Virginia Real Estate, Land Use & Construction Law : Virginia Construction Lawyers & Attorneys : Bean Kinney & Korman Law Firm : VA Real Estate, Land Use & Zoning

For those of you out there who are following whether commercial real estate can be taxed at a different rate than residential property, FFW Enterprises v. Fairfax County, et al. has been slated for the Supreme Court's September arguments docket.  Like most other states, in the Commonwealth of Virginia the Constitution contains a "Uniformity Clause" which was intended to prevent the General Assembly from allowing the taxation of different classifications of real property in an inequitable manner.  Specifically, Article X, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia provides:

"...All taxes shall be levied and collected under general laws and shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, except that the General Assembly may provide for differences in the rate of taxation to be imposed upon real estate by a city or town within all or parts of areas added to its territorial limits..."

The core of the dispute is whether Fairfax County may tax only commercial property owners, such as FFW Enterprises, without taxing residential property owners, to fund transportation projects.  The General Assembly, through Section 58.1-3221.3 of the Code of Virginia, granted authority to Northern Virginia localities to levy special taxes for  transportation projects, and in combination with this authority, Fairfax County created a special tax to fund portions of the Silver Line metro project using Section 33.1-431 of the Code of Virginia.   In a nutshell, Fairfax County taxed commercial property owners a special transportation surcharge and exempted residential property owners from having to do so to fund metro improvements.

Last summer, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (see here for opinion) held that the Uniformity Clause does not prohibit localities from "...provid[ing] for differences in the rate of taxation to be imposed upon real estate..." so long as these differences are not imposed upon the "same class of subjects."  However, in 1947 pursuant to City of Hampton v. Ins. Co. of North America, the Supreme Court has already held that the test to determine the constitutionality of such a tax is:

"[Alre there others, who are benefited as much or more than those smarting under the tax imposition, who go unwhipped of its burden?"

FFW Enterprises plead just that, asserting that residential property owners will benefit as much from the construction of the Silver Line as commercial property owners in Fairfax, however commercial property owners will bear the sole brunt of the costs and taxes.  Nonetheless, the Circuit Court of Fairfax County found FFW Enterprises failed to establish this, and that the 1947 standard is no longer relevant or applicable.  These questions will now be put to the Supreme Court in just a few weeks - we'll keep you posted.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This year's proposed Constitutional Amendments are now up for review prior to being voted on during the November 2, 2010 General Election this fall.  There are three proposed amendments on the table:

1. Property Tax Relief,
2. Veteran Property Tax Exemptions, and
3. Increasing the Revenue Stabilization Fund

The first proposed amendment, while technically a real estate tax amendment, facilitates aging in place policies.  Currently, the General Assembly can give localities the authority to grant exemptions from real estate taxes to persons 65 years of age or older, or for persons permanently and totally disabled, for their residence where the normal tax bill would amount to "an extraordinary tax burden" in relation to their income and financial worth.  The amendment now proposed, however, would allow localities to remove the requirement about the "extraordinary tax burden" and gives the General Assembly the authority to allow localities to determine their own income or financial worth limitations for tax exemptions.  If approved,  the senior citizen vote would then be open for bidding in localities across Virginia.

The second proposed amendment relates to the first, which contemplates allowing localities to extend the same real estate tax exemptions to veterans.   As proposed, the amendment would require the General Assembly to pass a law exempting from local taxation the principal residence owned and occupied by any veteran with a one hundred percent service-connected, permanent, and total disability. Also, the veteran's surviving spouse could continue to claim the exemption so long as he or she does not remarry and continues to occupy the home as his or her principal residence.  I'm not sure what would qualify as a "permanent, total disability" but I would expect subsequently enacted legislation would clarify and define these terms.

The third proposed amendment, from the fiscal responsibility front, allows the General Assembly to increase the size of its rainy day fund, entitled the "Revenue Stabilization Fund," from 10% to 15% of its revenues derived from annual income taxes and retail sales taxes.  Note that the fund will not be required to be 15% of these revenue, the amendment merely raises the limit of the fund to a maximum of 15% of these revenues.  If the fund exceeds the 15% maximum limit, the excess is required to be transferred to the general fund.

