Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-09-19 adjSeptember 19, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 19, 1995, at 7:30 P.M., in the McIntire Room of the Jefferson Madison Regional Library, East Market Street, in Charlottes- ville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from September 13, 1995. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin (arriving at 7:35 P.M.), Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins, and Charlottesville City Mayor, David Toscano. Agenda Item No. 2~ Joint Meeting with Charlottesville City Council to discuss items relating to reversion issues. Present also were: Mrs. Virginia Daugherty, Mr. Alvin Edwards, Mrs. Kay Slaughter, Mr. David Toscano and Mr. Tom Vandever. City staff present: Acting City Manager, Gary O'Connell, and City Attorney, Clyde Gouldman. Mr. Toscano announced that there will be no opportunity for the public to speak tonight. Comments will be taken at a later date. Mr. Perkins announced that he had a statement to read, as follows: "The Albemarle Board of Supervisors appreciates the Council's willing- ness to meet with us and to engage in a dialogue about issues of concern to the City. We hope this discussion will lead to a plan that will assure that the City will continue as a strong and viable unit of government. Certainly the health and vitality of the City is advanta- geous to the County. Likewise, we believe the health and vitality of the County is essential to the City. The key, from our perspective, is first and foremost to identify the issues. What is it that makes people think that reversion should be discussed? There is uncertainty over the City's intentions with regard to reversion. However, we are encouraged and hopeful that this dialogue will lead to an examination of those issues, rather than to simply talk about reversion without knowing why the discussion is taking place. After we identify and understand the issues, then we can explore possible solutions and alternatives. We are optimistic that the identification process will begin this evening and we stand ready to participate in finding appropriate ways to address the issues you feel threaten the future of the City. The County and City have a long history of cooperation. We have been able to resolve issues to the mutual satisfaction of the elected officials and produce results that benefit out respective citizenries0 Joint boards, commissions, authorities, and agreements, too numerous to mention, are the result of our governing bodies jointly identifying an issue and then finding an appropriate way to address it." Mr. Toscano said he had a statement to read, as follows: "Good evening, Chairman Perkins, colleagues of the Board and Council, staffs of City and County, friends throughout our region. The City Council is pleased to join the Board of Supervisors this evening in the first of what we hope will be a series of meetings designed to explore mutual interests, opportunities, and challenges, and develop common approaches and solutions that can take our jurisdictions profitably into the next century. Tonight, we will likely discuss some significant problems facing our community. But, at the outset, before we do, let me say that the citizens of Charlottesville live in a great city, a city proud of its heritage and its accomplishments, a city always willing to address the next challenge, and a city whose citizens understand the need for change and the importance of involving the public in the process. Our citizens are proud of efforts to streamline our local government, to create a Charlottesville that works better and costs less. Over the last five years, this has meant a reduction in city Personnel by 12 percent, without the need of layoffs. It has meant a series of initia- tives that have unleashed the creative energies of city employees, generating significant savings to taxpayers as we reorganize city government. Savings from three such revised city programs have totaled almost one-half million dollars over the last twelve months. Our citizens are proud of the city's record of fiscal management and responsibility, a record that has brought Charlottesville Triple-A (AAA) bond ratings from 2 independent rating agencies. We have been told that we are the smallest city in the United States that has this ranking~ and September 19, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) that Charlottesville has the longest consecutive running Triple AAA rating of any city in the country. Citizens of Charlottesville are proud of our school system, which has one of the lowest student-teacher ratios of any public school sYstem in the Commonwealth, and which produced 5 National Merit Finalists last year, more than any division in the entire region. Our citizens are proud of Charlottesville's efforts to encourage job creation and economic growth. For example, estimated costs of construc- tion now underway and shown on city building permits issued during the past year exceed $36 million. New projects in the Downtown Area alone show proposed investment of approximately $5 million over the last twelve months. Most of this new construction represents private sector investment, and is a sign of significant confidence in the future of the city. Several of these projects have been controversial, but this Council has demonstrated its willingness to make difficult decisions when we judge them to be in the best interest of the city. City residents justifiably celebrate these accomplishments. But they are not parochial. They view their city as the commercial and cultural center of the region, but realize that CharlottesVille draws great strength from, and cannot exist independent of, a thriving Albemarle County. They recognize that we all live in a region of wondrous beauty blessed with clean air and clean water, and that the protection of the natural environment and rural character of Albemarle is just as impor- tant to the viability of Charlottesville as the economic vitality of Charlottesville is to the County of Albemarle. Citizens from throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States view Charlottesville and Albemarle as one community. Though the City celebrates yesterday's story and picture in the New York Times magazine and Money magazine's recent ranking of Charlottesville as the 15th Best Place to Live in the nation, and the 5th Best Small Place to Live,'and Number 1 in