At last week’s Board of Supervisors’ meeting, County Administrator Greg Wolfrey delivered a simple prediction of Goochland’s economic future: “It’s going to be tough, gentlemen.”

“I want to keep you up-to-date on how serious the financial situation is,” said Wolfrey. “The state is forecasting four quarters of bad news for the Commonwealth.”

How bad is that news? Well, the county administrator noted that the Virginia Senate Finance Committee has “sent signals that state funding for public schools, and health and human services, will be cut in 2010.”

Wolfrey added that the state’s budget shortfall could end up totaling 3.2 to 3.5 billion, a billion dollars more than expected.

“Serious action is needed at the General Assembly,” he said. He would like to see that action include a serious look at the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA).

According to the Virginia Department of Taxation, the PPTRA offers the following relief: “Vehicles qualified for tax relief are noted on your tax bill and show a reduction for the portion of the tax the Commonwealth will pay. For qualified vehicles, your tax bill is reduced by the applicable tax relief percentage for the tax year on the first $20,000.00 of assessed value.”

Wolfrey advised the supervisors to keep an eye on that bill, since the county receives 68 percent of its personal property funds locally, with only 32 percent coming from the state.

“What does that say?” asked Wolfrey. “That says that most of our residents seem to have more expensive cars than $20,000, we have to make up the difference.”

“Our growth is not going to be from personal property,” he added.

The good news is that sales tax revenue has remained steady.

In the meantime, Wolfrey said that Goochland is limiting costs by parking county vehicles overnight in county lots, so that employees will drive to and from work and placing a hiring freeze on new positions; and is considering a reduction of the workforce through attrition; limiting travel and education expenses; and postponing equipment purchases.

And when it comes to raises next year for county employees, Wolfrey said, “My rule of thumb is we’re not even approaching that, employees get the same salaries for next year.”

He advocates such examples of flat-funding across the board, explaining that, “level funding is giving the same amount of local funds to each department each year. Say the school board got $20 million and some change last year, that would be what I would recommend for next year.”

And he suggested that the county invest only in essential capital improvement projects. “This is not the time to get into debt, gentlemen.”

Schools respond to budget challenges
At last month’s meeting, District 5 supervisor Jim Eads protested the school board’s requests for category transfers in the school’s 2008-09 budget. However, last week, after receiving further details from Superintendent Linda Underwood, he moved to approve the transfer of $20,000 from instruction to maintenance and $20,000 from instruction to transportation.

Underwood explained that the request was due to unforeseen costs, including rising electricity and fuel expenses.

“It’s certainly no big deal, over $20, 000,” said Eads. “It’s just the fact that I would think the last place you want to take money out of a category would be instruction.”

Eads thanked Underwood and the School Board for providing financial documents, including lists of salaries by category, to the Board of Supervisors prior to the meeting.

He then asked why the School Board chose to transfer funds from instruction rather than administration.

“When we do hiring from year to year, there is always a difference between the person who vacated the position, or what we envisioned a new person’s salary would be, so that’s where we have the most flexibility, simply because there are so many people in instruction,” said Underwood. “The other (categories) are budgeted tight, because they’re more predictable.”

The motion to approve the category transfer passed unanimously.

Responding to Wolfrey’s earlier comments regarding the current financial challenges, Underwood said, “I think Mr. Wolfrey and I read the same news feeds.”

The superintendent said that she has received permission from the school board to delay approval of the proposed budget until after she attends a meeting at the governor’s office on Dec. 17.

“We’re hoping he will give some indication on two things,” she said. “First, are we going to escape, unscathed, the second part of this year, that’s still hanging over our head—they could decide not to send the basic state aid that we’re counting on in this year’s budget. And second, what they will do with next year’s basic state aid funding. Six weeks ago, we were probably looking at a 10 percent decrease in basic state aid across the board. Last week they were talking about 15 percent, by Friday they were talking about 20 percent.”

Underwood said that the school board will look at the budget for final approval on Dec. 23.

Quick hits

2009 Reassessment
The County Administrator said that the 2009 reassessment, which is currently 96 percent complete, indicates that assessments are up 2.5 percent over 2008. About 11 percent of properties will be reduced, 25 percent will not change and 64 percent will increase. There have been 24 foreclosures in the county in 2008, compared to 13 in 2007, and property transfers are down 31 percent from 2007. Reassessment notices are scheduled to be mailed to property owners Jan. 15, 2009.

Economic Development
According to the Department of Economic Development, no layoffs are anticipated by either of Goochland’s two largest employers, the Virginia Farm Bureau and Performance Food Group. While unemployment in the county is typically around 2.5 percent, it currently stands at 3.5 percent.

Communications tower
An application filed by National Communication Towers, LLC, requesting a conditional use permit to construct and operate a wireless communications tower was unanimously approved. The tower will be constructed on the west side of Marle Road near its intersection with Old Columbia Road in the Byrd Magisterial District.

Alvas Rezoning/A-R District
The Board considered a request by George Alvas to adopt a draft ordinance that would set up a special zoning district for a tract of property he owns on the south side of Broad Street.

Through his attorney, Darvin Satterwhite, Alvas claims that, after rezoning his property from A-2 to R-R in 1989, he believed that he would be able to later sell the property under 1989 provisions. However, a memo from the Community Development Planning Staff, dated Nov. 19, 2008, states that there is no present zoning category that provides for the lot sizes and density that existed in 1989.

Butler said of Alvas’ past dealings with the county,  “I always say if the government makes a mistake, we have to be man enough to say, hey, we made one, might have been a lot of misunderstandings between him and staff, I’m sure that can happen, let it go through the process.”

County Attorney Andrew McRoberts said, in response to the question of the proposed ordinance being considered an example of illegal spot zoning, “An illegal spot zoning occurs when the purpose of a zoning ordinance or a zoning amendment is solely to serve the private interest of one or more landowners rather than to further a locality’s welfare as part of an overall zoning plan that may have a concurrent benefit to private interest.”

He added, “I did not see there had been a wrong by the county to Mr. Alvas. Second, based on my commuication with county staff, this is in no way compliant with the county’s overall zoning plan.”

Supervisor Jim Eads said of the A-R District, “First off, I think it’s illegal, and second off, I think it’s bad government.”

Chairman William Quarles said, “The only thing from the Chair’s standpoint is that our county attorney has indicated we are treading on some slightly thin ice, if you will, from the standpoint of spot zoning and that type of thing—in treating one, or a couple, of groups more than you would treat the other.”

Quarles added, “It’s very important for us to ensure that when our process is maintained that we can be consistent with everyone.”

Butler made a motion to move forward with the A-R District. Supervisors Butler and Ned Creasey voted for the motion; Supervisors Andrew Pryor, Quarles and Eads voted against it.