Loading...
11-20-2006 Minutes BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MINUTES November 20, 2006 Supervisors in Attendance: Mr. R. M. "Dickie" King, Jr., Chairman Mr. Kelly E. Miller, Vice Chrm. Mrs. Renny Bush Humphrey Mr. Donald D. Sowder Mr. Arthur S. Warren Mr. Lane B. Ramsey Staff in Attendance: Mr. Allan Carmody, Dir., Budget and Management Ms. Marilyn Cole, Asst. County Administrator Ms. Mary Ann Curtin, Dir., Intergovertl. Relations Mr. Jonathan Davis, Dir., Real Estate Assessments County Administrator Ms. Rebecca Dickson, Dep. County Administrator for Human Services Ms. Lisa Elko, CMC, Clerk Mr. Donald Kappel, Dir., Public Affairs Mr. R. John McCracken, Dir., Transportation Mr. Steven L. Micas, County Attorney Mr. James J. L. Stegmaier, Deputy Co. Admin., Management Services Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr., Deputy Co. Admin., Community Development Mr. Kirk Turner, Dir., Planning Mr. King called the adjourned meeting to order at 10:10 a.m. He stated the purpose of this transportation summit is for the Board members to receive reports from staff to assist them in solving transportation issues in the county. Mr. King led the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. Mr. Miller gave the invocation. Mr. King introduced Mr. Donald Sowder, newly elected Midlothian District Supervisor. He also recognized Delegate Katherine Waddell, Planning Commission members Jack Wilson, Dan Gecker and Sherman Litton, and former Board member Joan Girone, who were present at the meeting. He stated a 30- minute public comment session will be held at the end of the meeting. - Mr. Ramsey provided details of the state of the county's transportation system. He reviewed potential state and federal funding from 2006-2025 for road construction and maintenance and expressed concerns that no state construction funds will be available by 2018. He reviewed typical road 06-996 11/20/06 ( construction costs in 1992 and 2006 and expressed concerns relative to inflation i~ road construction costs. He reviewed secondary road allocations from 1983-2010 and interstate primary road allocations from FY1996 to FY2011. He called forward Mr. McCracken to discuss road needs in the county.. Mr. McCracken stated a 2004 analysis of traffic data indicated that there are approximately $1 billion in transport.ation needs that need to be addressed today using desirable standards, or $600 million using minimum standards. He reviE~wed anticipated future needs and stated this represents a significant challenge. He then reviewed the county's efforts to address transportation needs, including the Routl= 360 widening project; Route 10 widening project; Robious Road cash proffer project; Bailey Bridge Road safety improvem€!ll t proj ect ; and the Ma toaca IWoodpecker Roads intersE~ction project. He provided details of the county's history of supporting tran:3portation. Discussion ensued relative to the future of state funding for maintenance of existing roads. Mr. WarrEm expressed concerns that VDOT is not doing well in ei ther the construction or maintenance areas. He inquired about the possibility of a class-action lawsui t to require VDOT to maintain state roads. He expressed concerns that very little new construction funding is provided to Central Virginia. He stated the county should be pushing for funding of road maintenance, indicating that he believes these funds should be uniformly allocated throughout the state, not just focusing on the areas with the greatest future transportation needs.. .......... Mr. King stated Chesterfie:ld is much better prepared to deal with the lack of state funding than many other localities in the statE!. Mr. Ramsey stated the county has been the most aggressive locali ty in taking measures to address its transportation issues.. He then reviewed the first existing funding option for additional road revenue - lifting the BPOL revenue cap and dedicating all new BPOL revenue in the future to transportation funding. He noted the county currently has the lowest BPOL rates in Central Virginia. He stated, in addition, a proposal has been made to the Board to dedicate $100,000 per year, building up to a $500,000 annual amount, to create business incentives. Mr. King lowering the most stated it was initially the Board's mission the BPOL tax to abolish what was considered one unfair taxes, not just to be competitive. in of Mr. Ramsl=y provided a comparison of the county's BPOL tax rates with other jurisdictions in the state. - Mr. Warren noted that the BPOL tax has nearly been eliminated, since 77 percent of county businesses paid $10 or less in BPOL tax in 2005. Mr. Ramsey stated, if the Board were to approve this funding option, the BPOL tax rates would still be evaluated annually. 06-997 11/20/06 Mr. Sowder stated he thinks it is important that the Board focus on not taking action to relieve the state's responsibility for providing and maintaining roads. He further stated it is good to see that Chesterfield is well below the competition on BPOL revenue, indicating that Chesterfield is desperate for business development, and any action that would have an impact on new or existing businesses would not be in the county's best interest. - Mr. Ramsey reviewed the second funding option - dedicating one cent of the real estate tax revenue in the FYOB budget to transportation with the goal of increasing that over five years to five cents. Mr. Warren stated he thinks this is an excellent idea, as long as the Board does not mislead the public into believing that the real estate tax rate will be increased. Mr. King stated Board members had indicated that they wanted to reduce the real estate tax rate by two cents in FY08, noting that he hopes to provide the largest real estate tax rate reduction possible, as well as set aside one cent of the real estate tax revenue to address transportation needs. Mr. Ramsey reviewed funding option three creation of transportation service districts for major "non/special proffer" developments. He provided details of how transportation service districts would