Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-16 000221 August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on August 16, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. Absent: None Officers Present: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 5.1 through 5.5 on the Consent Agenda and to accept items 5.6 through 5.7 as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Marshall and Mrs. Thomas NAYS: None. Item No. 5.1. Resolution approving the issuance of Industrial Develop- ment Authority revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 to assist in the financing of the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation's acquisition, construction and equipping of a facility to be leased to the University of Virginia for education and research purposes. 5.3:) (The following Executive Summary was received for Items 5.1, 5.2 and "BACKGROUND: Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as amended provides that the governmental unit, having jurisdic- tion over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which the facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds. There are three separate requests which have been approved by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) and are now before the Board. Approval of the issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds by the IDA carries with it no legal or financial obligation on Albemarle County in case of default by the applicant. These bonds, which are sold by a bank at less than the prime lending rate, carry with them a tax advantage to the issuing bank that allows the lower than market interest rate to be offered. These bonds can be issued by any IDA in the state which would then not require any local approval from our County. Staff has attempted to separate the issue of whether or not theSe projects are subject to property taxation from the pure financing question of whether or not the County should approve of this issuance by the IDA. For the record, the Westminster-Canterbury project will be subject to property taxation, the University Real Estate Foundation and the Health Services Foundation projects will not. The first application is from Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $20.0 million to assist in an expansion to its facility for the residents and care of the aged located at Pantops Mountain Road. The second application is from the University o~ Virginia Real Estate Foundation requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $8.0 million to assist in financing a facility to be leased to the University of Virginia for education and research purposes on the Fontaine Avenue property. This facility, separate from the one before the Board on August 9th for a land use decision, is intended to house the Virginia Neurological Institute. This facility will be doing research and serving as a training center for neurological issues related to the health care industry. The third application is from the Virginia Health Services Founda- tion requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $8.0 million to assist in financing August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) various projects to be l~d~t~d in Albemarle, Charlottesville, Nelson, Fluvanna, Louisa and the Town of Orange. Additionally, a re-financing of a 1984 issue for the Virginia Ambulatory Surgery Center is also included in this application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is currently developing a work session for the Board to discuss the various property tax exemption issue surrounding the University and its various foundations. Given the legitimacy of these requests for tax exempt financing which meet the criteria under the Federal code, staff recommends that the Board approve each of the individual Resolutions." By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation ("Foundation") requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist in financing the Foundation's acquisition, construction, and equipping of a facility to be leased to the University of Virginia for education and research purposes ("Facility") and has held a public hearing on August 7, 1995; WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); the Facility is located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Foundation, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to assist in the financing. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Facility or the Foundation. 3. This resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Item No. 5.2. Resolution approving the issuance of Industrial Develop- ment Authority revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 to assist in financing the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipment projects of the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of The University of Virginia Health Services Foundation ("Foun- dation'') requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist in (i) financing various acquisition, construction, renovation and equipment projects of the Foundation as more particularly de- scribed in the notice published in connection with the public August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) hearing described below and (~} refunding the outstanding princi- pal amount of the Industrial De~10pment Authority of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia's $3,300,000 Industrial Development Revenue Bond (University of Virginia Health Services Foundation), issued on January 20, 1984 to finance the acquisition, equipping and construction of the Virginia Ambulatory Surgery Center, all of the foregoing hereafter referred to as the "Project," and has held a public hearing on August 7, 1995; WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private activity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); a portion of the project is located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County. WHEREAS, the Authority recommends that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Foundation, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to assist in the financing. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Foundation. 3. This resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Item No. 5.3. Resolution approving the issuance of Industrial Develop- ment Authority revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000 to assist in the financing of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge's acquisition, construction and equipping of expansions to its facility for the residence and care of the aged. