Stewart: County ‘sold a pig in a poke’

By Cheryl Chumley

Published: July 30, 2008

To say Prince William supervisors are dissatisfied with the General Assembly's treatment of transportation would be an understatement.

"It's criminal," said Chairman Corey Stewart, R-at large, at the board's July 22 meeting, in reference first to the General Assembly's passage of a measure that unlawfully gave the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority taxing authority, and then to the members' approval for a transportation impact fee bill that turns out to be less than helpful on the local level.

"They knew or should have known that was unconstitutional," he continued, of the NVTA issue. "Now this too [impact fee measure] turns out to be a colossal flop and I think they knew it too."

The "flop," of which Stewart spoke, was the enabling legislation that gave Prince William authority to create an impact fee system for transportation uses—the same type of authority "all of us on this board have pushed for" at the state level for years, he said.

"I think we've been sold a pig in the poke again by the General Assembly," he said.

Section 15.2-2317 of state code, according to background documents for the board, gives authority for local governments to assess fees in established Impact Fee Service Areas, "with clearly defined boundaries" that are set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.

The problem with adopting an impact fee system now, county executive Craig Gerhart said, is that construction is down but the fees are based on planned construction projects. In effect, then, the legislation works at cross-purposes to current market climates, and to county growth desires.

"We can only base those fees on projects we plan to construct," he said. "If we don't build, we have to give the money away [to VDOT] at the end of 15 years."

So one question is whether impact fees would yield the county greater benefits in terms of transportation than the current proffer system.

According to consultants at the board meeting who were hired to help assess the feasibility of the plan, the impact fee authority is more a tool for growth than a means of raising revenue. As such, staff and consultants suggested supervisors shy away from implementation.

"This is pretty disappointing," Supervisor Mike May, R-Occoquan, said at the meeting. And in a follow-up telephone interview, he added that the "authority is only useful if the county has a robust road building program … We don't want to be put in the position where we collect fees but can't apply them anywhere" because there's no money for road projects.

At the meeting, supervisors took no formal action on the impact fee issue, but did agree to send a letter to members of the General Assembly expressing dissatisfaction with the plan, and perhaps offering suggestions to strengthen the revenue-raising potential of the fee system.

Staff writer Cheryl Chumley can be reached at 703-670-1907.