work in combination with other funding options. There was brief discussion relative to requirements for accepting roads into the state system. Mr. Ramsey provided examples of potential transportation service districts for Woolridge Road to address transportation issues on Woolridge and Otterdale Roads, and for Magnolia Green, to assist with the extension of powhite Parkway and replace the cash proffer that was not allowed when the development was approved. Mr. King requested a ten-minute recess. Reconvening: Mr. King requested that anyone wishing to speak during the public comment time sign up to do so. - Mr. Ramsey reviewed the Board's policy regarding the fourth funding option for additional road revenue Community Development Authorities. He provided details of the Watkins Centre CDA, which was created to ensure the adequate flow of traffic around the Watkins Centre interchange. Discussion ensued relative to cost savings when developers construct roads rather than government entities and CDAs used by other jurisdictions in the state for various projects. Mr. Ramsey reviewed funding option five - road cash proffer revenue. He provided details of various Board options for the maximum cash proffer and noted that this issue will be discussed at the December 13, 2006 Board meeting. He stated 06-998 11/20/06 -rl staff believes revenue source He called Mr. option. cash proffE!rs will become a more significant as non-cash proffer lots have been developed. Micas forward to discuss the next funding Mr. Micas reviewed funding option six adoption of a subdivision road proffer ordinance. He provided details of potent~ial revenue from this funding source. In response to Mr. King's question, Mr. Micas stated imposition of a subdivision road proffer ordinance would impact: the lots in Magnolia Green that have not: yet received subdivision approval. Mr. Ramsey reviewed funding option seven future bond referenda and funding option eight PPTA/tolls for the powhi te Parkway Extension. He stressed the importance of extending the powhite Parkway as additional development occurs in the county. He noted two entities are currently putting together PPTA proposals for the extension of powhite Parkway. In response to Mr. MillE!r' s questions, Mr. Ramsey stated staff sees the powhi te Parkway Extension as a necessi ty to addressing the county's transportation needs. He further stated the Board has the authority to create toll road authori ties, but it would be much easier for the state to extend powhite Parkway. Mr. Warren stated he agr,ees that a VDOT approach for the Powhit:E~ Parkway Extension is more reasonable. Concerns were expressed relative to involvement of the Richmond Metropolitan Authority in the extension of powhite Parkway. ,---"" Mr. Ramsey reviewed funding option 9 - increased subdivision road design standards, noting that this option would increase the cost of development. He then provided details of cumulative new revenue from the nine existing funding options over the next ten years and potential funding options that the Board does not currently have the authority to implement. Discussion ensued relative to the probability of General Assembly approval of any of the potential funding options. Mr. Miller stressed that the county should continue to try to obtain state funding for its transportation needs. Mrs. Humphrey stated it is obvious that transportation should be a consistent component of future bond referendums. She further stated the Board must take a long-term approach to funding the county's transportation needs. Mr. Ra.msey stated staff is very clear about the Board's position regarding a real estate tax reduction, indicating that nonE~ of the funding options presented will impact a tax reduction. -. It was generally agreed that the Board recess for lunch. Reconvening: 06-999 11/20/06 Mr. King stated he thinks it will public comment period to be heard discussion of its next steps. be bet ter prior to to move the the Board's - Ms. Curtin presented an overview of potential General Assembly changes for meeting transportation needs. She stated approximately $339 million will be appropriated from the state budget for transportation projects, indicating that it is extremely unlikely that any of the funding will be provided to the Central Virginia area. Mr. King requested that the public comment period be held at this time. Mr. Albert Meyer expressed concerns relative to lifting the cap on the BPOL tax, indicating that it is an unjust tax. He requested that the Board not consider transportation funding from the BPOL tax. Mr. William Shewmake stated he thinks the Board should take a strong look at the use of CDAs for funding of infrastructure needs. He further stated private industry can build roads at a fraction of cost of government entities. He stated, in his opinion, the cash proffer system is broken. He further stated new urbanism development is perfect for a CDA. He stated CDAs do not impact the county's bond rating if they are properly structured. Mr. Tyler Craddock, representing the Homebuilders Association of Richmond, commended the county for stepping up to address its transportation needs. He stated he supports the use of real estate tax revenue, transportation service districts, CDAs and increased revenue sharing to address transportation issues. He expressed concerns relative to affordable housing and stated he does not support a cash proffer system in any form or increased subdivision road design standards. Mr. Ken Powell, with the investment banking firm Stone and Youngberg, which has been responsible for 80 percent of the CDA bonds that have been issued in Virginia, applauded the county for facing this difficult issue. He provided details of CDA financing and urged the Board to consider CDA tools because they are effective forms of finance and land use planning. He then discussed the benefits of CDAs. - Ms. Shelly Schuetz expressed concerns relative to decisions made by the county that increase transportation costs. She stated corporate businesses are not increasing to generate revenue; real estate assessments continue to rise; and schools are being built to alleviate overcrowding for only one or two years before overcrowding occurs again. She expressed concerns that the Police Department has requested that developers submit a security plan for multi-family residential development because of its inability to meet the demand for calls in these developments. She stated she is disappointed that none of the School Board members are present, recognizing the impact of schools on the county's transportation needs. She expressed concerns that the location of schools increases transportation costs. She stated the development community is doing a tremendous job to meet the needs of residents and encouraged the Board to consider the use of CDAs to meet the needs of county residents. 