A new approach to growth
Stafford may adopt a policy that would have the county responsible for maintenance of some of its own roads
by Jonas Beals
Date published: 9/25/2008
by Jonas Beals
Depending on your point of view, Stafford County is on the verge of becoming either a trailblazer or a guinea pig in an attempt to better regulate growth and transportation.
Last year, the Virginia General Assembly gave high-growth localities the right to assess road-impact fees on new commercial and residential development. A slightly more obscure provision allows six counties--Chesterfield, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania and Stafford--to create Urban Transportation Service Districts.
Counties have until Dec. 31 to begin implementing the UTSD and a possible impact-fee program. Stafford is the only county pursuing the option.
The impact fee was a topic discussed during a special Planning Commission meeting last night, where the commission approved an ordinance for public hearing by a 4-2 vote. The public hearing will be held on Oct. 15.
WHAT IS A UTSD?
Essentially, UTSDs are designated areas within a county that the Virginia Department of Transportation treats as if they were a city or town. The county becomes responsible for road maintenance inside the UTSD, while VDOT retains its maintenance role on interstates, primary roads and roads outside of the UTSD.
In exchange for increased responsibility, the county receives the urban payment rate for roads within the UTSD, which can be considerably higher than the typical county rate. Also, the county can impose a "comprehensive impact fee" on new development outside the UTSD.
The funds can be used for a number of public projects, not just transportation.
HISTORY
Virginia counties have always had the ability to bring road maintenance in-house, via the "devolution" process, but few have taken the leap. In theory, it would give a county more autonomy and control over its roads, but until now, there has been little incentive for a local government to take on the responsibility.
"It's a huge undertaking," Fredericksburg VDOT administrator David Stanley said. "It's about the county having direct control and the ability to manage their own system. But it's a lot more than filling potholes and trimming tree limbs."
Although it has never been tested in UTSD form, devolution of road maintenance could solve a problem that has plagued high-growth areas. Counties would be forced to more closely consider transportation issues when making development decisions. State legislators hope that responsibility would lead to smarter growth decisions and better county infrastructure.
THE COSTS
|
THE DISTRICTS
NORTH STAFFORD
The proposed UTSD is roughly bounded by Quantico to the north and Mountain View and Courthouse roads to the south. The area extends from Lake Arrowhead in the west to the end of Hope Road in the east.
SOUTHERN STAFFORD
The proposed UTSD is roughly bounded by Truslow and Leeland roads to the north and the Rappahannock River to the south. The district stretches from Rocky Run Reservoir in the west to Ferry Road in the east. |
|
MEET THE UTSD
An Urban Transportation Service District is a designated area where secondary road maintenance responsibilities shift from VDOT to the county. In return, the county receives greater funding from VDOT. Also, counties get the authority to charge a comprehensive impact fee on new development outside of the UTSD.
WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
UTSDs were authorized by the General Assembly in 2007.
WHY WAS IT PROPOSED?
As a UTSD has never been created, so its benefit is unclear. Most view it as a way for counties to have more control over their roads. Many hope local governments will take the opportunity to better coordinate development and transportation. Additionally, impact fees can be used to limit growth in rural parts of the county.
WHAT IS IT?
The UTSD is a designated, high-density area, required to contain an average of one unit per acre. For transportation purposes, the area would take on the characteristics of a town or city.
ARE UTSDs MANDATORY?
No, although without a UTSD, a county cannot impose comprehensive impact fees.
COULD THIS HAPPEN IN STAFFORD?
It could, but the deal is far from done. Some supervisors are still skeptical of the proposal, and steps will have to be taken quickly, as the option goes away Jan. 1.
|
|
MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT FEE
Comprehensive impact fees associated with UTSDs can be levied on new by-right development outside of the UTSD. The fees are general, meaning they do not have to be tied to specific transportation projects, and they can be used to defray the costs of public projects that aren't transportation-related.
WHO WOULD BE CHARGED THE FEE?
Anyone developing agriculturally zoned property outside the UTSD.
WOULD EXISTING HOMES BE AFFECTED?
No. Neither would any development on the books at the time of the fee's adoption.
HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?
The amount is yet to be determined, although a figure of $90,000 has been proposed.
CAN THE IMPACT FEE BE IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT A UTSD?
No, the general impact fee cannot be implemented without a UTSD. However, Stafford does have the authority to create a county-wide impact fee to finance road improvements.
|
|
Read more stories about Stafford
Date published: 9/25/2008
Most recent reader comments:
Not so fast
(posted by
Grumpy1
, Sep. 25, 2008 8:29 pm)  
I highly doubt that a 90K fee is going to impact the developers, nor will it benefit the couty residents either. $90K won't buy you a traffic light. Heck, it won't pay for the study required prior to placing a traffic light.
Supervisor Sterling (R) has recused himself
(posted by
Dana1
, Sep. 25, 2008 5:44 pm)  
Supervisor Stering sits on the CTB (Common Wealth Transportation Board) and this body is responsible for reviewing our application for this program. He will not be voting on the issue with the other (6) Supervisors.
Yeah, I understand that. Pushing for devolution
(posted by
Mickey10
, Sep. 25, 2008 4:58 pm)  
came from the professed republicans. Attaching the 90k is clearly coming from the no-growthers who want to prevent by-right development. I don't think they want devolution so much as they want to stop by-right development. This is a way to do that--they know how bad some want their transportation projects. It will be interesting to see who supports this.
Mickey10
(posted by
Stafford21
, Sep. 25, 2008 4:42 pm)  
The Transportation Commission is gone...history. The Planning Commission runs Transportation now and i believe they are moving forward with this whole mess. I just hope when the County runds out of funds transferred from the state to maintain the roads that the planning commissioners, and supervisors who support this ill-conceived idea get out there with there shovels and start shoveling snow and filling pot holes.
Here's what is not clear to me from this
(posted by
Mickey10
, Sep. 25, 2008 1:25 pm)  
article--are we talking about construction devolution or maintenance devolution? There's a huge difference between the two. The article suggests maintenance, which does nothing to address the transportation issues in this county.
|