Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-14 adj COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of County Executive 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5841 FAX (804) 9724060 December 8, 2000 The Honorable Emily Couric 25th Senatorial District P.O. Box 5462 Charlottesville, VA 22905 The Honorable Paul C. Harris House of Delegates - 58th District P. O. Box 1276 Charlottesville, VA 22902 The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres House of Delegates - 57th District 223 West Main Street Charlottesville, VA 22902-5055 Dear Senator Couric, Delegate Van Yahres, and Delegate Harris: Thank you again for agreeing to meet with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and staffto discuss legislative issues for the 2001 General Assembly. We look forward to meeting with you on December 14th at 1:30 p.m. in Room 331 on the third floor of the County Office Building. Attached please find a copy of the staff report that includes the 2001 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program. This will serve as a basis for our discussion. As indicated in the report, staff recommends that the Board request your sponsorship' and/or support for the following legislation: Sponsor enabling legislation to allow localities to loan money for historic preservation purposes. Albemarle County wishes to establish a revolving loan fund for historic preservation projects pursuant to its historic preservation plan. Support or co-patron legislation for Albemarle County to serve as Pilot jurisdiction in legislation sponsored by Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. (lib 1630). This legislation will enable localities to adopt ordinances to protect areas where the visual impact of buildings and development can be significant to the scenic attributes of the community. Sponsor budget amendment to reimburse alternative space costs for the Albemarle County Social Services Department. A completed budget amendment form will be available to the legiSlators at the December 14th meeting. The Honorable Emily Comic The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres The Honorable Paul C. Harris December 8, 2000 Page 2 Please feel flee to contact me at 296-5841 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Lori S. Spencer Executive Assistant LSS\ 00.007 A~ttachment CC: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Ms. Roxanne W. White, Assistant County Executive Mr. Larry W. Davis, County Attorney Mr. David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County's Legislative Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: TJPD's Legislative Program and requests for bill sponsorships STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Davis, Spencer, Blount AGENDA DATE: December 14, 2000 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: 'INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes The Thomas Jefferson Planning Distdct Commission (TJPDC) works with the Coun~ and other Planning district members each year to develop a legislative program for the General Assembly session. The 2001 TJPDC Legislative Program is attached and will form the basis of the county's discussions with-our local legislators, which will be held on December 14, 2000. DISCUSSION: The 2001 Legislative Program (Attachment 1) follows the same format as in prior years, with six broad categories of general policY and legislative requests and a section highlighting some of the most important issues. The County's major issues are included in the program as follows: TransPortation: ...- Support development and funding of the TransDominion Express with stops in Oak Ridge and Charlottesville and funding to study economic tie-ins to communities along the way. Support for relaxing state tranSportation standards to give localities more flexibility regarding road construction in neighborhoods and traffic calming measures. Comprehensive Services Act: Support for full funding of the state pool for Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) costs, with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need, calculated on a three-year rolling average. Further, the state should tap into allowable federal Medicaid dollars to the fullest extent possible and should allow local flexibility in the use of Medicaid and other funding sources to maximize the services provided through CSA. Recommendation includes support for a cap on local expenditures and the establishment of a contingency fund to help pay for high-cost, long- term cases. Tax Structure and Reform: Support for the General Assembly to broaden the revenue sources available to localities. Possible options include: ' ~ · Return of a portion of the income tax to localities, a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions, a local option income tax or a local Option sales tax. supPort for the General Assembly to not cap, rembve, or restrict any revenue sources, taxing authority or user fees available to localities, including the local tax for enhanced emergency telephone services (E911). Land Use and Growth Manaqement Support preserving existing authority for localities to regulate land use. Support for enabling legislation that would provide local govemments with variou~ land use tools to manage growth (such as impact fees, adequate public facilities ordinances, changes to VDOT road standards, and transfer and purchase of development rights). Support for legislation to enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts. Support for increase in state funding for land preservation and related measures to purchase and preserve open space and recreation lands, including directing the. b'ulk of any available federal funding to localities. Standards of Quality Funding Support for the state to fund its share of the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and the actual educational needs and practices employed by school divisions across the Commonwealth. Public Safety Support for the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) to