Bell to re-introduce bill on city-county revenue sharing

Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle, confirmed Tuesday that he will re-introduce a budget amendment that would send more funding to county schools. Bell’s amendment would adjust the state’s composite index to take the revenue-sharing agreement between Albemarle County and the city of Charlottesville into account.

The agreement, signed in 1982, was originally designed to keep the city from annexing county land. In return for keeping its land, the county agreed to give the city an annual payment equal to 10 cents of the real estate property tax rate collected in the county. The contribution is capped at 10 percent of the total assessed real estate values.

Bell originally introduced the budget amendment for the 2010 legislative session, at the request of the county School Board. The measure passed the House of Delegates, but failed in the Senate conference committee.

The composite index is the formula the state uses to determine how much state money each school division gets in a given year. The formula calculates a given locality’s ability to fund education based on revenues.

Bell contends that the agreement should be taken into account in Albemarle’s composite index, since the county gives roughly $18 million a year to the city via revenue sharing.

As it stands, with the $18 million still accounted for by the index, the county is unfairly denied some funding, supporters of the revision argue.

“It overstates Albemarle’s ability to pay and it understates Charlottesville’s ability to pay,” Bell said, adding that he’s not yet sure how much money this year’s amendment would be worth to the county.

“The numbers will be different [from 2010], but it doesn’t change the problem, which is we have a permanent adjustment to Albemarle’s ability to pay,” he said. “The numbers do not reflect reality, which is that the county is losing money to Charlottesville.”

The 2010 version of the bill would have meant $2.6 million more for Albemarle, and roughly the same in losses for the city.

“The upshot is Albemarle would receive more money reflecting their ability to pay, and Charlottesville would receive slightly less based on their ability to pay,” Bell said.

With a different Senate looking at the budget this year, the amendment’s prospects could change. Bell said he wouldn’t speculate on how the changes would affect his amendment, but acknowledged it will get a fresh set of eyes.

“It’s a different Senate than last time, different body, different party in control,” he said.

In the county, the amendment has new support, after cooperation talks between the city and county schools broke down earlier this year. Supervisor Dennis S. Rooker said he originally opposed the amendment, but will likely stand behind it this time around.

“I did not support it last time, but my inclination this time around is to probably support it,” he said. Rooker said he thinks the revenue-sharing agreement’s effect on the county should be taken into account.

“I think the … fact is, that’s a component of revenue that doesn’t get considered in the composite index,” he said.

City School Board member Ned Michie disagrees. Michie said Wednesday that he thinks it’s unfair of the county to try to retroactively change the composite index to reflect the nearly 30-year-old revenue-sharing agreement.

“It’s kind of funny that the Albemarle people talk about it as a fairness issue when from our perspective, the fairness runs in entirely the opposite direction,” he said. According to Michie, county negotiators knew the revenue-sharing agreement would affect the composite index when they signed it.

“They knew all about the [composite index] at the time, and they decided not to do anything about it and focus just on local funding dollars,” he said Tuesday. “So to come back now, 25 years later, and say this thing we knew about is unfair, I think it’s totally unfair and it goes behind the deal.”

Michie added that it would be bad practice for the state to allow a change to the composite index that would only affect two localities.

“It’s just terrible policy to spot-adjust this [composite index]. This [composite index] was something that the state reached a long time ago, and spot adjusting it for these two localities is just terrible state policy,” he said.

Rooker said he saw Michie’s point, but efforts to get a wider change to the formula made had failed as well.

“I was — if you go back two years ago — I was more in favor of supporting a broader change that would have affected land use and would have benefitted all counties,” he said. “I don’t necessarily disagree with what Ned said, but I think we have a situation today that is unfair.”