If you're dying to read the amendments yourself before heading to the voting booth this fall, click here for the actual text amendments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Back on April 14th I blogged about the creation and anticipated operation of the Virginia Defective Drywall Correction and Restoration Assistance Fund (the "DDCRAF") via two new provisions to the Code of Virginia patroned by Delegate Oder this session.  If you read that posting you'll recall that the purpose of the DDCRAF is to create a perpetual, non-reverting fund to facilitate the remediation of property impacted by the use of "Defective Drywall" in residential construction, and I promised to find out whether funding was lined up for the DDCRAF yet.  Delegate Oder's office has been very responsive and helpful in explaining how they envision funding to come through for the DDCRAF.

The bottom line is that there is no dedicated funding for the DDCRAF at this time.  According to Delegate Oder's office, the purpose of the legislation was to "...set up an account where money can be deposited and a process established where money can be distributed to victims of defective drywall... [and] to put Virginia in a position to be able to react immediately if/when funding comes through, either from the Federal Government or from legal settlements."  All said, Delegate Oder's office provided that the DDCRAF was "...modeled after the Brownfield Restoration Fund currently in place in Virginia."

Thus, anticipated funding would potentially come from two sources: the Federal Government and legal settlements.  At the Federal level, the funding for remediation issues is still being pursued by the Congressional Caucus on Contaminated Drywall, and the financial, health and safety impacts are still being managed and investigated by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, HUD and the EPA.  The concept of using money obtained from legal settlements is that there will need to be an independent place for this money to be deposited and managed.  So for the time being, the availability of funding is in the hands of Congress and Virginia's own Congressman Glenn Nye, chair of the Caucus on Contaminated Drywall, and his colleagues in the caucus, to do something creative this session.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We've got two new provisions to the Code of Virginia as of this last legislative session which create a perpetual, non-reverting fund to facilitate the remediation of property impacted by the use of "Defective Drywall" in residential construction.  This fund will be administered by the Virginia Resources Authority and the Department of Housing and Community Development ("DHCD"). 

According to the bill's summary, the DHCD will "...develop guidelines for the distribution of loans or grants from the Fund to particular recipients. The grants and loans may be used to pay the reasonable and necessary costs associated with: (i) the remediation of a contaminated property to remove hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, or solid wastes, ( ii) the stabilization or restoration of such structures, or (iii) the demolition and removal of the existing structures or other work necessary to remediate or reuse the real property" due to the effects of "Defective Drywall." Kind of makes you nostalgic for underground storage tanks, doesn't it?

So what is considered "Defective Drywall?"  Well, it's defined at length in the bill's definitions section, so I won't bore you with all the details, but basically it must have been installed during new construction or renovation between 2001 and 2008 and meet the technical requirements of the definition (i.e. sufficient strontium, sulfur or hydrogen sulfide levels, etc.). 

Who can receive loans and/or grants from the fund?  Eligible entities for grants appear to only include local governments (who appear to be able to then use these grants to create incentives for remediation), while loans may also be made to local governments, public authorities, corporations, partnerships, or individuals for the remediation purposes.  The Virginia Resources Authority will get to determine the rates.

So the legislation is in place creating the fund.  What I've learned about government funds though, is that the most important question about any fund is: Is it funded?  Well, I don't know yet.  But I did shoot the bill's patron,  Delegate Oder, an email to see if he could shed any light on how the fund will actually operate for us - we'll let you know when we hear back.

Want to know more about Chinese and other defective drywall from a product liability standpoint?  Check out Tim Hughes' string of posts here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

After much back and forth, the Soil and Water Conservation Board announced on January 14th that they voted to suspend their hotly debated changes to stormwater regulations to permit an additional 30-day comment period.  The stage was formally suspended on January 26, 2010 which means that the status will be stuck in suspension until a new round of comments opens from February 15 through March 17.

We reported on the both the initial regulations and later changes to the proposed regulations which eased some of their impacts on the home building industry.  The Home Builders Association of Virginia indicates that they mobilized significant response and opposition to even the later round of regulations.

In addition to the underlying technical tug-of-war, there are two interesting political subtexts which may sweep this issue off the table.  First, in the intervening time since the regulations were first proposed, the Republican former Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, has won the Governor's race, Governor Tim Kaine has left office,  and Governor McDonnell has been sworn in.  The impact of the new Governor on these regulations is unknown at this point, but the suspension may be a significant indicator of future direction.