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINI~ WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("the Authority"), has considered the application of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge ("WCBR") requesting the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds in ail amount not to exceed $20,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist in (i) financing WCBR's acquisition, construction and equipping of expansions to its facility for the residence and care of the aged ("Facility") located at 250 Pantops Mountain Road in Albemarle County, Virgin- ia, (ii) refunding the outstanding principal amount of the Author- ity's $25,055,000 Residential Care Facility First Mortgage Revenue Bonds (Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge), Series 1989, issued on February 14, 1989 to finance the acquisition, construc- tion and equipping of the Facility; (iii) refunding the outstand- ing principal amount of the Industrial Development Authority of the County of Orange, Virginia's $1,300,000 Residential Care Facility Revenue Bond (Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge Project), Series 1993, issued on December 30, 1993 to finance an addition to the west wing of the Facility and (iv) financing various reserve funds and costs of issuance relating to the proposed issuance of bonds, and has held a public hearing on August 7, 1995; WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of private act~,.vity bonds and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of 000224 August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance of the bonds; WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); the Facility is located in the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County; WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the Bonds; and WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have been filed with the Board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of WCBR, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended ("Virginia Code") to permit the Authority to assist in the financing. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Facility or WCBR. 3. This resolution shall remain in effect for a period of one year from the date of its adoption. 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Item No. 5.4. Authorize County Executive to Execute Police Mutual Aid Agreement. (The following Executive Summary was received:) ,,BACKGROUND: The City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County and the University of Virginia Police Departments have long enjoyed a cohesive working relationship across jurisdictional lines. In order to benefit all three police departments in the execution of their normal duties as well as outlining a formal agreement for the exchange and sharing of resources, the attached mutual agree- ment is being presented to all three entities for approval. This agreement spells out specific resources that are to be shared such as the Joint Narcotics Investigative Unit, DEA Federal Task Force, and the Joint Multi-Agency K-9 coverage. Also, additional law enforcement support can be provided to other jurisdictions upon request and the conditions and protocols for doing so are outlined in the agreement. The County Attorney has reviewed the document and approved it for execution. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the attached agreement." By the recorded vote set out above, the following Police Mutual Aid Agreement was adopted: POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of , 1995 by and among the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (the "City"), the---~OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (the "County"), and THE RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (the "University") . WHEREAS, Va. Code §§ 15.1-131 and 15.1-159.7 authorize the governing bodies of the City, County and Universit]7 to enter into reciprocal agreements for mutual aid for emergency purposes, for maintenance of peace and good order and for cooper~{tion in the furnishing of police services; WHEREAS, the City, County and the University have determined that the provision of police aid across jurisdictional lines will increase their ability to respond to law enforcement emergencies involving immediate threats to life or public safety in their respective jurisdictions, and will assist them in the preservation of public safety and welfare of the entire area; WHEREAS, it is deemed to be mutually beneficial to the parties hereto to enter into an agreement concerning mutual aid and cooperation with regard to law enforcement; and August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000225 WHEREAS, the parties he~t0 d~sire that the terms and condi- tions of this Police Mutual Aid Agreement (the "Agreement") be established; NOW THEREFORE; WI TNE S SETH: That for and in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived from this Agreement, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows: 3 o Each party will endeavor to provide police support to the jurisdictions which are parties to this Agree- ment within the capabilities available at the time the request for such support is made and within the terms of this Agreement. Requests for assistance pursuant to the terms and condi- tions of this Agreement shall be made by the requesting jurisdiction's City Manager, County Executive or Chief Administrative Officer, whichever is applicable, or their respective designee(s). The requesting jurisdiction shall be responsible for designating a radio communications system for use by the requested jurisdiction. 5 o The personnel of the requested jurisdiction shall render such assistance under the direction of the Chief of Police or other principal law enforcement officer of the requesting jurisdiction. Law enforcement support provided pursuant to this Agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the following resources: uniformed officers, canine offi- cers, forensic support, plainclothes officers, special operations personnel and related equipment. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, and without limiting in any way the other circumstances or condi- tions in which mutual aid may be requested and provided under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to pro- vide assistance to the requesting jurisdiction in situa- tions requiring the mass processing of arrestees and transportation of arrestees. The parties to this Agree- ment further agree to assist the requesting jurisdiction with security and operation of temporary detention facilities. 7o The parties to this Agreement specifically agree and authorize the continuation, and if necessary, expansion, of existing cooperative law enforcement arrangements dealing with (a) the Joint Narcotics Investigative Unit; (b) the Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") Federal Task Force; and (c) joint multi-agency K-9 coverage. Nothing contained in this Agreement should in any manner be construed to compel any of the parties hereto to respond to a request for police support when the police personnel of the jurisdiction to whom the request is made are, in the opinion of the requested jurisdiction, needed or are being used within the boundaries of that jurisdiction, nor shall any such request compel the requested jurisdiction to continue to provide police support to another jurisdiction when its police person- nel or equipment, in the opinion of the requested juris- diction, are needed for other duties within the bound- aries of its own jurisdiction. The responsibility for investigation and subsequent actions concerning any criminal offense shall remain with the police agency of the requesting jurisdiction where the offense occurred. Entering police personnel shall promptly notify the police agency of the entered jurisdiction upon discovery of a crime in the requesting jurisdiction where the offense occurred. 