stabilize employer contribution rates and reimburse localities for VRS costs for positions filled in excess of SOQ requirements~. Support for legislatiOn that will enable additional localities to install and oPerate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems. Health and Human Services Support for additional state funding for local social services facilities and for local departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services. Housing Support for state-enacted incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board discuss these legislative items at the December 14 meeting with the legislators and to request that they spons°r and/or support the following specific legislation related to those specific issues (in bold type) listed above: Sponsor enabling legislation to allow Albemarle County to establish a revolving loan fund for histodc preservation projects. (See Attachment 2 for Proposed Amendment to Virginia Code and Attachment 3 for Albemarle County's Position Statement.) Support or co-patron legislation for Albemarle County to serve as pilot jurisdiction in legislation that will be sponsored by Vincent F. Callahan, Jr. (HB 1630). This legislation will enable localities to adopt ordinances to protect historic landmarks and other areas including those where the visual impact of buildings and development can be significant to the scenic attributes of the community. Sponsor budget amendment to reimburse alternative space costs for the Albemarle County Social Services Department. (Enclosed as Attachment 4 is a fact sheet on this request. A completed budget amendment form will be available to the legislators at the December 14th meeting.) 00.262 ATTACHMENT 2001 Thomas'Jefferson'.Planning District Legislative Program Representing the Local Governments of: Albemarle County City of Charlottesville Fluvanna CoUnty Louisa County Nelson County December 2000 Thomas E. Payne, Chairman Nancy K. O'Brien, Executive Director David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison I TRANSPORTATION Legislative P osia'oW of TJP DCI 'CharlOttesville, and the Counties of Albe~rlei'Fl~vanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planmng D~strict and its member localities support development of a comprehensive statewide, mhlfi-modal transpoi-tation plan that recognizes diVerse transportation needs in urban, suburban and rural areas, and that is environmentally sound and promotes economic development. We appreciate the state's efforts this past year to enhance transportation funding and believe the state should establish additional revenues for Virginia's transportation infrastructure, including consideration of increases in state transportation-related taxes and fees, without heavy reliance on the general fund. ~ Background: The Virginia Transportation Act (VTA) o'f 2000 approved by the legislature and Governor this past spring adds and accelerates $3 billion for state transportation projects over the next six years. The General Assembly will continue to focus on transportation, as members have called for additional funding for this program th'at also gives legislators new authority in determining priority transportation. .projects. Concern also has been expressed this year with provisions in the VTA that would automatically transfer transportation revenues exceeding official forecasts into the Priority Transportation Fund. This could have the effect of reducing the amount of funds otherwise available for secondary roads. Meanwhile, the state's new six-year road building plan, the Virginia Transportation Development Plan, has been divided into two parts. One part lists projects that are in the planning stages or are being considered (a feasibility phase), while a second part lists projects that the state will finance and build (a capital improvement program phase). Recommendations: .' In addition to supporting additional state funding of Virginia's transportation infrastructure~ we also recommend the following items: 1) State transportation planning must be better coordinated and conform to local land use planning, especially in rapidly growing areas; 2) We support relaxing state standards to give localities more flexibility regarding road construction in neighborhoods and traffic calming measures; 3) State funding for public transportation capital and operating costs should be on par with the level of support for road construction and maintenance; and 4) We support development and funding of the TransDominion Express with stops at Oak Ridge and Charlottesville, and request funds to study economic tie-ins to communities along the way. We also support policies that encourage the increased use of railroads for the transport of freight, in order to enhance public safety, and to reduce the wear and tear on existing highways and the need for new road construction. COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and th. e coUnties'° f aiben~arle,'~ Fluvanna, '.,~ uisa~'~ ~telson ' The Plann!ng District and i~s member locaUaes support full fimding of the state pool for Comprehensive Services Act(CSA) costs, with allocations based` On realistic anticipated levels of need, calculated on a three-year rolling average. Further, the' state should tap into allowable federal Medicaid dollars to the fullest extent possible and should allow local flexibility in the use of Medicaid and other funding soUrces to maximize the services provided through CSA. Background: Since 1994 (two years after the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act), caseloads have increased an average of nine percent per year, while the average cost for serving each child has increased about six percent per year. Every year during that period, initial appropriations for CSA have not adequately accommodated growth in caseloads and costs. Shortfalls are likely to occur again in the current biennium, requiring significant additional state funding during the 2001 legislative session. Further, some localities have spent enormous amounts of money on severely