Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 03-08-97 FiPlan2. 3. 4. Roanoke City Council Financial Planning Session March 8, 1997 -- 8:30 a.m. Roanoke Regional Airport Director's Conference Room Agenda Call to Order. Roll Call. Invocation. Discussion Items: (a) (b) (c) (d) What are the sources of General Fund Revenues and Expenditures? What is the status of revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 1996-977 What is anticipated for fiscal year 1997-98 and 1998-997 What are the impacts of local tax issues? 6. Adjournment. Other Business. DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594 TeIephone: (540) 981-2444 Fax: (540) 853-1145 March 7, 1997 The Honorable Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: The Council's Financial Planning Session will be held on Saturday, March 8, 1997, at 8:30 a.m., at the Roanoke Regional Airport, Director's Conference Room. Dress is casual. I am forwarding copy of the agenda for your information. Sincerely, David A. Bowers Mayor DAB:MFP:sm Enc. pc; W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Robed H. Bird, Municipal Auditor Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Willard N. Claytor, Director of Real Estate Valuation James D. Ritchie, Sr., Assistant City Manager William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget CITY OF ROANOKE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461 R O. Box 1220 Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220 Telephone: (540) 853-2821 Fax: (540) 853-2940 JAMES D, GRISSO Director of Finance March 12, 1997 JESSE A. HALL Deputy Director Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: During the discussions on Saturday, March 8, 1997, related to the Financial Planning Session, I indicated that Roanoke County was collecting a five percent consumer utility tax on cable television subscribers. After the meeting with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, and a discussion with Diane Hyatt, Director of Finance, I realized the County of Roanoke is not collecting a five percent utility tax on cable television subscribers. The City and County are both collecting a five percent franchise tax that is itemized on the subscribers monthly bill. The City is authorized to initiate a consumer utility tax on cable television subscribers as indicated on page 60 of your Financial Planning Session notebook. The 1996 Tax Rates - Virginia's Cities, Counties and Selected Towns published by the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service disclosed that the County of Roanoke was collecting a five percent utility tax on cable television subscribers. This proves you should not totally rely on what is in print[ I apologize for the en-or. Please call ff you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Grisso Director of Finance JDG:s c: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager v~Jiaryburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney F. Parker, City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE REAL ESTATE VALUATION 215 Church Avenue, S.W,, Room 250 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 WlLLARD N. CLAYTOR Director March 12, 1997 Telephone: (540) 853-2771 Facsimile: (540) 853-2796 Honorable Mayor Bowers and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: At the financial planning session on Saturday March 8, 1997, you raised two questions. First, you wanted additional information as to how Roanoke City compared to other jurisdictions relative to tax exempt property. I have included an attachment which provides this information for selected Cities/Counties and the State Average. Your second question related to the Agricultural Land Use Program. More specifically, you wanted to know how many of the owners actually maintained their primary family residence at the land-use property. Briefly, of twenty-one (21) property owners in the program, nine (9) have their primary residence at the property. Eleven (11) property owners live elsewhere. And, one owner was disqualified from participation in the program during the current fiscal year. I have included an additional attachment providing more detail. Should you need additional information or further clarification, please feel free to call me. Respectfully submitted, Diregtor attachments c: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor Wilbum C. Dibling, City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance W. Robert Herbert, City Manager OFFICE OF REAL ESTATE VALUATION COMPARISON OF TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY IN SELECTED VIRGINIA CITIES& COUNTIES Percentage of Tax Exempt Property to Total Assessed Value **Roanoke CiO, NON-GOVT EXEMPT 8.2% GOVT + NON-GOVT 15.97% State Average (All Cities/Counties) 3.7% 14.24% Alexandria 3.7% 15.38% Charlottesville 6.9% 23.04% Fairfax County 1.2% 8.18% Hampton 2.7% 29.00% Lynchburg 12.8% 20.24% Norfolk 5.1% 47.12% Richmond 5.6% 