10. Officers acting pursuant to this Agreement shall be granted the authority to enforce the laws of the Common- wealth of Virginia and to perform the other duties of a law enforcement officer; such authority shall be in conformance with Va. Code §§ 15.1-131, 15.1-131.3, 15.1- 131.5, and 15.1-159.7 as may be applicable; however, police officers of any jurisdiction who might be casual- ly present in any other jurisdiction shall have power to apprehend and make arrests only in such instances where- in an apparent, immediate threat to public safety pre- cludes the option of deferring action to the local police agency. August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) O00 f 6 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. When performing police duties in a requesting jurisdic- tion pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, each police officer, agent, and other employee of the parties hereto shall have the same police powers, rights and privileges, including the authority to make arrests, as the officers, agents or employees have in the jurisdic- tion where they were appointed. Pursuant to Va. Code § 15.1-131, the services performed and expenditures made under this Agreement shall be deemed to be for public and governmental purposes and all immunities afforded to the requested jurisdiction when acting within its boundaries shall extend to its participation in rendering assistance outside its bound- aries to a requesting jurisdiction. For the purposes of this Agreement, the requested jurisdiction that responds to a request for assistance is rendering aid once it has entered the jurisdictional boundaries of the requesting jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions herein. Ail immunities from liability, exemptions from laws, ordinances and regulations, pension, relief, disability, worker's compensation, life and health insurance, and other benefits enjoyed by police officers, agents and other employees of each party shall extend to the ser- vices they perform under this Agreement outside their respective jurisdictions. Each party agrees that the provision of these benefits shall remain the responsi- bility of the primary employing jurisdiction. To the extent permitted by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, each party hereto, in activities involving the rendering of assistance to a requesting jurisdiction pursuant to this Agreement, shall (i) waive any and all claims against all other parties to this Agreement which may arise out of such parties' activities outside their respective jurisdictions, and (ii) be responsible for the acts or omissions of its police officers, agents and other employees causing harm to persons not a party to this Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed as an express or implied waiver of the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The parties to this Agreement shall not be liable to each other for reimbursement for injuries to personnel or damage to equipment incurred when going to or return- ing from another jurisdiction. Neither shall the par- ties hereto be liable to each other for any other costs associated with, or arising out of, the rendering of assistance pursuant to this Agreement, unless the par- ties expressly agree otherwise in advance of the provi- sion of assistance under this Agreement. This Agreement sets forth the complete agreement relat- ing to the provision of mutual police services among the parties hereto, and supersedes all previous agreements, whether written or oral, relating to such services. Any of the parties hereto may withdraw from this Agree- ment by giving ninety (90) days written notice to that effect to the other parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective City Manager, County Executive, and chief administrative officer, the official seal of each city and county affixed hereto and attested by their respec- tive city and county clerks, and university official, and indicat- ing thereafter the resolution authorizing the execution. Agenda Item No. 5.5. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month of July, 1995, were approved as presented by the recorded vote set out above. Agenda Item No. 5.6. Summary of Health Insurance usage for Albemarle County and Schools for April 1, 1994 through March 31, 1995, indicates that the County's total health care expenditures decreased by 19 percent over the prior year and health care expenses were below average in the industry, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 5.7. 1994-95 Child Assault Prevention (CAP) Project Annual Report for Albemarle County Public Schools, was received for informa- tion. August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 00022? Agenda Item No. 6. Publ'ic Hearing: To present information and to re- ceive public comments and questions on the possible reversion of the City of Charlottesville to town status. Mr. Perkins noted .that Charlottesville City Mayor David Toscano and other City officials were in the audience. He then introduced Mr. Richard Cranwell, an attorney representing the County on the issue of reversion. Mr. Cranwell said he would make a presentation on the issue of reversion, its expected benefits and its impact on the City and County. Projections based on how a plan for reversion might be structured have been made. Currently, County officials and City officials are unsure as to the specifics of any plan. This presentation will reflect the expertise of Mr. Garland Page and Mr. Walter Cox who, combined, have more than 25 years of experience working on issues that involve city, county and town relationships in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mr. Cranwell introduced Mr. Garland Page, an engineer and planner. During the past ten years, Mr. Page has served as an expert witness in litiga- tion involving city and county relationships. Mr. Walter Cox, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA), is a financial analysis expert on county and city financial operations. Mr. Page said the Virginia Legislature provided several ways for cities, towns and counties to address local government issues. Revenue sharing, annexation, boundary expansions, community services, reversion and tier cities are some of the issues that are faced daily. These are examples of statutory provisions that the Virginia Legislature has provided for counties and cities. These issues are different procedurally and legally and are a "means to an end." If the statutes are reviewed, they are intended to accomplish the same end. If the end is understood; it has several parts. There are strong viable units of local government which work for the best interest of citizens involved in communities, for local governments and for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Reversion is a means to an end. Both the Board of Supervisors and City Council are interested in strong local governments and the best