disturbed children, whose treatment costs can exceed $150,000/year. In addition, despite legislative chari~es enacted this past year to give higher profile to family assessment and planning team recommendations, we remain concerned about judges making unilateral placements. The use of Medicaid dollars to offset state and local costs for residential and therapeutic foster care likely will not reach budgeted levels this biennium. Collection of less federal revenue than originally estimated also will require appropriation of additional state and local funds. Recommendations: through CSA and should establish a contingency fund to help pay for high-cost, long- .. term cases. We support increased state funds to defray local costs of administering CSA and for early intervention and prevention projects supported by the Comprehensive Services Act Trust Fund. Cooperation between the state and localities on CSA, we request that 1) state agencies collaborate and adopt common procedures and guidelines before instituting local administrative requirements, 2) state and local governments work together to ensure the greatest degree of coordination between Individual Education Plans and CSA service plans, and 3) the state allow local governments to use other funding sources such as state funds from the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act for CSA needs in order minimize the local dollars that are spent on CSA. Local governments also should be given the option of using Medicaid funds for case management but should not be responsible for the cost of any child eligible for Medicaid funds unless the local government has identified the child as CSA eligible. The state should cap local expenditures for a locality serving a child . .: TAX STRUCTURE AND REFORM Legislative poSition Of TJPDC, Charlot~esville, . and the" Countie~'~of Alb emari'e,· F'lUvdnn~ L6uiS a Cind NelsOn. The planfiing D~t~'and its member l°~ties believe ~th~'c~nerai AsSembly should broaden the revenue soUrces available to localities, rather than Capping, removing or restricting taxing authority or user fees. Should the legislature preemPt or remove loCal tax or revenue authority and sources, then loCalities must be provided replacement revenue that both produces the same level of revenue growth over time and is not subject to future state reductions. Background: The Planning District and its member localities recognize that financing government projects and programs should be a partners.hip between the state and localities. However, the level of support from the state is not keeping up with the demand for services. With our limited ability to raise funds, w~.'often are unable to meet services required by our residents and those mandated by the state and federal governments. The Commission on State and Local Tax Structure and the Senate Finance Committee, both of which are examining tax policy issues and possible reforms, have recognized this dilemma. However, this comes as state revenues are declining. The state budget assumes 5.5% revenue growth this year, yet through the first third of the fiscal year, growth was only 3.2%. If this trend continues, state revenues could fall over $400 million short of estimates. Also, the state general fund is faced with about $1.7 billion in costs for transportation projects and for reimbursing localities for the personal property tax, and potentially costly issues related to Internet taxation policies. Meanwhile, a consultant's report has revealed how localities would stand to benefit from the state sharing a portion of the income tax with localities. If 10% of income tax revenues was returned though a formula that considers a base amount, where taxpayers reside and where wages are earned, localities in our region would receive the following amounts: Charlottesville $5,387,097 Albemarle $12,843,857 Fluvanna $1,604,343 Louisa $2,027,089 Nelson $1,145,860 Recommendations: The state should broaden revenue sources available to localities in the form of the following possible options: a return of a portion of the income tax to localities, a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions, a local option income tax or a local option sales tax. The General Assembly should not cap, remove or restrict any revenue sources, taxing authority or user fees available to localities, including the local tax for enhanced emergency telephone service (E911). Also, the state must ensure that implementation of electric utility restructuring is revenue neutral to localities and that any necessary stopgap appropriations to adversely affected localities are fully funded. Finally, the state should oppose efforts to preempt the ability to tax electronic commerce sales. LAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of AI[~emarle. , 'FIU~annk6' LoUisa and Nelson The Pl~nnlng District and its member localities oppose any p.r.~mption or cir6Umvenfion of existing local huthiSrity to regul~ite lan.~d USe,'-as h'~ bden dOne in recent years through legislative'action. We also support enabling Iegislation that would provide local governments with various additional tools-(such as impact fees, adequate public facilities ordinances, changes to VDOT road standards, and transfer and purchase of development rights) to manage growth. Background: During the 1990's, various General Assembly actions reduced localities' authority to enforce their comprehensive plan or to regulate land use. These actions included vesting of proffered rezonings, finaI approvec[~site plans, and subdivision plats (1990), vesting of preliminary subdivision plats and si?,e.plans (1998), and removal of local government authority to ase special exceptions or use permits in residential districts (i999). Recent proposals would mandate a specific clustering plan for residential development and amend the Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) to allow local Z6hing ordinances to be superseded. Local governments had an opportunity th. is past year to express their growth-related frustrations and desires