The import of state regulation may be swept away by federal intervention.  The US Environmental Protection Agency has sought comments and then transmitted a second notice on specific stormwater management regulations.  Chesapeake Bay run-off continues to generate active press and political reaction, so the states may ultimately be preempted by federal action in this arena.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With well over two thousand bills filed for this session, I was curious to see what our local urban delegates and senators have chief-patroned this year.  So here's what they're up to:

Delegate Brink has patroned HB 1260, which proposes that the Uniform Statewide Building Code should also apply to buildings or structures built on state-owned property and that the Department of General Services would act as the building official for all such buildings.  He has also patroned HB 1314 which contemplates providing financial incentives equal to twenty percent of delinquent taxes collected by tax collectors, chargeable to the taxpayer in addition to the amount of the delinquent taxes.

Senator Whipple has also patroned two bills.  SB 665 would clarify the authority of the Common Interest Community Board relating to disciplinary actions and fact finding procedures.  SB 681 suggests delaying the effective date for the stormwater management regulations passed last session for a year.

Adam Ebbin, via HB 1222, proposes that electric utilities establish a fund to allow voluntary contributions by customers so that the SCC can use the money to incentivize projects that incorporate photovoltaic devices, solar water heating devices, or solar space heating.  He also thinks that HOT lane shoulder widths should be wide enough to handle transit vehicles, HOV service does not deteriorate, and ingress and egress from local connector streets are adequately addressed (see HB 1223).  Delegate Ebbin also thinks vehicles used in abductions should be forfeited (HB 1113)  and that your income tax filings should be due on April 15 to sync up with the federal deadline, rather than May 1st (HB 1278). 

Delegate Englin wants online political advertisements to be subject to disclosure requirements regardless of space to do so (HB 1261) and  wants to see automatic acceptance of service members to Virginia colleges who were in the top 10% of their graduating class (HB 274).

Senator Ticer wants to amend the charter of the City of Alexandria so that the board of review of real estate assessment is composed of nine members rather than five members, with five members appointed by the circuit court and four members appointed by city council (SB 572) and to allow for TDRs in zoning ordinances in localities with the urban county executive form of government (SB 636).  She also would like to see a license plate for recycling advocates (SB 709) and some careless driving offense proposals (SB 566).  She also proposes relaxing campaign contribution reporting requirements for local officials (SB 723).

Delegate Hope thinks that the Commonwealth Transportation Board ought to give first priority to funding transit operating costs rather than transit capital projects (HB 421), wants to prohibit smoking in all public buildings (except certain portions of corrections facilities) (HB 1351), and most notably, is chief patron of the Green Public Buildings Act (joined by Brink and Ebbin) (HB 1264), which would require all new construction public buildings over 5,000 SF (or renovations amounting to over 50% of the value of the building) to achieve LEED Silver certification or Green Globes two globe standards, achieve energy savings that exceed ASHRAE 90.1-2004 standards by at least 15 percent for new construction and 10 percent for major renovation, and  to provide water use savings of at least 25 percent over the baseline standard established in the federal Energy Policy Act of 1992.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Virginia Delegate Mark Cole is up to it again, proposing another amendment to the business, professional and occupational (“BPOL”) tax laws. Delegate Cole sits on the House of Delegates Finance Committee, and represents the 88th District, spanning Stafford, Spotsylvania and Fauquier Counties and the Town of Remington. As you may recall from my last blog post on proposed business tax reforms in the Commonwealth, he sponsored HB 57, which would freeze BPOL tax rates, and prohibit those localities that do not have a BPOL tax from imposing one.

Currently, the BPOL tax is targeted at a business’s gross receipts, defined by Virginia Code Section 58.1-3700.1 as a company’s “whole, entire, total receipts, without deduction.” Delegate Cole’s proposal, HB 110, would allow localities to decide whether to impose their BPOL tax on a business’s gross receipts, or on its Virginia taxable income.  HB 110 provides two methods to calculate "Virginia taxable income," depending on which is applicable to the business -- a calculation under Virginia Code Section 58.1-322 (Virginia taxable income for residents) or under Virginia Code Section 58.1-402 (Virginia taxable income for corporations). 

Undoubtedly, localities may be skittish of these changes in the face of some very hard economic times and dwindling local budgets. However, businesses should view HB 110 as a welcome change to take the sting out of what many consider to be the harshest aspect of the BPOL tax – the notion of taxing gross receipts with no ability to consider adjustments or deductions.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Wading through the various layers of requirements, enticements, incentives and regulations that apply to green building can be overwhelming to anyone, let alone the uninitiated.  This process is made far more complicated by adding the layering of federal, state, and local government efforts in this field.

