AGENDA DATE: 8/3/2016
TITLE:
Title
Proposed 2017 Legislative Priorities
BODY
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Consideration and approval of the proposed 2017 Legislative Priorities
ITEM TYPE: Regular Action Item
STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Kamptner and Blount
PRESENTER (S): Greg Kamptner
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY: Thomas C. Foley
BACKGROUND: Each year the Board considers and approves its legislative priorities and submits them to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC), the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), and the Virginia Municipal League (VML). Generally, the TJPDC’s legislative program incorporates the County’s legislative priorities. Other initiatives are sometimes added prior to the General Assembly session. This executive summary will provide an overview of the Board’s proposed 2017 Legislative Priorities (Attachment A).
STRATEGIC PLAN: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION: An overview of the County’s proposed 2017 Legislative Priorities is provided in the attached “Proposed 2017 Legislative Priorities” (Attachment A). The overview includes a summary of three new proposed “top priorities,” which are also set forth below, in addition to legislative positions and policy statements for ongoing priorities. Many of the 2017 legislative positions and policy statements have been carried forward from 2016.
Land Use and Growth Management
Priority: Initiate or support legislation to amend Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.4 by clarifying the phrases italicized below.
Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.4(C) provides that any proffer is unreasonable unless it addresses an impact that is specifically attributable to a proposed new residential development or other new residential use (collectively, “residential development”). In addition to the foregoing, a proffer addressing off-site impacts, including any cash proffer, will be unreasonable unless it addresses an impact to an offsite public facility, such that the new residential development creates a need, or an identifiable portion of a need, for one or more public facility improvements in excess of existing public facility capacity at the time of the rezoning or proffer condition amendment and the development receives a direct and material benefit from a proffer made with respect to any such public facility improvements. The phrase “specifically attributable” requires a level of certitude that may not be achievable in studies and therefore the validity of any proffer that may provide any benefit to the public that lives outside of the development is jeopardized. The phrase “in excess of existing public facility capacity” prohibits a locality from addressing the incremental impacts of development if there is existing capacity, and exposes the locality to applications to amend proffers as capacity changes over time, such as when schools are redistricted. The phrase “direct and material benefit” requires a level of certitude that may not be achievable in practical application and fails to acknowledge the lag time between the payment of a cash proffer and when the public facility for which the cash was contributed is constructed, thereby exposing the locality to a challenge to the validity of the proffer which, in turn, creates untenable uncertainty in ensuring that impacts are addressed. Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.4(D) provides that, in an action challenging the denial of a rezoning application or an amendment to an existing proffer, if the applicant “proves by a preponderance of the evidence that it refused or failed to submit an unreasonable proffer or proffer condition amendment that it has proven was suggested, requested, or required by the locality, the court must presume, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, that such refusal or failure was the controlling basis for the denial. With the uneven burden of proof in favor of the applicant, this provision allows an applicant to invalidate a proffer by providing evidence of the mere suggestion of an unreasonable proffer by any person at any level of local government. Therefore, amending Virginia Code § 15.2-2303.4 is necessary to provide more balanced and practical standards for determining whether a proffer is reasonable.
Equal Taxing Authority for Urban Counties
Priority: Initiate or support legislation granting urban counties taxing powers equal to those granted to cities, without decreasing, limiting, or changing city taxing authority.
Cities and counties have different authority to levy excise taxes on cigarettes, admissions, transient room rentals, and meals. Through their general taxing authority or by charter, cities have broad authority to levy these taxes, without caps and without the need to hold a referendum. Counties, to the contrary, cannot levy cigarette and admissions taxes. Counties may levy transient occupancy taxes subject to a restrictive cap and the requirement that the revenue generated be spent only for designated purposes. Many counties, including Albemarle County, are subject to a five percent cap and are required to spend all taxes in excess of two percent on tourism-related purposes. Lastly, counties may impose a food and beverage tax which is subject to a cap and, for all but a very limited number of counties, the tax may be established only if it is approved by the voters in a referendum. The distinction in taxing authority between cities and counties exists due to historical differences in the levels of services provided by cities (urban level) and counties (rural level). Urbanizing counties such as Albemarle County are facing increasing obligations and demands for services traditionally provided by cities. In addition, the State requires counties as well as cities to provide, deliver, and fund services in the areas of education, the environment, human services, and public safety, among others. The counties’ ongoing dependency on the real property tax to fund these services and facilities is likely to grow in a way that is commensurate with the needs of the respective counties. Dependency on the real property tax adversely affects those counties with tax-exempt property and those who have real property tax programs, such as land use valuation, that promote other policies of the State. Therefore, new local taxing authority for urbanized or urbanizing counties is necessary.
Of particular note to the Board, York County has proposed working cooperatively with other counties in support of legislation to amend the enabling authority for the meals tax.
Local Economic Revitalization Zones
Priority: Initiate or support legislation to adopt enabling authority that gives to counties the same powers cities have in Virginia Code § 15.2-1129.2, which would enable counties to create local economic revitalization zones.
The 2007 General Assembly granted cities the enabling authority to create local economic revitalization zones. Albemarle County and many other counties would benefit from the same tool in order to provide incentives and regulatory flexibility to private entities to purchase real property and interests in real property to assemble parcels for economic development. Incentives may include reducing permit fees and user fees, reducing any type of gross receipts tax, and waiving tax liens to facilitate the sale of property. Regulatory flexibility may include special zoning for the economic revitalization zone and other incentives established by ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT: The County’s legislative priorities seek to ensure that the State adequately funds its mandated responsibilities and does not jeopardize the County’s ability to effectively and efficiently implement the policies (including fiscal) and programs that it deems necessary. There are no specific, identifiable budget impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board review the 2017 Proposed Legislative Priorities (Attachment A), and recommend any additions it feels are appropriate, to be brought back at a later date as desired by the Board for submission to the TJPDC, VACo and VML.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - 2017 Proposed Legislative Priorities