Devolution's Impact on Fairfax Property Taxes

The Potomac Almanac today has an article, "Fairfax to Richmond: Do Us No Harm," discussing the issues in "devolution" of funding for the maintenance and repair of county roads as viewed by local legislators.  The article covers a variety of issues related to devolution, but the money quote (literally) is the following:

Tom Biesiadny, director of Fairfax County’s Department of Transportation, estimated that Fairfax County would have to make a one-time investment of up to $208 million to take local control of local roads, which would mean a property tax increase of about $479 for the average household.

 Click on the article title above for the very good full article.

Opinion: How Virginia can make ‘devolution’ work, John Cook, Washington Post, December 9, 2011

This well written and balanced opinion piece by Braddock District Supervisor John Cook explains how the prospect of "devolution" of local road responsibilities to counties can be made to work.   It begins:

As identified recently in The Post, the potential “devolution” of responsibility for local, or secondary, roads may headline the Virginia General Assembly’s agenda when it convenes in January. Local control of local roads is the system used by 47 states and by Virginia’s cities. The Fairfax County executive, staff and other leaders across the commonwealth all agree that this system has clear benefits in terms of increased responsiveness and meeting neighborhood needs.

I understand the trepidation of some county leaders to take on this responsibility [“Why road ‘devolution’ is a bad deal for Northern Virginia,” Local Opinions, Dec. 4]. Yet if it is done correctly (a big if), the devolution of secondary roads could bring positive change to Northern Virginia roadways. Here’s what is needed to make devolution work: . . .

Click here to read his ideas. 

The hard part of this will be for the General Assembly to give away the authority it has over local roads commensurate with the responsibility it is likely to pass on to Virginia's counties. 

"Whose Road is it Anyway?," Reston Connection, December 5, 2011

This excellent article by the Connection's Victoria Ross captures both sides of the transportation funding "devolution" debate going on between Richmond and the suburban northern Virginia counties.   The article begins:

State and local government officials agree that Fairfax County’s roads are in deplorable shape, but who should fix the problem has sparked a heated political debate.

On Dec.1, Fairfax County, along with Prince William and Loudoun Counties, issued a joint statement firmly opposing any hint of legislation from the Virginia General Assembly that would shift road maintenance responsibilities from the Commonwealth to counties, a process known as road devolution. . . .

. . .  County officials argue that devolution would lock in the state’s chronic underfunding of secondary roads, and county taxpayers would be on the hook for the cumulative effects of deficient maintenance measures when the big bills come due.

Photo courtesy of VDOT

This section of Hunter Mill Road in Reston was the first of six roads and bridges to re-open after being extensively damaged by Tropical Storm Lee on Sept. 8.

 The other side of the argument begins later:

But not everyone agrees that devolution is a problem.

"[Local control of local roads] is a great idea," said Del. Dave Albo (R-42), who has been a member of the House since 1994 and a key player in obtaining funding for road projects in his district, which covers Springfield and Lorton. "We would not have to ask Richmond which roads to get repaved. We could ask our county supervisors, who personally know which roads are in need of repair."

Albo said legislation, along with a reallocation of resources to pay for it, is likely this session. . . .

It is interesting that Del. Albo takes this position as his district is one of the areas hardest hit by the BRAC re-location to Fort Belvoir which will require much new road construction (largely state & federal funded) to accommodate the thousands of new workers commuting there daily.  Once, the roads are built, Fairfax County would be responsible for funding their repair under devolution.

As it stands now, the state has been giving very limited funding to counties for maintenance and repair of local roads--but counties don't have the authority to use their own funds (and presumably raise taxes) to pay for repairs.  And northern Virginia counties have been complaining loudly about it as they hear from their constituents.  A year ago, this led Fairfax County's Board of Supervisors to begin an initiative to look at changing its charter from a county to a city--which can spend its own money on road repairs--under the Virginia constitution.  Now Fairfax has joined other NoVa counties in opposing devolution and, of course, begging for more state money to repair local roads.  How quickly perspectives change when one is threatened with the prospect that they can no longer spend other peoples' money!

A clear longer term implication of devolution for area counties is that they will likely be less anxious to build new roads--or they will seek much stiffer proffers from developers--because they will be stuck with the much higher long-term cost of maintaining those that they create.  The alternative is to raise local taxes to cover road repair costs--or end up with even worse roads than we have now.  And the building of fewer roads could mean less development generally, unless Fairfax and its neighboring counties can figure out how to make public transit really serve their constituents.

. . . and more public transit in Reston linked to its coming Silver Line stations would be a good thing.

There is much more in the Connection article, which you can read by clicking here.

Opinion: Transportation: Secondary thoughts, Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 6, 2011

The opinion piece in the Richmond Times-Dispatch provides an important historical perspective as well as a look at both sides of the issue of "devolution" of road maintenance funding to counties.  It adds a valuable complement to the letter by the area's three Board of Supervisors chairmen that devolution is a bad idea.   Here is the crux of the discussion:

Large suburbanized counties (like Fairfax) have the bulk of such roads and would bear the brunt of devolution, a proposal they would consider an unfunded mandate. Chesterfield, for instance, would need to come up with more than $10 million a year.

To state officials, however, the current arrangement looks like an unfunded mandate that leaves Richmond on the hook for maintaining roads it had no say in creating. The system dates back to the Great Depression, when the General Assembly adopted the Byrd Road Act to take fiscal pressure off struggling rural counties — counties that are, in much of the state, now all grown up.

Interestingly, in mid-2010, at an offsite "committee of the whole," the Fairfax County Supervisors began an initiative to look at the option of changing its state charter status from county to city, precisely so it could fund local road maintenance because the state was not providing adequate funding. 

Right now, while the state is not funding road maintenance adequately, it denies the counties the right to do so.  Devolution would give the counties the right (actually, the obligation) to maintain the roads they build.  So, if the state is not funding road maintenance for budget reasons, why is Fairfax County (& others) objecting to being given the right to fund maintenance for the roads they built?  Obviously, no local politician wants to take on a responsibility that will mean raising taxes.

Click here to read the rest of the opinion piece.