19.39% Roanoke County 5.0% 9.52% Salem 8.6% 22.37% VA Beach 1.9% 15.36% ** Excepting Lynchburg and Salem, Roanoke City has a greater percentage of non-governmental tax exempt property than the State average and the other listed Cities/Counties. (03/97) OFFICE OF REAL ESTATE VALUATION AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PROGRAM PROPERTY OWNERS Primary_ Residence On !.and-Use Propert3_~ 1. Boggess, Joan S (H. Preston) 2. Drates, Mary C. 3. Ellett, Lucy R & Frank T. 4. Gibson, Judith F. 5. Hylton, E. M. & Mary 6. Jamison, V. B. & Michael 7. Kegley, Louise F. & George 8. Reed, Wallace A. 9. Rogers, Jonathan M. & Jeraldine Physician Retired VA Truck Center Retired Retired Retired Retired Security ~ Hollins College Attorney Do Not Live Oil l,and-Use ProperW 1. Bradshaw, Matilda H. 2. Coulter Estate 3. Dickenson, H. Boyd & Ma~3t 4. Douthat, James F. 5. HuffEstate 6. Ramsey, Glenn W., etal 7. Renick, C. John 8. Roanoke Association For Retarded 9. Strauss, Maury L. 10. Vinyard, Walter D. 11. Watts, William, etal Dickenson Management Attomey Mgr., Lawyers Title Developer/Builder Retired 1. Palmer, Michael J. & Hazel Pastor ** Occupations as listed in the R. L. Polk Cross Reference Directory TAX EXEMPT PROPERTY AND SERVICE CHARGES 1. Constitution of V~,inla (Article X, §6) exempts certain property f~om taxation: Owned by State or any political subdivision; Owned by religious bodies for worship or residences of clergy; Owned by institutions of learnin8 not for profit; Owned by non-profit cemeteries. o Constitution authorizes General Assembly to exempt other property used by its owner for religious, charitable, patriotic, historical, benevolent, cultural or public park and playground purposes. Article X, §6(a)6. 3. General Assembly has exempted certain property by ~ (§58.1-3606): do Owned by YMCA and similar religious organizations; Owned by certain hospitals not conducted for profit but which may charge persons eligible to pay (Carilion facilities); Owned by benevolent or charitable organizations and used exclusively for lodge purposes or meeting rooms; Owned by non-profit corporations maintainin$ a museum. 4. General Assembly has exempted other property bye: American Legion, VFW, Disabled American Veterans (§58.1-3607); SPCA (§58.1-3613); Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts (§58.1-3614); Amerieun Red Cross (§58.1-3616). 5. Local property exempted by General Assembly designation: Western Virginia Foundation for the Arts and Sciences and Center in the Square agencies (1983, Ch. 43; 1984, Ch.675); Friendship Manor Ap~uhuent Village Corporation (1983, Ch. 430); Commonwealth Health Services Corporation (Ronald MacDonald House) (1985, Ch, 614); V'uginia Synod Lutheran Homes, Inc. (Brandon Oaks) (1985, Ch. 614); Imaging Center of Southwest Vir~nia, Inc. (1987, Ch. 280); Our Lady of the Valley, Inc. (1988, Ch. 610 and 628); 10. 11. g h. i. Showtlmers of Roanoke Valley, Inc. (1991, Ch. 351); Mountain Manor Homes (1993, Ch. 309); Habitat for Humanity in the Roanoke Valley, Inc. (1996, Ch. 602 and 751); Crisis Pregnancy Center for the Roanoke Valley, Inc. (1996, Ch. 602 and 751). Service charge in lieu of taxation is authorized by State Code (§58.1-3400) on the following tax exempt property: Property of other political subdivisions; Property of nonprofit cemeteries; Property of benevolent or charitable organizations used exclusively for lodge purposes or meeting rooms; SPCA; Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts; American Red Cross; and Any property designated as tax exempt by General Assembly. Property of State is not subject to service charge unless the value of the State's property exceeds 3% of the value of aH real property in the City (§58.1-3403). Nonprofit hospitals are not subject to service charges. Amount of service charge - shah not exceed 20% of Real Estate Tax Rate (§58.1-3401). City Council has not adopted an ordinance mandating a service charge on eligible property. City Council has adopted a policy of requesting a 20°/0 service charge from orgAni~tions seeking new tax exemption from the General Assembly (Res. No. 30884-021892). IL Offer to pay a service charge is a condition of receiving a positive resolution from Council. be General Assembly will not consider requests for tax exemption until City Council has first considered (§30-19.04). 12. For full discussion of tax exempt property and services charges, see Opinion of City Attorney to Mayor and City Council, dated January 22, 1985. Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney March 8, 1997 ii. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: CC: From: Date: Subiect: Mary Parker, City Clerk W. N. Claytor March 25, 1997 City Council Briefing Mary, attached are notes I used during the Financial Planning Session with Roanoke City Council on March 8, 1997. FROM THE DESK W. N. CLAYrOR D~RECTOr. REAL ESTATE VALUATION 215 CI-IURC H AVENUE S.W. ROOM 250 ROANOKE, VIRG INkA_ 24011 (540) 981-2771 Fax: (540) 981-2796 A. LAND USE ASSESSMENT WAS FIRST AUTHORIZED BY TIlE VIRGINIA GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN 1971. LOCALITIES ARE PERMITTED TO ENACT LOCAL ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL USE ASSESSMENT OF ~Za~[.d~, FOREST, HORTICULTURAL, AND ~ REAL ESTATE. B. ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN AGRICULTURAL ONLI' LAND USE ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE FOR PARCELS IN THE NEWLY ANNEXED TERRITORY OF THE CITY FOR WHICH APPLICATIONS HAD BEEN FILED IN ROANOKE COUNTY PRIOR TO ANNEXATION ON MARCH 8, 1976. C. THE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PROGRAM WAS EXPANDED TO THE ENTIRE CITY EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1,1977. D. PURPOSE OF PROGRAM ON SLIDES: A;lricultural Land Use What is the purpose of the A.qricultural Land Use Special Assessment Pro.qram? · Ensure a readily available source of agricultural, horticultural, and forest products and of open space within reach of concent~atione of populations. · Conserve natural resources in forms that will prevent erosion. · Protect adequate and safe water supplies. · Preserve scenic natural beauties and open spaces. [] Promote proper land-use pienning and the orderly development of real estate. · Promote s balanced economy. Agricultural Land Use What are the qualifications for program participation? - Parcel must be $ acres or larger in size. [] Devoted. to production of plants or animals for sale. How is qualifying property assessed? _,Property ie assessed at agricultural use rather than at fair market value at highest and best use. When does a tax rollback occur? [] Use of the land Is changed to non-qualifying use. [] Land Is rezoned to more intense use. Land ie subdivided into parcels not meeting the minimum Size requirement. Agricultural Land Use What is the tax liability in the event of a rollback? · Amount of taxes that would have been due if the property had been taxed at the fair market value. · Tax year in which the rollback occura and 6 preceding · Simple interest at the delinquent tax rata. Agricultural Land Use What is the financial impact of the program? Note: ?ii!ii?~::~::~:~,:~:~ Five (5) patois comprise 32% of the total acres of land in ~i!i?i!i!i!i!!! the program and 63% of the total fair market value. SEVEN PROPERTIES WITH THE HIGHEST ASSESSED VALUES 1. ~ 62.5 ACRES $1,563,500 2. ~ 16.2 ACRES $1,218,400 3. l~:.[.~l~T 82.1 ACRES $1,128,400 4. COULTER 12.5 ACRES $1,001,000 25.8 ACRES $774,000 6. KEGLEY 116.4 ACRES $640,100 7. l~ 4:.7 Ac~s s~25.700 358 ACRES $6,951,100 (77%) OF TOTAL (58%) OF TOTAL POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF ENDING THE PROGRAM (1) POSSIBLE LOSS OF ROLL-BACK TAX REVENUE AMOUNTING TO $500,000. - f~,~d (2) FINANCIAL HARDSHIPS CREATING FORCED SALES AND LOSS OF LAND BANKED PROPERTIES (3)DEVELOPMENTS AT LESS THAN HIGHEST AND BEST USE. (4) CITY MAY BE PERCEIVED AS RENEGING ON AGREEMENT FROM 1976 ANNEXATION. PROGRAM POSITIVES (1) PRESERVES OPEN SPACE VALUE MOST IMPORTANTLY, (2) THE PROGRAM PROVIDES A METHOD OF LAND BANKING OR PRESERVING LARGE TRACTS FOR MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT CREATING THE GREATEST ECONOMIC BENEFITS. YOU MAY HAVE OBSERVED THE BENEFITS OF THE LAND USE PROGRAM AS YOU DROVE HERE TODAY. TO ILLUSTRATE: NEXT PAGE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS ARE REFLECTED IN RECENT DEVELOPMENT ON LAND USE PARCELS UPS AIRBORNE FEDERAL EXPRESS CONSOLIDATED FREIGHT WAY HAEVENER TIRE COMPANY r~,~'~ ~k ~ Cl~,~~, I~I~ CELEBRATION STATION COMFORT INN TOWNE SQUARE LOWES KROGER VALLEY VIEW MALL COMPLEX GROWING. 10 MILLION DOLLARS SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS 3 MILLION DOLLARS 3 MILLION DOLLARS 13 MILLION DOLLARS 3 MILLION DOLLARS 2 MILLION DOLLARS 100 MILLION DOLLARS PLUS AND STILL EVEN PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS SUCH AS: (1)VALLEY VIEW BLVD., (2) SIX LANES OF HERSHBERGER ROAD, AND (3) PORTIONS OF INTERSTATE 581; ARE ALL CONSTRUCTED ON FORMER LAND USE PROPERTIES. IN ADDITION TO REAL ESTATE TAXES, ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES ARE GENERATINGMILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ~, pERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES, BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES, ~, AND HUNDREDS OF JOBS HAVE BEEN CREATED. ALL OF THIS IS POSSIBLE DUE TO THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF THIS LAND TO ITS FULLEST POTENTIAL AT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. WITHOUT THE LAND USE PROGRAM, WHICH PERMITS THE LAND BANKING OF LARGE TRACTS, MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD MOST LIKELY HAVE BEEN PIECEMEAL AND CHAOTIC WITH LESS THAN OPTIMAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT. (RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS PLANNED FOR LOWES/KROGER SITE.)