for its citizens. Mr. Page then made an overhead presentation using parts of the fact sheet titled "Reversion, What it Means to You and Me" and "City of Charlottesville - Town Reversion - Governmental Services - Impact of Reversion" which are on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. Mr. Cox then made a slide presentation titled "Reversion ImPact on City and County Financial Operations, based on budget year ending June 30, 1995 (two separate budgets) which are on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. Mr. Cranwell said Virginia is a unique state. Of the 50 states, Virginia is the only one that has independent cities. In most states, cities are a part of the county and they share the underlying real estate and personal property tax base with the county. In Virginia, for example, Richmond is not a part of any of the surrounding counties; it is an independent entity. Cities in other states are more akin to what towns are in Virginia in that there is a sharing of the tax base. If there is a portion of the county that is densely populated, and the citizens decide they want to form a town, they would have additional taxing authority. This is in addition to what the county is providing to whatever additional service that is wanted. The tradi- tional view has been that this actually takes burdens away from the county and would be beneficial to the county as well as to the citizens who chose to have additional services and who are willing to pay for them. In the reversion process, a city can revert to town status. Reversion, annexation, consolida- tion and revenue sharing are not cures within themselves. None of them guarantee that the end would meet the mean and that a strong viable unit of government would be secured. It is important that problems be identified so decisions can be made on what is being pursued. For example, transportation, generically, is a means by which someone gets to a particular point. There are a number of ways that someone can travel: by air, water, land, bus, car, truck, etc., but if someone does not know where he/she is going, it does not make much difference what mode of transportation is selected because that person is not going to get there. Somebody needs to decide if there are problems that need solving before embarking upon and undoing what was done thirteen years ago regarding the Revenue Sharing Agreement that was designed to create a strong, viable means of government(s). Mr. Cranwell then made a presentation titled "Reversion" which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said schools are the most difficult aspects of reversion. It is hard to find two school divisions in the Commonwealth of Virginia that are identical because the citizens of each locality have made a conscious decision to have the school system and programs the way that they want them. Problems must be solved in order to have strong, viable units of government. No one should embark upon the reversion journey unless he/she knows where they are going. It is costly, can be divisive and can be tragic to undertake a process unless there are clearly defined problems that the citizens and the governing bodies agree are such that the process must be gone through to find solutions. 0002 S August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) With no comments being made by the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing. Mr. John R. Carter said he lives in Forrest Lakes Subdivision. He said reversion is a complicated process that the general public does not easily understand. It is up to the City to tell the County where it is going with the reversion process. It seems to him, that the County is going to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, if the City moves forward with rever- sion. The City has yet to say why it wants to revert to town status. There are inflammatory assumptions being made by the County. One assumption being made by the County is that the City may be reverting to town status to annex property, then it may revert back to being a City once it has the County's land and tax base. If this is so, then the citizens should elect a Republican Legislature and change the law. It seems to him, that this reversion issue will revolve around the schools. If County citizens said they do not want to consolidate schools, then the City has a problem. If County citizens said they want to consolidate the schools, then the City will not have a problem and will have more money to spend. He suggested that the County develop a plan and inform the City and public about this plan. Let the City know what is going to happen because this is what the County is proposing to do. Ms. Corrine Le Bovit said she moved to the County in 1979 when she retired. She supports the reversion idea even though she does not have all of the details. Her rationale is that cities tend to become poorer as more and more shopping centers and businesses move out into the County. The less capable and less affluent people who live in the City have a harder time finding jobs. Expenses go up and the tax base shrinks. She does not want to live and be a part of this type of situation. Reversion may lead to higher taxes for County residents. She is willing to pay those taxes for better Charlottesville schools, road repairs and for whatever else is needed to maintain the City as being the kind of place she chose to live. The City will exist regardless of what anybody thinks even though it is surrounded by Albemarle County. It is in everyone's best interest to resolve this important reversion issue. Mr. Lou Simons said when he woke up this morning he was a County resident and he hopes when he goes home this evening, he will still be a County resident and not a resident of the town of Charlottesville. Article VI of the Revenue Sharing Agreement states that when the city and the county are part of the same political subdivision this agreement would terminate. However, given the fact that the law, at that time, did not allow for reversion to town status for a city of the size of Charlottesville, he questions whether this clause is enforceable. Alternatively, if it is enforceable, is it possible for certain residents of the urban ring of the County to form a city unto themselves to prevent economic viability of the County which is focused in the Route 29 and Route 250 corridors. Mr. Carter's view about the City reverting to town status to annex land and then to revert back to City status is a major concern. Mr. Cranwell said, in response to Mr. Simons, the Revenue Sharing Agreement would terminate if there is reversion. The formation of a city requires a certain population base. The Local Government Commission and a three judge panel would hold public hearings to make that determination. Another avenue to obtain a city charter is through the State Legislature; however, it would take a two-thirds Assembly vote. This would stop all annexation. Mr. Warren Vandell said the problem with reversion is that it does not bring in any new revenue. The jail, new schools, Meadow Creek Parkway, water treatment plants and the landfill usage are dependent upon an increase in