Virginia, we recognize that the attractiveness of the county is one reason why Charlottesville enjoys such a great national reputation. We are interdependent communities, and any failure to support each other creates peril for us all. Despite the multitude of differences present in our mutual jurisdic- tions, Charlottesville and Albemarle have maintained a higher level of cooperation than most places in Virginia. That is because the leader- ship of our jurisdictions have anticipated future problems, and ad- dressed those problems before they became crises. Thirteen years ago, our region witnessed this vision in action in the passage of the unprecedented revenue sharing agreement. By that agreement, the city relinquished its right to annex county land in exchange for a sharing of revenue resulting from economic growth in our jurisdictions. Today, our citizens look for us to exercise similar leadership, and challenge us to fulfill the promise of the revenue sharing agreement, by embracing its spirit of (and I quote from the agreement) 'a future filled with more cooperative measures, perhaPs ultimately resulting in the combination of the two jurisdictions into one.' As we all know, the revenue sharing agreement also required that a committee be convened to, quote 'study the desirability of combining the governments of the two jurisdictions, or some of the services presently provided by them.' Although none of the present councilors or supervisors were involved in the subsequent discussions that occurred, I think we would all agree that the talks in the mid-1980's did not go as far as many had hoped. More recently, the 'Blue Ribbon' Commission on Efficient Government, a group of city and county business and civic leaders, called on Char- lottesville and Albemarle to renew serious discussion on additional ways to cooperate and consolidate services. Make no mistake about it -- we are here this evening because a citizens group is gathering signatures on a petition that could force Charlottes- ville reversion to town status and thereby bring about a partial consolidation of city and county governments. Although we may not agree with their analysis of the present condition of the city, these citizens have raised critical issues that require clear answers if the region is to continue its history of prosperity. The City Council tonight did not come to debate the pros and cons of reversion; we seek instead to explore with you now -- in good faith -- other options that may accom- plish mutual goals. It is our hope that our governing bodies will identify city and communi- ty problems and their sources, and explore a variety of options for jointly solving them. At the very least, we need to discuss the following 3 problems: (1) The city has shouldered a greater burden in housingg educating and servicing the region's poor, thereby exerting greater demands upon the fiscal resources of the city, bringing more difficult challenges in September 19, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) education, creating pockets of poverty, and causing concern about the long-term financial viability of the city. The sources of these problems are multiple. City decisions to increase subsidized housing units in the 1970s and early 1980s are partially responsible. But county land use decisions which effectively limited the scare stock of affordable housing opportunities in the county have had the effect of prompting the poor to move into the city in search of housing. The city is faced with the higher costs of providing services, including eduction and transportation to this aging and poorer population~ at the same time as more upper income housing is produced in the county. (2) The fixed boundaries of the city make it difficult (especially over the long term) to provide a wider range of business growth and economic opportunity for city residents, and, thus, a broader tax base for city government. Charlottesville is one of the most densely populated cities in Virginia, with little vacant land remaining for either residential or commercial development. Consequently, there are fewer opportunities to expand the tax base by building homes for upper income residents or by creating new shopping and commercial areas. Since the revenue sharing agreement, major portions of city vacant land have been built-out with commercial development -- 5th Street Willoughby Square, Seminole Square, the CSX property. Moreover, newer, more expansive housing in the county often 'attracts' city residents seeking to 'move up' in housing size, style, newness, or price, over time, this exacerbates the disparity of wealth and income between county and city. (3) The demographics and fixed boundaries of the city exacerbate problems in our schools. Children from poorer families often enter school with lower readiness for academic learning. Our teachers make wonderful progress with these youngsters, but such progress requires great effort and substantial financial resources. In addition, Char- lottesville is known for some programs such as special education, which draw families with special needs to reside in the city, and which cost city taxpayers substantial dollars. Although Charlottesville is financially sound at present, the trends just described have the potential to cause serious problems in the lonq term. And given the city's present strength, perhaps this is the most opportune time to discuss future problems. We do not have all the answers (that is why we are here), but we wish to discuss these and related problems with you in an effort to help you better understand the complexity of the challenges which we face as a city and as a corm~unlty. To further discussion of these issues, the Council proposes that a working group be formed to conduct necessary policy discussions at the initial level, and establish an agenda for discussion for the near future. This working group could be composed of up to two council members, up to two board members, the city manager and county executive and staff members as needed, and would report back to a joint meeting of Council and the Board with a plan in the next two weeks. In conclusion, the challenge of political leadership is to anticipate future problems before they become crises, and shape solutions that can enjoy broad public support. In coming together, we have created the opportunity to build for the future of our entire region. Given the presence of the