at public hearings hel~l by a state legislative committee, Further, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has established guidelines for construction of monopoles or towers on VDOT rights-of-way which appear to sidestep a 1999 Virginia Supreme Court decision that subjected such actions to local government review. In Washington, Congress is acting favorably on the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA), which would funnet additional funding to states for the preservation of open space and recreation lands. Recommendations: The General Assembly should preserve existing authority for "' localities to regulate land use, and should approve legislation to 1) preclude VDOT from" allowing the construction of commercial, mobile, and land-based telecommunications facilities, such as monopoles or towers, without prior approval of the affected locality's governing body; ~d 2) enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts. The legislature should increase state money for land preservation and related measures to purchase and Preserve open spaCe and recreation lands, including directing the bulk of any available federal funding to localities. Further, the General Assembly should resist legislation to mandate a specific plan for clustering residential development and to make changes to the Uniform Statewide Building Code that would override local zoning ordinances. STANDARDS OF QUALITY FUNDING Legislative Position of TJPDC, charlotteSVille,... and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, LoUisa and Nelson District and The Planning it~ member lOcalities support the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commi.qsion (JLARC) study of the proper role for' the state to share funding of education beyond the minimum state requirements. We believe the state should fund its share of the realistic COsts of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and the actual educational needs and practices employed by school divisions across the Commonwealth. Background: The state's interest in educational excellence is shared by our localities, and we believe that increased state funding for providing quality public education is a top priority. The JLARC study of education funding focuses on the discretionary dollars that localities spend above the amount required by the SOQ: As evidence of this strong local priority on areas such as teacher salaries, staffing ratios, facilities and technology, Virginia local governments annually spend $1.1 billion more on education than required bY the state. This represents 23% of total education expenditures. When local capital and debt services expenditures are added in, the figure jumps to 34% of total education expenditures. Localities also report that the revised Standards of Learning (SOL) and Standards of Accreditation (SOA) are driving local expenditures, since school divisions are striving to ensure that students and schools meet established testing pass rates when the SOA are fully implemented in 2007. Although we appreciate state efforts the past two years to funnel money to school construction, localities still face a backlog facility needs. Localities in Planning District have $100 million in estimated school construction and renovations on the books through the end of this fiscal year. Recommendations: The General Assembly should increase its share of responsibility for'.' funding the realistic costs of local prevailing educational practices and actual programming, including those related to implementing the SOL and SOA. The state also should increase funding for school construction costs and establish a permanent funding formula for the Virginia Public School Construction Grants and lottery proceeds programs. In addition, we support the following items: 1) that the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) stabilize employer contribution rates and reimburse localities for VRS costs for positions filled in excess of SOQ requirements; 2) that a mechanism for appealing the Local Composite Index (LCI) to the state be established; and 3)that funding for the at-risk four year olds program be increased, so that grants are available for 100%, rather than 60%, of those unserved children. · The' Planning District and its member localities recognize that. the prime respOnsibility for law enforcement, criminal justice activities, emergency medical care and fke services rests at the local level. However, these needs can be' met only with continued state and federal support. We support continued state funding for the HB 599 law enforcement program. · We support increased state funding to assist with the capital costs associated with establishing E911 services. · We support state assistance for programs that provide increased workforce training and substance abuse treatment for local jail inmates. · We support legislation to increase court fees to pay for courthouse maintenance, renovation and construction. These costs should not be .placed on the general population. · The state should pay 50% of the costs to construct regional jails and should also increase its share of the operational costs of such facilities. The state should not adopt language that would disallow exemptions from the federal prisoner offset. · .