06-1000 11/20/06 II Mr. Cliff Bickford, reprE!senting the Chesterfield Business Council, stated the Council is prepared to work with the Board and the state to address transportation needs. Discussion ensued relative to the impact of CDAs on the county's bond rating. In response to Mr. King's question, Mr. Powell stated the CDA statute was adopted in 1990 and amended several years later, and the first bonds were issued in 1998. He provided details of localities in the state that have used CDAs and those that are considering the use of CDAs to fund various projects. In response to Mr. Sowder's question, Mr. Powell stated CDAs have been used across the country primarily for residential developments. He further stated CDAs should be used in transformative situations to create a new county purpose for the use of CDA bonds, indicating that CDAs are planning, land use and financing tools. Mrs. Humphrey stated she likes what she is hearing about CDAs and would like to discuss this further with Mr. Shewmake and Budget staff as it relates to the Roseland development. Mr. Shewmake stated CDAs are incredibly effective land use tools designed ideally for mixed communi ties, provide for infrastructure up front, and will help the county manage its growth. Mr. Ramsey cautioned the Board about the use of CDAs for residential development in the county, particularly when tax incremEmt financing is incorporated. He then provided the Board with a list of items for consideration at public meetin9s and discussion ensued relative to the available fundin9 options. Mr. King stated, assuming that real estate assessments will substantially increase, he wants to provide a more than two- cent real estate tax reduction, in addition to dedicating one cent of the real estate tax revenue to transportation. He further stated he would also like to pursue PPTA funding options for the powhite Parkway Extension. Mrs. Humphrey concurred wi t:h pursuing PPTA funding options. Mr. King expressed concerns relative to issues that will arise with the BRAC expansion. He stated, when looking at CDAs, the Board should look at road improvements outside of subdivisions that all citizens use, not just internal roads. Mrs. Humphrey requested that staff expand the discussion of transportation service districts in the Magnolia Green/ Western Chesterfield area with a proposal that would combine both the Magnolia Green and Woolridge/Otterdale Road projects in a transportation service district in that high-growth area of the county. .--.- Mr. Miller stated he would like to see each of the existing fundin9 options explored. He further stated the county must be aggressive in addressing its transportation needs. 06-1001 11/20/06 Mr. Warren stated he does not think the Board should let VDOT off the hook for its ultimate responsibility for road maintenance and construction in the county. He further stated he is glad that all Board members are in agreement with reducing the real estate tax rate. He stated he agrees with Mr. Miller that all of the funding options should remain on the table. ....--. Mr. Sowder stated he agrees that VDOT should not be let off the hook. He further stated, although the county's BPOL tax rates are at the lower end of the scale, he believes it is critical for the county to take care of its current businesses and do everything possible to attract new businesses and cautioned the Board to be careful and not do anything to discourage new businesses. He stated he sees CDAs as a great possibility, used in a limited sense, but weighing it with the caution from Mr. Ramsey. He suggested that the Board look positively at what can be done for the community. Mrs. Humphrey stated she agrees that all existing funding options should remain on the table for further review. Mr. Ramsey expressed appreciation to Mr. McCracken and his staff and Mr. Carmody and his staff for their efforts in developing this presentation. He commended the Board for having the best interest of the county in mind. .- Mr. King thanked Board members for their participation in the summit. He stated it has been a challenging year, with the top three priorities being education, transportation and public safety. He further stated everyone agrees that action must be taken to address transportation needs for the future of Chesterfield County. He stated he has never liked cash proffers, but will look at the big picture of addressing transportation needs when discussing this issue in December. He further stated he has supported the business community in every way possible and pleaded to the business community that the county's transportation issues cannot be addressed without taking a piece of the pie from everybody, noting that people must travel county roads to get to the businesses. He directed Mr. Ramsey to bring all of the existing funding options to the Board for consideration, as well as any additional funding options that may be suggested by the public. ADJOURNMENT On motion of Mrs. Humphrey, seconded by Mr. Warren, the Board adjourned at 2:36 p.m. until November 21, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. - Ayes: King, Miller, Humphrey, Sowder and Warren. Nays: None. \ ~I.( I)) ;1;1'))1// Lane/B. Ramsey / County Administrato / \"\ r. :\\ . l^:~~~ " "*,"'.~ R. M. "Dickie" Chairman 06-1002 11/20/06