The United States Green Building Council has this effort very easy with regards to LEED related public policy searches.  USGBC has a search engine with multiple selectable criteria to sift through the oceans of regulations to find what you are looking for.  I cannot say the entire database is perfect, but I can say that it appeared that the Virginia state and local discussion was basically accurate, including the status of the green building ordinances in Arlington County, Fairfax County, and the City of Alexandria.

USGBC naturally has an interest in promoting the USGBC's interests with its efforts and these tools are no exception.  The only pet peeve I have is that some of the commentary seems to slant the discussion entirely towards LEED standards without a recognition of the role other standards may play in these regulations.  For example, the USGBC description of the City of Alexandria policy states,

On April 18, 2009, the Alexandria City Council adopted their Green Building Policy requiring all new municipal buildings to achieve LEED Silver certification and all new commercial buildings to achieve LEED Silver certification. The policy also requires all new residential buildings to be LEED Certified with the intention of increasing the standard over time.

In reality, the City of Alexandria policy expressly recognizes the ANSI approved ICC-700 2008 National Green Building Standard for residential construction.  The ICC-700 standard was developed by the National Association of Home Builders in partnership with the International Code Council.  The City's overall adopted standard further provides that while LEED is typical, to the extent equivalent rating systems are available and can be demonstrated as equivalent to the Director of Planning and zoning, they are also acceptable.

That limited comment notwithstanding, the USGBC search engine is a great free tool to dig out federal, state and local requirements.  Careful and prudent use will require clicking through to the underlying source links and maybe digging a bit for confirmation, but used carefully the search tool can save a ton of time and effort.

Image by Timothy Valentine

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Andrew McRoberts reported on Thursday that the Virginia Association of Counties released its Model Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance for Virginia Localities.  Andrew was part of a working group that worked with a number of stakeholders to develop this model ordinance so that it may be used as a guide for localities in Virginia unfamiliar with the concept, application and practice of using transferable development rights, or "TDRs."

TDRs have been used in various places throughout the country for some time now.  Even in Virginia, the County Manager form of Government (as is the case in Arlington County), has been permitted to allow TDRs in its zoning ordinance since 2005.  In a nutshell, TDRs are simply the right to separate the density from one site and convey the density to another site.  This is typically done by identifying which sites can be a "sending site" or a "receiving site" in a locality's comprehensive plan and/or its zoning ordinance.  In Arlington County, for instance, TDRs have been implemented vis-a-vis its unique special exception process (the 4.1 Site Plan Process), and have also been enabled for its Clarendon Sector Plan.

TDRs are an excellent tool which provide useful flexibility for both localities and private interests.  This tool can allow localities to preserve important historical sites and other sites of interest while still allowing private landowners to sell the density off of a site, thus preserving their property rights. It also lets localities encourage redevelopment in areas that don't need extra height or density without having to provide valuable incentives that might otherwise cost localities money (i.e. tax credits, etc.).

The Model Transfer of Development Rights Ordinance for Virginia Localities was drafted to reflect the 2009 updates to Code of Virginia Sections 15.2-2316.1 and 15.2-2316.2, which "...[allow] severance of development rights without their immediate reattachment to another property... [and] provide for local taxation of the severed rights as a separate property interest during the time they are unattached to a specific land parcel."  The model provides example ordinance provisions and definitions, explanatory commentary for the model provisions, and even model legal documents for use when transferring density. 

Being able to transfer density has lead to some pretty interesting transactions and land use/zoning solutions for us here at Bean Kinney, and I am excited to see this very useful tool implemented in other localities in the Commonwealth.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

With the General Assembly set to convene and prefiling ending on January 13th, I thought it would be worth while to take a look at the legislative proposals submitted thus far to see if anything  jumped out at me this year from the land use side of things.  Suprisingly, this session looks kind of light so far (everyone must be focusing on the budget bills...).

From the local government side, it looks like HB 33 proposes requiring additional disclosures by local governments when seeking bond approvals from voters.  It appears the idea is that public notices would have to include not only the amount of debt to be assumed, but now also the anticipated number of years to amortize and the total debt service payable on the principal amount of the bonds proposed to be issued.  More information for voters - how can you vote against this one?