~ We oppose having the state assume the operation of local and regional j~ails. · We support continued increases in funding for services required under'the Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. · We support legislation that will enable additional localities to install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems. LOCAL GO VERNMENT STRUCTURE AND LA WS The Planning District and its member localities believe that since so many governmental .. actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities. · We support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by their citizens and to allow local governments to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships. · We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures, local government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees, matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance and procedures for adopting ordinances. · We oppose Virginia Freedom of Information Act provisions which further limit a local governing body's ability to meet in closed session or to confer privately with its counsel on probable litigation. We also oppose limiting the list of records currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA and requiring creation of customized computer records for commercial and other uses. ,, We support enabling legislation that authorizes localities to require contractors, as a condition of public contracts awarded through the proc.'urement process, to pay employees a living wage. · . We'oppose additional disclosure requirements on local governing bodies in land use proceedings. · '" ":.W&'suP~6r~ legislative Or budget action that reduces the 6osts to localities fOr". conducting electiOns.· ,.~ ~ - ., -,. '-:. ~. . The Planning District and its member localities recognize that special attention must be given to developing circumstances under which people,' especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the elderly, can achieve their full potential. In achieving this end, however, the limits of government must be recognized. The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and lo~aI agencies. · We oppose any changes in state funding or pol}cies that result in an increase of the local share of costs for human services, including changes that would require additional local contributions for indigent care. We oppose any new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding. · We support additional state fundin'g for local social services facilities and for local departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services. · We support state funding for local Disability Services Boards. · We support the state assuming 100% responsibility for funding the auxiliary grant program. · We support the expanded operation and enhancement of early intervention and prevention programs that can make a difference in children's lives, such as the Child -' Health Partnership and Healthy Families programs. .'~ · We support Virginia's welfare reform program and encourage efforts to promote family preservation and work requirements. We support initiatives and funding to help former VIEW participants maintain continuity in childcare and oppose any initiatives to shift traditional federal and state childcare administrative responsibility and costs to local governments. We support state efforts to expand access to education and training needed by welfare recipients to become employed and self-supporting. We also support a Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) plan that takes into account and fully funds state and local implementation and support services costs. HO USING The Planning District and its member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The state and local governments should work toward expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and Iow-income and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible. · We support renewed funding of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund from both the general fund and .VI-IDA. · 'W~ support state-e..nacted !ncen. tives that. encourage rehabilitation and preserVation of historic structures. ' ........ · In addressing the lack of input thatlocal governments have concerning housing issues, we support local government notice provisions for all proposed low and moderate income housing projects seeking federal tax credits, including VHDA. · We support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of existing housing and discourages new construction in close proximity to existing subsidized housing. ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The Planning District and its member localities are committed to the protection and enhancement of the environment. This commitment recognizes, however, the need to ichieve a proper balance between environmental regulation'and the socio-eco, nomic health of our communities. Environmental quality should be promoted through a comprehensive approach and address issues of air and water quality, solid waste management, protection of sensitive lands and sound land use policies. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the interjurisdicational nature of many environmental resources and adequate funding to match local efforts. · The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development. The state should undertake water supply planning which encompasses water conservation, a determination of needs and how they can be met, including emerging technologies. · The state should develop, with local government involvement, fair and objective criteria concerning corrective action for or closure of landfills. '4' ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Planning District and its member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies that closely link the goals of economic development and workforce development and that result in an increased standard of living for all residents. · The state needs to clarify its positions on growth and development by enhancing the state economic development plan to more clearly define the responsibilities of the state and of local governments. · We support development of the Economic DeveloPment Strategic Plan for the Commonwealth that includes new tools for local governments t° use in attracting economic dev61opment opportunities such as a capital pool to construct improvements for new or expanding businesses, tax increment financing, a grant or loan program dedicated to.enhancing local infrastructure systems and an expanded EnterPrise Zone Pr°gram.:' The state needs to recogmze the disparity m rewards of economic deVeloPment between the state and localities, as well as between ~host locality and sUrrounding'areas~ · 'We support additional funding for youth emploYment services through the Worlcforce Investment Act. · We support legislation that would allow localities within the Planning District to take part in regional industrial facility authorities. · We support additional funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to provide meaningful opportunities for regional projects to move forward. Fair and proportional funding should be provided to all regions of the state. ATTACHMENT 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO VIRGINIA CODE TITLE 1S.2, CHAPTER 9' ARTICLES A BILL to enact ff 1~.2- of the COde of ~rginia~ relab'ng to Loans for Preservab'on~ Rehab~litation or Repair of Historical ProPerty. 