Revenue sharing -- how it came to this

One of the most significant cooperative ventures between Charlottesville and Albemarle County is the revenue sharing agreement now in contention.
Recent opinions about Albemarle County’s payment of a legal obligation to Charlottesville have at times been confusing. Since many current residents did not live here when the agreement was signed and ratified by county voters in 1982, a few facts concerning the agreement are in order.

First, the payment to the city is not a gift — it is a legal obligation in exchange for Albemarle maintaining jurisdiction over and receiving taxes from the income-producing land adjacent to the city.
Second, the fact that annexation is no longer allowed is irrelevant to the current discussion. It was possible at the time and looked successful enough for the county to continue negotiating. Had it been successfully pursued, the city would be receiving about $25 million dollars from the enlarged tax base.
The revenue sharing agreement is a legally binding agreement reached after a relatively long negotiation between the two governing bodies (five years). To provide long-term protection to both the city and the county, the agreement reads: “the amount shall not exceed 1 percent of the total locally assessed value of taxable real estate” from the contributing jurisdiction. The county kept its land and limited its exposure to the threat of futher annexation, and the city received revenue. A fair deal. So fair was it deemed to be that the county voters overwhelmingly approved the agreement in a referendum. It is similar to a bond or, for an individual, a mortgage.
Eons ago the commonwealth of Virginia established its unique system of local governments. City governments are corporations that serve urban jurisdictions under the terms of a charter, with certain duties and responsibilities agreed to by the commonwealth. County governments are “creatures of the state” designed to serve rural areas, with fewer privileges granted. It seemed obvious to the commonwealth that governing of urban communities needed to be different from that of rural areas.

As city populations increased and people moved into rural county areas, the specialized kinds of government were disturbed. To restore the earlier established two kinds of local governments, the commonwealth devised the system of city-initiated annexation. Cities appealed to the court to annex county land. Judging followed strict protocol and considered an abundance of specified requirements before ruling. Annexation requests could not be made any more frequently than every ten years.
John Hammond Moore in his historical account, “Albemarle, Jefferson’s County,” presents a chart that includes an accounting of past annexation dates and acreage acquired by the city. This information appears in the accompanying graph.
[The 1963 annexation] proved to be a hell-for-leather affair that aroused considerable acrimony, perhaps because, to that date, this was the largest bite yet taken up by the city.

The Barracks Road Shopping Center became part of the city at this time, and that lucrative transfer helped create ill will between the two jurisdictions. Animosity persisted for many years.
The revenue sharing agreement is the culmination of five years of discussion. In the late 1970s, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the City Council joined together in an exploration of areas where greater cooperation would benefit both communities. The proposal was intended to ward off annexation. All possibilities were to be put on the table for discussion.
Given the long history of cooperation (sometimes under the gun, sometimes voluntarily undertaken, sometimes at the urging of citizens viewing the community as one), this was an appropriate way to increase the quality of service and decrease the cost of those services. A committee was formed and began meeting in mid-1977. In 1978, the mayor changed, the talks continued. In 1980, with another change in mayor, the committee began more serious inquiry. At that time, given the lengthiness of the process, the city began to explore annexation. This action sped up the discussion.

Throughout the early years of discussion, areas such as social services and recreation were examined for potential merger of services. For one reason or another, this did not happen. Upon approval of the revenue sharing agreement, a more in-depth study was undertaken of services. Missing in these discussions was a neutral, mediating voice that could move the discussion forward. There is never talk of any merger (public or private) that is not subject to turf issues: “Poverty is so different in (name the place)” … “Educational needs are so unique in (name the place).”
During the 1990s, the city considered reversion, a state-sanctioned method of uniting the city and county. Reversion to town status was an approach to helping local governments that the state legislature had passed in 1989. If a city reverted to town status, the new town would be legally a part of the county, instead of a separate entity. Thus the town schools would be supported by county revenue making the Index moot; other departments might be combined to save money.

County supervisors were not warm to the idea; some city residents feared being swallowed up by the rapidly growing county population. The contentious issue could not get enough votes to pass, and the meetings did not produce extensive joint efforts. City Council realized Charlottesville was still on its own, with its 10 square miles (compared to Albemarle at 726 square miles). Council increased the emphasis on commercial development to support city services and infrastructure and worked to increase middle-income housing to keep middle class families in our school system and in our tax base.
There is no reason Charlottesville and Albemarle can’t find additional ways to improve services and decrease costs. We’ve acted like one community in the past and solved local problems, let’s continue.

Virginia Daugherty was mayor of Charlottesville 1998-2000 and a member of City Council 1992-2000; Elizabeth B. Gleason was vice mayor 1980-1982 and 1984-1986 and a Council member1980-1988; Nancy K. O’Brien was mayor 1976-1978 and on Council 1976-1980.