population which means that more services will need to be provided. Many people are saying that reversion will dilute the influence of the City of Charlottesville and its residents. However, he does not see it that way. He sees it as taking 17,000 more urban residents and "dumping them" on the County. The County already has too many urban residents. The rural residents would then have a diluted share of the power in the County. This is why the system in Virginia is working because the urban areas fall under urban government and rural areas follow under rural government. A tax increase to fund this would be an inequity in sharing tax resources because all of the money would be spent on urban problems and very little for the County's rural areas. The reversion process can be tied up in the courts for years. If the City is to be stopped from annexing land and reverting back to an independent city, then make it stipulated as part of the reversion agreement. Under Section Six, Part C, of the Revenue Sharing Agreement, the County can respond regarding reversion. The City and the County can agree to change the Revenue Sharing Agreement. If the County agrees with the City and allows the City to annex land and/or water, then the County could obtain a tax revenue increase which would benefit the area. This tax revenue could be used for the jail, roadways, water, schools and the landfill. He hopes the City will annex the urban portion of the County so that urban services can be provided for recycling in order to reduce the amount of trash going into the Landfill. Ms. Josephine Marshall is a City of Charlottesville resident. She feels it is inappropriate to speak, at this time, until she hears from City Council as to why reversion is needed. So far, she has not seen anything in print. She hopes that City residents will not sign the petition until they are provided with facts. Senior citizens certainly cannot afford to pay any more taxes. August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 000229 (Page 9) Mr. A. Raymon Thacker said he is the Mayor of the only incorporated town in the County which is Scottsville. City citizens are "opening up a can worms" regarding reversion. Mr. Randy Layman said he is a County taxpayer, and he has participated in revenue sharing for years. He pays approximately $300 a year in City taxes. He feels this is "taxation without representation," and that there has not been any representation from City government on tax dollar expenses in the last thirteen years. He does not want this continued, but he is willing to pay these taxes rather than having the City revert and the County having to pick up all the "City's problems." He questions why the City wants to do this, but he has not heard an answer to this question. In the 1980's, the General Assembly gave the County the right to create service and tax districts and to separate those districts from other areas of the County. Citizens should be made aware that reversion is a possibility when they sign the petition. Taxes may go up, especially in the rural areas where taxpayers would be required to fund additional services. Most people in the County are not in favor of reversion. Mr. Leo Casey said he feels Charlottesville City Council should acknowl- edge the information in the reversion handouts. He has reservations about reversion. He is concerned that the City can revert to town status, annex property and revert back to being a City and taking what has been annexed. It seems to him that the Revenue Sharing Agreement that everyone has been paying into for years would go "up in smoke." The City would have its annexation even though citizens have been paying the City for years not to annex. Mr. Alexander Peaslee said he represents the Charlottesville citizens' group that is trying to obtain 15 percent of the signatures of registered voters to begin the reversion process. Virginia is the only state that keeps cities completely separate from its counties. The real city is in the metropolitan area. Since World War II, all urban growth has been low density, suburban style. In order for a city's population to grow, it must be elastic. This means the boundaries can expand, and the metropolitan area can have open spaces within the city if it cannot expand its boundaries. Some central cities have grown; others have shrunk. Low density cities can grow; inelastic cities cannot grow. Charlottesville does not have much elasticity, meaning no ability to expand. Charlottesville is the third most densely populated city in Virginia. When a city stops growing, it starts shrinking. Elastic cities capture suburban growth. Inelastic cities contribute to suburban growth. Bad state laws can hobble cities and Virginia is the leader of bad state laws. The smaller the income gap between a city and a suburb, the greater the economic progress for the whole metropolitan community. Poverty is more concentrated in inelastic cities than in elastic cities. The rebuilding of inner cities from within is not happening. Mr. Peaslee said a metropolitan area, with resources available for everyone, works best. Many changes are occurring in the Charlottesville- Albemarle area. In the last six years, aid for dependent children went up 67 percent in the City and five percent in the County. Median family income is dropping one percent a year in terms of a gap between the County and the City. Thirty years ago, the City had a higher median family income, now it is 74 percent of that of the County. A long-term study is needed regarding these problems. One-third of the goal has been reached in obtaining registered voters' signatures on the petition. County residents have been more willing to sign the petition than City residents. He said double taxation by a county and town can be misleading. Scottsville has double taxation and its total rates are lower than the City's. The groups' purpose is not necessarily revolved around town reversion. The purpose is to have an effective group to examine complicated questions in the most effective way possible. This is why a three judge panel needs to be appointed. