Time runs short in regional revenue tiff

Charlottesville and Albemar-le County leaders said Monday that they’d rather find a solution to a divisive money battle through compromise than by allowing funding to be renegotiated by state legislators.
But they’re running out of time.

A state budget proposal that would change how much Charlottesville and Albemarle get in state education funds, introduced by Del. Rob Bell, R-Albemarle County, would take $2.8 million from the city and give it to the county in fiscal 2012. The amendment has been included in the House’s version of the budget that was released Sunday, clearing a large hurdle toward its passage, but Bell has said he would be willing to withdraw the amendment if city leaders agree to sit down with their county counterparts and work out a compromise.
“The only problem is this short period of time,” said Kenneth C. Boyd, a member of the Albemarle Board of Supervisors.
Bell’s amendment was introduced to have the state’s composite index account for the localities’ 1982 revenue-sharing agreement, which has resulted in the county giving tax revenue to the city annually in exchange for the city having not annexed county land. But to come up with a compromise that could prompt a withdrawal of Bell’s amendment, city and county leaders would have to meet in the next few weeks, as both localities start their budget processes.
“I think it’s going to be very difficult to schedule a joint meeting of the City Council and Board of Supervisors on quick notice,” Albemarle Supervi-sor Dennis S. Rooker said.

On what course of action the city will take, Mayor Dave Norris said, “I hesitate to say anything definitive yet.”
“I will say that I’m encouraged to hear he’s willing to withdraw the amendment and we’re discussing what our next step should be,” Norris said. “We look forward to engaging in constructive discussions at some point with Albemarle County and putting this behind us.”
Del. David J. Toscano, D-Charlottesville, has also called for officials to sit down to talk about future collaboration that could save both localities money and bring them closer together. Yet he proposed that such discussions take place only once the current General Assembly session adjourns.
Toscano has said he opposes Bell’s amendment because it calls for an unprecedented amount of interference by the General Assembly into local contractual matters. He also said he fears that it will become more difficult to discuss collaboration the further the amendment goes.
“What does a compromise mean? There’s a lot involved in this. It’s probably going to take more than one meeting,” Toscano said. He added, “If it’s simply a transfer of money, I don’t see that happening. I think there are lots of issues involving city-county cooperation that will take a little while to resolve.”

Currently, the tax revenue that Albemarle gives to Charlottesville as part of the revenue-sharing agreement is counted toward the county’s wealth instead of the city’s when the state calculates the localities’ education funding. The index would be altered to account for the revenue-sharing agreement if Bell’s amendment passes.
For the amendment to pass, it would have to be included in the Senate’s budget and signed by the governor. According to the General Assembly’s 2010 schedule, each chamber is supposed to approve its version of the budget March 3. Differences in the two versions are scheduled to be reconciled by March 11, with the final version approved before the end of the session on March 13.
The dispute over the money has sparked sour rhetoric from city and county officials, with many Albemarle officials saying the money rightfully belongs to the county and Charlottesville leaders saying that taking the funding would severely hurt their schools or other services and create a setback in city-county relations.
“We cooperate in a huge number of areas now,” Rooker said. “I certainly welcome the opportunity to sit down and explore these kind of things again.”

Boyd said he would contact Norris to see if there was a way for the two governments to find common ground. How much money might be exchanged by way of compromise is up for discussion, Boyd said. He also said he thinks the only venue for compromise was the revenue-sharing agreement, though he would be open to considering other ideas.
“I think everything’s possible. It’s just a matter of rolling up our sleeves and getting it done,” Boyd said.