1. That § 15.2- § 15.2-__ Property . Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia' ~ of the Code of Virginia is enacted as follows: · Loans for Preservation, Rehabilitation or Repair of Historical The preservation of historical property i~a governmental function of concern to the .Commonwealth and is a public purpose for which public money may..be spent. Any locality may make loans of money appropriated from public funds to owners of historically significant property, as defined by the locality and under such terms and conditions as may be specified by the locality, for the purpose of preserving, rehabilitating or repairing such property. ATTACHMENT 3 ALBEMARLE COUNTY POSITION STATEMENT DELEGATE HOUSE BILL # Va. Code Title 15.2, Chapter 9, Article 5. A bill to enable localities to loan money to owners of historically significant property for the purpose of preserving, rehabilitating or repairing such property. Background: .. In Albemarle County, the Albemarle County Historic Pr(~servation Committee has concluded a comprehensive study of the County's historic resources and has prepared a Historic Preservation Plan for adoption by the County as part of its Comprehensive Plan. The Plan includes numerous strategies and proposals to preserve historic resources. One proposed incentive is to create a low interest revolving loan ~und to be used for rehabilitation and repair of historic properties identified under the~riteria set forth in the Plan. Problems Under Existing Law: There is no enabling authority for a locality to loan money to property owners to preserve historic properties. Although there is authority to loan money for other specific purposes (i.e. volunteer fire and rescue organizations, Virginia Code Section 15.2-954, or for Iow and moderate income housing, Virginia Code Section 15.2-958, as examples) there is no authority for a locality to directly loan money to assis.t property owners in the preservation of important historic resources. .. Benefits of Bi~l: This bill would enable a locality to use its local resources to assist in funding a comprehensive plan to preserve, rehabilitate or repair historic properties. Specifically, it would allow a locality to create a revolving fund loan program to be used as an incentive for property owners to undertake historic preservation efforts. ATTACHMENT 4 Albemarle County Office Space Budget Amendment 2001 General AssemblY Fact Sheet Albemarle County ha__s housed the Department of Social Services in the main County Office building since 1981. Prior to that time the County housed many of their departments in a variety of rental units in the community, including the Department of Social Services. Over the past ten years the County Office Building has become overcrowded with the growth in staff in all departments, including the Department of Social Services. The County has responded to this growth by moving federal programs out of the building, renovating storage areas to accommodate staffand renting office space for other departments. With increasing demands on the county office building space a decision was made by the County Executive to find other office space and move the Department out of the main County Office Building. Following is information about the decision to move the department into new rental space: * The department currently operates in 8, 053 square:feet of space for 87 staff; * The State Board of the Virginia Department of Social Services approved and supported the results of a study of Office Space in Local Departments of Social Services requested by the General Assembly and completed in 1996; , This study indicated a requirement of 21,750 square feet for Albemarle .staff based on an aggregate usable area of 250 s/f per person; * The study also indicated an allowable square footage cost of $19.35/sfinclusive of rent and utilities based on maximum cost at the time of the study adjusted for inflation, relocation and renovations;1 * The Virginia Department of Social Services State Board policy requires that local governments be reimbursed for office space and other administrative expenses at the rate of 80%; * The Virginia Department of Social Services has not been able to cover any increased office space costs since FY 1988 due to limited appropriations; -- · The County advertised for office space within a specified catchment area and reviewed nine properties for the department; · A Request for Proposals was issued per the Virginia Procurement Act for renovation of the office space to meet ADA and other requirements; · Requests for Proposals were also issued for a variety of telecommunications requirements in order to meet basic office functions for the department; · As a result of the telecommunications and space requirements as well as the available office space in the community, the County agreed to lease property at the rate of $15/s/f exclusive of utilities, insurance and maintenance. It is estimated that an additional $3 s/f is required for utilities, maintenance and insurance bringing the total square footage cost to $18 s/f.. This is well within the range, allowed by the Office Space Study. ~ Allowable square footage costs calculated as follows: Max allowable cost at the time of the study of $15.33 s/fx 6% inflation, relocation and renovation increases each year since 1996. The study actually calculated 7% increases each year. 2/07/00