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Cranwell who would be responsible for the City's debt in the event of reversion. Mr. Cranwell said the statutory law, unless the Court should order it otherwise, provides that the town would remain responsible for the debt it incurred as a city. However, there are provisions to adjust financial inequities. Normally, this is done through a revenue tradeoff for the County because of the additional burden of picking up services. He does not believe a judgement would be given to the County which would direct the County to assume a portion of the City's debt. It does not make sense financially for reversion to occur unless it was for school consolidation. In this event, the County would assume the debt existing for the schools. Mr. Eric Strzepek said he is a candidate for State Senate for the 25th District. The government is not handling the reversion issue well. If reversion happens, it should require more than 15 percent of the voters in the City signing a petition in a manner other than a three judge panel deciding the City's and County's fate. If reversion is going to happen, then the people of the County need to have a voice regarding this in a form of a referendum. Both City and County residents should be able to vote on this issue. This could end up with a situation where the City's budget mismanage- ment could be forced upon County citizens. Ms. Kathleen Quinn said she lives in the County. The reversion process is complex. The City and County school systems should work together under close and prudent study for the best benefit of its students. August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) 0002~0 (Page 10) Mr. Steve Koleszar said he moved to the County 13 years ago. The County and the City are one community. It is not that the City will gain and the County will lose, or the County gains and the City loses. The City and the County needs to work together on the reversion issue. He asked if there has been savings in the reduction of duplicate services, in particular, adminis- trative savings when cities reverted. Mr. Cranwell said South Boston is the only reversion recorded in Virgin- ia. The three judge court ordered the reversion, but they also placed stringent terms and conditions on the reversion process. Unfortunately for the County, the Supreme Court stripped the conditions away. The Court said the new town would not be able to annex for 15 years as one of the conditions of the reversion. They required the city to provide to the county a portion of the waste water treatment, capacity and required an equalization of water and sewage rates between city and county customers. It appeared that the Court felt there were a number of conditions that needed to be in place to line up the financial inequalities in order to protect the County. Unfortu- nately for the County, the Supreme Court did not think the three judge court acted correctly. All the conditions were stripped away and this case was not sent back for a new trial. This situation has not been in place long enough to be evaluated. However, this was a unique situation. There was a County facility under construction with a value in excess of $800 million in terms of assessed real estate value which was a part of the problem. Mr. Cranwell said to answer Mr. Koleszar's question, there has not been enough experience for anyone to say there would be savings regarding the reversion process. Mrs. Humphris said economists say that when services are provided to people, as the City and County are doing, for up to 100,000 citizens, there are economies of scales that must be maintained. After the 100,000 mark, the economies of scale begin to lose. Mr. Charles Wesner said he lives in Crozet. If the City is successful in its reversion efforts, then Crozet residents should proceed immediately to become a city before Charlottesville annexes land which would eliminate this problem forever. Mr. Terry Hawkins said he is the Sheriff of Albemarle County. The Jail Board recently came back from a meeting in Richmond with the Board of Correc- tions. The Jail Board received an appropriation of $11.0 million or at least approval for reimbursement from the State for $11.0 million contingent upon an addition being built to the jail. It was noted that should the City of Charlottesville revert to town status, the 50 percent provision reimbursement the General Assembly allows for would be reduced automatically to 25 percent. This figure would mean a $2.5 million decrease. Mr. Hawkins expressed concern about the City of Charlottesville's Constitutional Offices being eliminated. If eliminated, this would place the responsibility of providing services on the County's Sheriff Department. If this happens, where would the additional resources come from which would be borne by the County. The current resources provided to the Sheriff's Depart- ment are inadequate and if this responsibility increases including taking on City employees, additional resources would be needed. He feels that the County is moving in the right direction in keeping citizens informed about reversion. Mrs. Thomas said it is to her understanding a town can retain its status and keep a regional jail. Mr. Cranwell said it would still be a regional jail. The 50/25 funding split mechanism is correct as stated by Mr. Hawkins. However, the Sheriff is not obligated to take any of the City's employees upon reversion. He would have to determine what would be needed to serve the additional jail population and seek funding from the Co~)ensation Board and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Davis said the statute specifically allows for towns to be members of regional jails if they have a financial need to do so. In reversion, if the City retained a financial obligation to participate in the reqional jail, then it can remain a member and the County would continue to quali~y for the 50 percent financing. Mr. F. A. (Tony) Iachetta said he participated 15 years ago in the negotiations of the Revenue Sharing Agreement in which the City receives $5.0 million of taxpayer dollars from the County. This agreement was entered into to maintain peace in the community, for growth and for goodwill. Now, the City and the County are involved in an expensive legal fight which benefits no one except the lawyers and the civil engineers who work on annexation cases. There is a big difference between South Boston, a town of 7000 people and the City of Charlottesville which has 42,000 people. The City and County already share many services except for police and schools. He does not understand why anyone would want to disrupt this system that is working so well by reverting back to town status which would disrupt everything that is currently working. If the reversion effort is serious and moves forward with the full support of City Council, he recommends that the Board of Supervisors be prepared to do whatever is necessary to fight against this effort by whatever means avail- able. August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Ms. Betty Newell said she lives in the County, but she thinks of herself as being a citizen of the Charlottesville-Albemarle community. She is distressed with the "them and us" tone that she has heard tonight. The County and City have worked well in the past with libraries, parks and recreation. However, reversion is a complex issue. She does not know enough about reversion to say if it is bad or good. The City and County citizens are in a time of increasing need and decreasing resources and everyone needs to work 'together. If there is commitment, anything can work. Both the City and County can make this happen. Mr. Wayne Arnason said he is a County resident. He said there seems to be a problem in developing a donut city. The donut cities in other states were rich, increasingly urban and suburban with a ring around them and a hole in the middle which reflects poverty and despair. He does not want to see this happen to Charlottesville. He believes this is one of the things that motivates the town reversion movement. It is a shame when comprehensive planning, zoning and attractive taxes can become vehicles, both intentional and unintentional, for increasing