|
|
|
| Wed, Nov. 11 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Stafford kills road impact plans
Stafford decides to stop pursuing Urban Transportation DistrictsDate published: 10/9/2008 By JONAS BEALS Urban Transportation Service Districts died unceremoniously Tuesday night when Stafford County Supervisor Paul Milde asked to "kill" further discussion. He didn't get an argument from staff or his fellow supervisors. The Virginia General Assembly authorized the creation of UTSDs in 2007, but limited the program to six counties. Stafford was the only one to pursue the option. Creating UTSDs would have allowed the county to take over maintenance of designated roads from the Virginia Department of Transportation. It also would have allowed officials to levy comprehensive impact fees on newly subdivided lots on rural, agriculturally zoned property. Supervisors had discussed UTSDs since January. In the end, two factors kept them from moving forward. There was uncertainty about whether or not the increased VDOT funds would cover maintenance costs, and the $90,000 comprehensive impact fee proposed by the Planning Commission was difficult to justify. "In these economic circumstances, it was a big question--if the money would be able to cover our needs on our secondary roads," Supervisor Harry Crisp said. "And the $90,000 did not make anybody on the board comfortable." Crisp felt that the idea had merit but collapsed under the weight of its own details. "When we went in," he said, "it looked attractive. We could use it to do a better job maintaining roads. We could utilize the comprehensive fees as a way to better manage sprawl in rural areas. "We came a long way." Before the UTSD option, local governments could only charge impact fees on new development for related road improvements. As of now, there is no way for a county to charge an impact fee to fund multiple needs. UTSDs gave counties that power but ultimately had too many strings attached to be attractive. "The concept had potential," Milde said. "I was concerned that we would see this effort hijacked by people proposing high impact fees." The decision to drop the program came after county staff delivered cost estimates of taking over road maintenance. "Once I saw the information from the staff, it was clear that the disadvantages outweighed the advantages," Milde said. For Crisp, it was a step in the right direction, but it missed the mark. "The proffer system is flawed," Crisp said. "It should be replaced by a comprehensive impact fee that reflects the true cost of development." In other business Tuesday, supervisors passed a resolution requesting that the Stafford School Board adopt a policy that prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving non-English language assistance. The resolution was based on the recommendation of the Illegal Immigration Task Force, which suggested mandating English as the sole language used in Stafford public schools. Supervisors passed the resolution 6-1 after noting that it essentially reiterates language in the Code of Virginia, and there is no legal way for local governments to ask students about their immigration status.
Read more stories about Stafford Date published: 10/9/2008
You are also incorrect
(posted by
southwest
, Oct. 9, 2008 11:52 am)
Justice1, you are also incorrect. Spotsylvania County spent "months" addressing the issues associated with UTSDs. If you had contacted the Spostylvania County Planning Dept. they would have been glad to tell you the extensive amount of time they spent collecting information, etc. addressing this issue at the request of the Board of Supervisors.
Roads are State Responsibility
(posted by
DeanFetterolf
, Oct. 9, 2008 11:03 am)
Inrfastructure such as secondary roads and bridges are the responsibility of the state. Thanks for not letting them off the hook.
What was incorrect?
(posted by
Justice1
, Oct. 9, 2008 8:26 am)
Spotsy decided not to pursue it. Simple as that. Stafford studied and talked about it for 9 months, pretty seriously at times. Spotsy didnt pursue it. Both made the correct decision, but your comment that the writer is wrong is incorrect. Spotsy did not pursue it.
You are wrong
(posted by
southwest
, Oct. 9, 2008 7:54 am)
Your article states that of the six conties authorized to pursue Urban Transportation Service Districts that Stafford County was the only one to pursue them. That information is totally incorrect. Spotsylvania County decided several months ago not to support the creation of UTSDs basically because of the same reason(s) identified by Stafford. The uncertainty of future state funding and the taxes required to make the program work. Thank-you Spotsylvania for leading the way by saying NO to UTSDs months ago.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
