City to submit draft measures to Assembly

Charlottesville officials are seeking the authority to impose taxes or raise assessments on specific property owners when the city buries utilities, so those only directly affected from the improvements would pay the extra cost.

The request is one of many in the city’s draft 2009 legislative package, a document submitted to elected officials in the General Assembly before its session begins next year.

Other requests include designating a portion of the Rivanna River between the base of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir dam to the site of the former Woolen Mills dam as a state scenic river; getting enabling legislation to create a regional transit authority and the ability to levy the sales tax; and legislation to allow the city to make homeowner loans to finance clean energy improvements.

The City Council approved the requests during its Monday meeting.

The proposed amendment to the Virginia Code would allow the utility burying costs to be assessed either through an agreement with the affected property owners or by a two-thirds vote — which, with City Council, is a minimum vote of 4-1. Only two other Virginia cities have such an authority regarding utility lines — Williamsburg and Poquoson — though Charlottesville can already impose similar taxes for other infrastructure upgrades, including sidewalk improvements, paving and stormwater management.

“We’ve used that authority before,” said City Attorney Craig Brown, referring to the aforementioned upgrades.

City spokes-man Ric Barrick said the request, which was brought forward by Charlottes-ville’s Depart-ment of Economic Development, would target commercial properties more than residential areas.

“We view it as primarily, and probably exclusively, for use for commercial development and not necessarily for residential,” Barrick said. He added that the Downtown Mall renovation beginning in January was not the impetus for the request, but rather other commercial development projects.

However, the statute does not bar the city from instituting similar costs for residential property owners if utility improvements are made. Barrick said it is not the city’s intent to use the authority against residential properties.

“We don’t see any need at this point to use it for residential purposes,” he said.

Officials say putting utilities underground provides several benefits, including giving the lines increased protection from bad weather and making an area more aesthetically pleasing. But some residents say the potential power is coercive and may place undue financial burdens on city residents and businesses.

“I don’t understand why I would have to pay for something the city decides to improve,” said Colette Hall, president of the North Downtown Residents Association.

Some city councilors also expressed reservations about the authority the amendment would convey to city officials. Mayor Dave Norris said he would be reluctant to force the costs on property owners who did not consent to the improvements.

“I would have some serious reservations about it,” he said. Norris said he would not vote for an ordinance that did not provide substantial safeguards — especially because the city may not always be able to identify the relevant property owners to get their consent.

“To me that’s not a legitimate excuse for proceeding with an assessment,” Norris said.

But Councilor Satyendra Huja thinks the authority should be granted so those who are directly affected by the changes are the only ones paying, instead of all city taxpayers.

“How do you justify charging property owners if they don’t benefit?” he asked.