summer bond pool with the VRA. The application will be for $10 million, the latest estimated cost of the project. The deadline for the application is May 1.
The county should get a final design and cost in the next month. At that time, the supervisors can decide how much financing they want to use and amend the application. The county administrator recommends putting $4 million from the county’s cash balance to the project.
In regards to current county debt, the high school bonds have a window of about 100 days in the fourth quarter 2018 where $57 million can be reinvested. The county has two known options.
One option is to issue a ‘float agreement’ where the county contracts with an investment firm now at a locked in amount. The investment firm gives the county a set amount now with the hopes the firm can invest that money for a better return when the window opens.
If the county issued a float agreement right now, it is estimated it would bring in a $74,000 immediate payout. They could also ask for a specific amount and once a bid comes in at that price, accept it. The county can issue the float agreement at any time but as the window nears, firms will be less like to ‘bet’ high.
A second option is to purchase a state and local government series (SLGS) when the 100 day period occurs. The only issue is the SLGS are sometimes blocked to be purchased. Two years ago SLGS were not allowed to be purchased for most of the year.
Supervisors directed staff to ask more questions about possibilities to Raymond James, the county’s financial adviser.
At April 12th meeting, the supervisors approved the FY18 budget and tax rates on a 4-1 with Don Weaver (Cunningham District) dissenting.
The real estate tax rate is set at $0.907 per $100 assessed. The personal property stayed at $4.35 per $100. The business rates decreased in an effort to help local businesses.
Late changes to the budget included giving staff a 2 percent raise to start January 1, increasing the budget for county attorney, additional funds for the Sheriff’s Office and Earth Day hazardous waste collection. The supervisors also are using cash to purchase a new brush truck for emergency services.
More public was present at the meeting but overall the budget season had few county residents active in the process.
The supervisors will next meet on May 3 at 4 p.m. for a regular session. A work session on county projects, including the Zion Crossroads water project, is expected before the May 17 meeting.
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