citizen petitioners, as well as the positions of various candidates for statewide office, the window of opportunity for meaning- ful discussion and agreement may only remain open for a very short period. But it is an opportunity that we should seize, because the conditions of its creation may not come again soon. Our citizens hope we are all up to the challenge." Mr. Martin said he appreciates hearing that Council has identified issues and also proposes how to move forward. The three issues mentioned could well be more than three since he feels No. 1 could be three separate items. He feels the items to be discussed by the proposed working group could be broken up into small categories so all members could work on some issue. He suggested that housing be one committee and he volunteered to work on or chair the education committee. Ms. Daugherty said this was a good idea, and suggested that economic health be a separate category. Mr. Toscano said the working group was suggested as a way to work through the list and decide what sub-groups would be needed and how to schedule the operations of the group to get something meaningful to the Board and Council in a reasonable time period. There is also the question of how to staff the groups. Mr. Martin said he appreciates that, but he proposes that two board members and two council members be a committee, and he feels less time would be wasted. September 19, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) 000298 (Page 4) Ms. Slaughter said some areas are already "ripe" for discussion, while some may need to have an agenda prepared first. The two school superinten- dents have already met, and then there is a question of housing and joint planning. There needs to be talk about long-term needs and how to work together. That might be on the larger agenda Mr. Toscano spoke about. Mr. Perkins said there is a need to educate the Board and Council about what each has been doing and the land use policies of both localities. The County is presently working on a revised Comprehensive Plan so there is the opportunity to fine tune and address many issues. Mr. Martin said this is only the second time these two bodies have met since he became a supervisor. He suggested dividing up into sub-committees for schools and economic health and then establishing working groups for other issues as mentioned by Ms. Slaughter. He wants to see this meeting end with the Working groups in place. Ms. Daugherty said she knows there is already an agenda for the educa- tion committee to.ponder over. The schools have already come.forward with a potential partnership agreement which is important to the social health of the community. They have also looked at a program that would enable students to attend programs in a different jurisdiction. The concept of magnet schools could be looked at, there are many areas where they are already in place, including Roanoke. These schools have a type of teaching that entices students to cross district lines to attend. This would bring about a better income mix in the schools. At CATEC, students can now attend all day if they choose. They even have some students from Fluvanna County enrolled. There is interest in having a fine technical program. Maybe there could be a separate committee on that issue. Mrs. Humphris suggested that members volunteer to serve on these two committees so the Board and Council can go on to other matters. Mr. Marshall said he will not negotiate with a gun held to his head. He will live here until he dies and he wants it to be a good place to live. It is to the mutual benefit of both bodies to set down and discuss mutual problems, but before going further he wants Councilto tell hiTM they will not pursue reversion. Mr. Bowerman said all interested parties are in this room tonight. Some need to decide if they can work together, negotiate and solve the problems. He is willing to discuss the problems which have been identified, and thinks Council has done what was asked of them. He is willing to try and solve the problem, but would like to do it outside of the reversion issue. He would like to try and solve the problems as a city and a county to keep the politi- cal jurisdictions as they are. If a problem for the joint jurisdiction is housing, work on that and come up with a solution. If it is joint planning or transportation, look at those issues. He would like to spend a year working with Council on the problems. Mr. Edwards said the issue has become one of who runs for state-wide office. Mr. Martin said there are identified issues that can be worked on. Mr. Edwards asked how that could be done politically. Mr Martin suggested establishing a sub-committee of all members of the Board and Council and then letting the issues be discussed. He said that will automatically de-politi- cize the matter. Obviously, City Council has the ability to discourage or comment as to whether it wants to work together to resolve the issues. Mr. Edwards said both jurisdictions have said they want to resolve the issues. Mr. Marshall said to take the gun away from his head. Mr. Edwards said he did not put the gun up. Everybody is jockeying for position. He would prefer to sit down and talk, but he does not know how to get the state legislators to back away from what they said they will do at the next session of the General Assembly. Mr. Bowerman said everyone recognizes that talking is the right thing to do. There should be no other agenda forthcoming. Although a solution might not be found in some areas, the two bodies deserve time to try for a solution. Mr. Edwards asked how to get the legislators to back off. Mr. Bowerman said he does not think any of them want to do the wrong thing. If the rhetoric is toned down, the rest will take care of itself. Mr. Marshall said all five city councilors are present. He thinks if they said they did not support the reversion, that would go a long way. Ms. Slaughter said a couple of years ago, issues were brought up and studied but there were no definitive answers from those studies. The citizens who have raised the question of reversion have forced everybody to look at the issues. These citizens went out and got petitions signed so that the Council and Board would sit down and talk seriously about issues. When Mr. Toscano put together his statement, it was done so the two bodies would talk. Under the City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement, there