Also, HB 51 proposes to allow localities' governing bodies the option to prepare their own amendments to comprehensive plans rather than having to request the local planning commission to do so.  HJ 11 proposes the necessary constitutional amendment to allow localities to establish their own income or financial worth limitations for granting local property tax relief to seniors (65 year-olds) and permanently disabled individuals.

On the transportation side, it looks like this will be a season of transportation reform.  The big one, HJ 5, according to LIS, proposes an amendment to the Constitution of Virginia to require the General Assembly to maintain permanent and separate Transportation Funds, that revenues dedicated to Transportation Funds actually have to be deposited into the Transportation Funds, and limits the use of Transportation Funds to only transportation related purposes, unless the General Assembly secures a 2/3 plus one majority to borrow from the Transportation Funds.  Borrowed funds would have to be repayed, with interest, within a specified period of time.

Transportation programs are also proposed to now be subject to performance audits by the Auditor of Public Accounts per HB 42.  These audits would include cost saving assessments, and organizational structure/efficiency and effectiveness analysis of transportation agencies by private management consulting firms.

Also, HB 25 proposes to amend the requirements of the Statewide Transportation Plan, and for evaluation of selection of transportation improvement projects, to include as an objective identifying quantifiable measures and achievable goals relating to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  HB 55 puts forward limiting assessments on localities for VRE service to no more than a locality collects through its motor vehicle fuel sales tax while HB 19 attempts to allow the Potomac-Rappahannock Transportation Commission to charge higher fares to VRE passengers from localities who are not that are not embraced by the Potomac-Rappahannock Transportation District.

And finally, from the conflicts of interest camp, members of the General Assembly, per SB 4, would have to disclose any money paid to him/her, or immediate family, in excess of $10,000 by a state or local government or advisory agency.  Former Section 30-111 explicitly allowed members and their family members to exclude what they were paid by various governmental agencies/commissions on their Statement of Economic Interest conflict of interest disclosure form.  I wonder why?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Scott McCaffrey of the Arlington Sun Gazette reported yesterday morning that the Arlington Professional Firefighters and Paramedics Association has filed the necessary paperwork (click here to view the Certificate of Receipt and Acceptance Local Referendum and the Statement of Petitioner for Local Referendum) with the Circuit Court for Arlington County to begin the petition process for a ballet referendum to change the system of government in Arlington County from a County Manager form of government to a County Board form of government.  Apparently, the Arlington Coalition of Police is planning on backing the petition as well.

The Code of Virginia authorizes counties to change from one optional form of government to another optional form after approval by voter referendum. This requires: (i) a court order allowing the referendum, (ii) that the court order state the question that will appear on the ballot, (iii) the election must be held within a reasonable period of time after the request, and (iv) that the court has to set the election date.

Such a court order may be obtained by a petition filed with the appropriate circuit court and must be signed by at least ten percent of the voters of the county (as determined by the number of voters registered on January 1 of the year of certification of the petition); however the Commonwealth of Virginia Board of Elections suggests obtaining signatures from an additional five percent of the voters to ensure there are no questions about having obtained the necessary number of signatures. All the signatures must be obtained and the petition re-filed with the Circuit Court within nine months of the original filing.

As most people in Arlington County know, under the County Manager form of government each County Board Member is elected “at large”, the County Board members elect their own chairperson, and instead of there being an independent executive branch of government, the County Board hires an “at will” County Manager as the County’s executive officer. 

Under the County Board form of government being proposed, the major difference is that there would be a Board of County Supervisors consisting of one member elected from the county at large and then one member would be elected from each magisterial or election district in the county once election districts are drawn. However, the board would continue to elect its chairman from its membership.

Also, pursuant to the proposed County Board form of government, there would not be a County Manager, but rather the Board of County Supervisors would hire an “at will” County Administrator which would serve with less powers than a County Manager, with many of the former County Manager’s authorities being exercised by the members of the Board of County Supervisors.

Some commonly acknowledged shortcomings of the County Manager form of government, including lack of normal checks and balances between separated branches of government, have been what has been perceived as the disenfranchisement of minority interests in Arlington County political processes and concern about an exclusive, perpetual one-party system.

Proponents of the current County Manager form of government laud its capacity to maintain continuity of County-wide objectives and believe that it enables county government to actually get things done without the political interruptions you would find in a system of district fiefdoms or another more classic system of checks and balances between branches of government.

It remains to be seen whether this petition is in response to budget decisions being made and a deal will be worked out in that context, or whether it goes in another direction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link