County roads need more immediate attention

Dear Editor,

The large increase in projected FY08 county revenue of approximately 12 percent, resulting from a growing economy and an average increase in residential real estate tax assessment of 16.6 percent, creates an opportunity to take aggressive action to fund unmet road needs. Based on county staff presentations at the recent public meeting on transportation, each $0.01 of dedicated real estate tax revenue equals $2.9 million. County staff presentations also illustrated that dedicating $0.05 of real estate tax revenue to roads would support $150 million of new debt over the following 10 years.

The board should adopt a goal of dedicating $0.10 of real estate tax revenue within five years that could support $300 million of new debt toward roads. Achieving the $0.10 goal, plus implementing some of the other road funding options presented by staff, would support $500 million of new debt for roads. While this would not finance all of the $1 billion of unmet road needs identified by staff, it would provide sufficient funds to address the most critical unmet needs.

The county's budget has grown at a faster rate than county population growth plus inflation for the past 24 years. Currently, the preliminary county budget for FY08 is projected to grow 6.2 percent, again at a rate exceeding county population growth plus inflation. During the past 24 years, budget growth for critical county services such as schools, police, fire/EMS, libraries and parks and recreation all had budget growth at a rate that exceeds county population growth plus inflation. However, due to the Virginia [Department of Transportation] funding constraints for county roads, county road funding is severely deficient.

The projected large increase in FY08 revenue will allow $0.05 of real estate tax revenue to be dedicated to fund roads. This is achievable and feasible since it only takes $12 million in addition to the $3 million staff has already identified for roads. With a projected FY08 county budget of $1,172,000,000, it only takes one [percent] of the budget to fund the additional $12 million for roads. Surely with the public recognition by the board and county residents that road infrastructure is critical unmet need, funding for other county services can be reduced by one percent to provide needed road funds. If the board would take this unique opportunity in FY08 to not only reduce the real estate tax rate by $0.05 as they propose, but to also dedicated $0.05 of real estate tax revenue for unmet road needs, it would demonstrate real leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This bold action, plus dedicating an additional $0.01 of real estate tax revenue in each of the following five years, as recently discussed by the board, would be a tremendous start to solving the county's critical unmet road needs without sacrificing other services.

David O. Webb

Moseley