the illusion that a city like Charlottes- ville and Albemarle County are separate. Albemarle County is unusual in that there is a significant urban ring with rural areas such as Scottsville and Crozet, and the citizens do not feel they have a great relationship with Charlottesville. However, most County residents feel that Charlottesville is an important city and that is why they live here for recreational, cultural and employment purposes. Citizens need to develop ways to ensure the common future of both the City and the County. He hopes if the town reversion effort is not successful, this effort will serve as a wake up call for everyone in the County including the government leadership. Everyone needs to take a far- sighted look with City officials about the dangers involved in relation to a potential donut city with Charlottesville becoming a dumping ground for people who need services but cannot find them in the surrounding counties or in Albemarle County. The diminishing support from all levels of government make it essential that ways to save money be investigated that can result in possible consolidation of services. The town reversion effort is a sincere and creative effort to address these concerns. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Arnason if he thought the Revenue Sharing Agree- ment with the City is or is not working. There are many shared services between the City and the County already. Mr. Arnason asked if the trends happening in the City now were foreseen at the time the Revenue Sharing Agreement was completed. He then asked if the Revenue Sharing Agreement is an adequate vehicle for needs assessment and if other cities are investigating this as well. Mr. Bowerman said for instance, in the year 2000, the County will give the City of Charlottesville $8.0 million in revenue sharing funds. In the year 2005, this will increase to $13.0 million. This is increasing at the rate of 11 percent per year. In relation to this, what seems to be the problem. Mr. Arnason said he supposed the consolidation of some City and County services could be an alternative to total reversion. In his opinion, this is something that should be looked at more carefully as a way of saving scarce resources and improving the Revenue Sharing Agreement. Mr. Cranwell said in other areas where there are donut cities, most of these cities exist in a tier structure where the city and county are sharing a tax base just as the structure that is setup here, but these changes in structure do not necessarily solve the problem. The problem must be clearly identified and solutions must be found. The structure the donut cities exist under is the structure that some people might suggest could cure the reversion problem. However, this structure makes little difference in how a governing body resolves the problems that involve poverty. The problem needs to be defined as opposed to becoming bogged down in some methodology which fails to solve the problem. Mr. Charles Trachta said he is the Vice President of the Woodbrook Homeowners Association. He asked what the Mayor and City Council are. doing about reversion. He thanked the Board of Supervisors for this public hearing. It seems to him that City Council is not going to "get on the wagon" until they know if the reversion process will win. The school system is a big concern. He asked if County schools would suffer if reversion happens. County school have high standards, and he does not want them lowered. He does not want the ratios of teachers to students to increase, and he does not want children to suffer because the City is not preparing its children properly. He also expressed concern about the annexation of property. He asked what would constitute the annexed lands and where would they be located. He then asked if people who would be annexed, would have the right to fight against it, and what role would the Board of Supervisors play in this process. Most of the people who live in the County came from a city. Cities, until they correct their problems, are not going to be viable areas in which to live. Citizens have the right to decide if they want to live in the city or in the county and many have chosen to live in the county. He requested that the Board look at County citizen rights and how they would be affected if rever- sion occurs. Mr. Ivan Logan said he is a County resident. He is surprised that no one from the City has made a presentation about why the City wishes to revert to town status. He also asked that City Council address the annexation issue. Mr. Carroll Smith said he is a County resident. His wife is a native of Charlottesville. He believes there can be a peaceful solution regarding the 0002,32 August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) reversion process, and he encourages City Council to meet with the Board of Supervisors to resolve this issue. Ms. Kay Peaslee said reversion is an important issue. She compared the decline of a city to cancer. In the early stages one does not see what is happening. Last week she was in Richmond, and she saw what can happen to an urban city. In a situation like Charlottesville, people are fleeing to the suburbs and leaving all the Problems behind in the urban center. It was heartbreaking to stay in Richmond and see the boarded up houses and empty store fronts. To let a city die is a terrible thing to do after many resourc- es have been utilized to built it. Mr. Bob Thraves said he lives in the Rivanna District and has lived in the County for 62 years. He supports peace, but he perceives the reversion movement "like throwing a hand grenade at the County people." He said the County has been annexed before, and that a merger with the City of Charlottes- ville was discussed in the past but was defeated by the citizens of Char- lottesville and even more soundly defeated by the citizens of the County. He feels that the County is helping the City by paying $5.0 million this year in County tax dollars and he is not sure what the County receives for its money compared to what the City obtains from the County. The City also receives from the County, without much credit, such things as Monticello, the Universi- ty of Virginia, the airport, water and reservoirs, the Joint Security Complex, the Ivy Landfill, to name a few. The County has good schools and the citizens and the Board of Supervisors have worked hard to ensure this. The difference between the City and the County tax rate is 72 percent for the County and $1.11 for the City. If reversion occurs, County residents would pay more taxes in order to balance out the tax rate which would increase. He feels that the County has an outstanding government, school system and other services without an additional tax increase. Mr. Thraves said reversion should be a legislative matter. Whomever wrote the law that said 15 percent of the people can start something like reversion ought to go back and review the law and make it 51 percent of the people which would make it a majority. Whomever said the County, who is affected by this, could not vote or have a say made a major mistake. He believes the State Legislature should rewrite the law to ensure that County residents have a say in this matter. Ms. Margaret Shepherd said she is a teacher and a County resident. She hopes the reversion discussion does not become an issue about the City "pulling down" the County schools because this is what she has heard so far. No one is recognizing that the City has good schools, and in some areas they are superior to the County in funding for the Arts. However, the City has more at-risk students and this is a problem the community should be taking care of. Currently, she does not support reversion. The City has good schools, the County has good schools, and this should not be a fight between the two systems. She has been a part of redistricting battles between people who lived in the same community in the County, and she does not want this type of situation to happen. The schools should be looking at what is the best for the children in the community. Ms. Toby Zakin said she lives in the County. The Board of Supervisors is being defensive in hiring people who have worked against reversion. It seems to her the statistics shown tonight are negative. Numbers can be played with to the best advantage dependent upon the situation. For example: school test scores indicate that the City has higher scores and the County has average scores. The reversion issue needs be reviewed carefully and common solutions developed. She does not know if she is for or against reversion, but she feels the whole community needs to define what is best for the community. She has not heard enough regarding togetherness. She is hearing divisiveness. This issue was brought forth by City citizens and not by City Council. Obviously, there are concerns. Mr. Robert Nupar said he is a County resident. The citizens' group has initiated this action to change the City of Charlottesville from an inelastic city to an elastic city. Since the City cannot grow internally, this will mean annexing land from the County. If this is the case, then the group should be honest and say this up front. If it is not the case, then he would like to know the definition of inelastic and elastic. Mr. DuPratt Johnson said he was born in Charlottesville in 1946. He believes if the City and County work together and become a united front reversion can be successful. Mr. Perkins closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. He thanked everyone in the audience for attending. He said the Board is ready to meet with City Council in an open forum to discuss the reversion issue at anytime. He then turned the matter over to Board members for discussion. Mrs. Thomas said not all of the negative comments made tonight should be taken to heart. Many public hearings often involve negative vibes pointing at the Board. The reversion process is one that will make Mr. Cranwell a lot of money at the expense of the County taxpayers and the City taxpayers will be doing the same thing with their attorneys. The reversion process puts the County's future in the hands of a three judge court. There are intelligent, well-meaning people in this room and in the community, and she hopes that August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 000 83 everyone can work together to do something that would make more sense than putting the City and County's future in the hands of a three judge court. Mr. Martin said the City and County need to identify what the problems are and once they are identified, sit down and work out solutions. He will do anything he can to facilitate problem identification as well as negotiating a solution to the problems. Fifteen percent of the Charlottesville population can put the County in a situation where everyone ends up in court. Once this goes to court and in front of the three judge panel, the City of Charlottes- ville and the County will have a legal battle of trying to influence and convince the courts on how the outcome should be. He thinks there are talented people in the community, and that this issue can be tackled in the same manner as the Revenue Sharing Agreement. Mrs. Humphris said what the Board has seen and heard tonight is what government is supposed to be about. It is not a small group of people meeting behind closed doors deciding people's future. It is the community telling the people that they elect their thoughts, dreams, hopes and what they would like to see happen. Many of the speakers tonight mentioned the number of things that the City and the County already do together. The City and County continue to work together for common goals like the Departments of Inspec- tions, Parks and Recreation, and Purchasing. The Board will investigate alternatives other than reversion which will include problem identification and solutions. Mr. Marshall thanked everyone for attending tonight's hearing. He has an open mind regarding the reversion issue. He represents a large rural area of the County and he expressed concern about diluting the voice of the rural area. He wants to work with City Council in any way possible to maintain the current character of the County. He was born in Charlottesville, but has spent most of his adult life in the County where he now resides. He wants the City and the County to work together to solve this problem. Mr. Bowerman said the County has been forced into a defensive position by the very action of the citizen's group attempting to obtain the signatures for reversion. Once this process starts, there are 90 days to put together the materials necessary to present to the Commission on Local Government and to the three judge panel. Once the reversion process began in the City, the County had no option but to hire Mr. Cranwell. The Board must protect the interests of the County and its citizens against unknowns. At this point, it seems to him that reversion is a solution in search of a problem. (Note: At 9:13 p.m., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 9:23 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: June 2, 1993; January 11 and June 14, 1995. Mr. Marshall had read the June 14, 1995, minutes and found them to be in order. Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Humphris to approve the June 14, 1995, minutes as presented. The roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Bowerman requested that the sound system be fixed in the auditorium to where people can hear or investigate the need for another system. Agenda Item No. 8a. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 9:25 p.m., a motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to go into Execu- tive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion. The roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 8b. Certify Executive Session. At 9:53 p.m., a motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify the Executive Session by recorded vote that to the best of each board member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the Executive Session were heard, discussed or August 16, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) 000 4 considered in the following Executive Session. The roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 9. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Chairman