was to be a continuing dialogue. Without some issue pushing the two bodies, nothing has happened. Mr. Marshall asked if Ms. Slaughter wants to leave in the question of reversion to force the Board and Council to talk. Mr. Slaughter said she thinks reversion is the issue that got the City and County to this point. Now they need to talk about how to move forward and make progress. September 19, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Toscano said from the.city's point of view, he would like to see some genuine interest shown SUCh as doing what Mr. Martin suggested. He does not think the legislators should attempt to change the statute at this time. He gets no enjoyment from this possibility. Mr. Martin said he would like to state for everyone to hear that he has known David Toscano for a long time and he has never had any reason to question anything he has ever said. City Council did not come tonight to debate the pros and cons of reversion. They don't have any control over the petitions being gathered and that indicates to him that City Council is not on the reversion bandwagon. He wants everybody to move back to the issue that has already been identified and establish a sub-committee and from that point move forward. The two bodies are not here to discuss reversion, but to resolve issues. Mr. Perkins said the Board and Council have to build on the cooperation they have had in the past. Different things have been lOoked at under the Revenue Sharing Agreement, but in some cases there just was not an advantage to making these things joint efforts. Several years ago the Board came to the City and asked if there was extra room in its high school for Albemarle students. The County was told "no" so the County is now building its third high school. These two localities probably have more cooperation than any other two localities in the State. Mrs. Humphris said the snag here is time. She will be gone for the next two weeks and wants to participate. Mr. Martin said, as a former chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, he will volunteer to chair a group for education or housing and will take volunteers to be on the committee. Mrs. Humphris said she would like to be on a housing sub-committee. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks it is important to have City Council say they are willing to set up a legitimate committee. Mr. Vandever said throughout the history of the relationship between the City and the County, they have never come to grips with the real issues. Although the City is in a good financial position now, in the future that may be different. The Revenue Sharing Agreement was signed with two promises. The City gave up the right to annexation. Second, the two communities were to move together to consolidate some services and maybe become one jurisdiction. The City feels it only got one-half of the agreement. It gave up the right to annexation which was the only way to solve its financial problems. That is the only option the City has by itself and now the legislators are saying they want to take that option away. That could happen as early as February or March of 1996. That makes him nervous. This is an opportunity to move the community to the next place of cooperation and he hopes everyone sees that. Mrs. Humphris disagreed. She said that many things have happened. Mr. Vandever said the Board and County have only dealt around the fringes in areas of cooperation such as the Airport and the Jail. All functions of government should be looked at. Mr. Marshall said the Revenue Sharing Agreement was supposed to solve those problems. He does not disagree that the area has socio-economic problems that have probably been brought about by Albemarle County. As to other things, there is a need to sit down and negotiate but he needs to know it is being done in good faith. Mr. Toscano said there is a need to show people that Council and the Board will sit down and come up with some solutions. Of all sub-committees to be established~ education is the one that might be done quickly by using the agenda that has been partially set out by the school boards° An agenda could be produced in short order saying what will be discussed and giving a time table for other issues to be discussed. As to housing and planning, other groups may need to sit down and think things through and then set up an agenda° Ms. Slaughter said she thinks it is good for the Council and Board to talk about the process. She wants to see that the two bodies accomplish something and get back together. She would like to discuss some other things tonight. As to education, she thinks the City has had the benefit. She thinks there are some City students who could attend Murray High School and some students in Albemarle County that could attend Charlottesville's alterna- tive school. The City is proud of its' music program and feels that an exchange could be worked out. In terms of technical matters, she feels the elementary schools could be hooked together so City and County students could communicate with each other. Mr. Marshall said he agrees that there are other things the two locali- ties could do. Mr. Slaughter said she would like to hear any ideas. Mr. Marshall asked if the Council will ask the citizens to stop gathering peti- tions until the two bodies have a chance to talk. Mr. Toscano said at some point they might be able to do that~ but at this point, it is not just the citizens who are' involved. Ms. Slaughter said Council is here tonight to discuss the issues in good faith. 000300 September 19, 1995 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) ~ Mr. Edwards said both Mr. Marshall and Mr. Bowerman have expressed that sentiment. Mr. Marshali said he always speaks f°r himSelf' Mrs. Humphris said it has been mentioned that the window of opportunity is closing. She asked if someone would elaborate on that statement. Mr. Toscano said there is a citizen-initiated petition being circulated. If these citizens get 2750 signatures, they will have enough names to file to have reversion considered. Other persons are interested in avoiding that. He thinks that if the citizens saw progress being made by Council and the Board, they would be less likely to push the issue. On the other side, all candi- dates for the State Legislature have given some variation of the law to "cut off" the City. Everybody will introduce something and that worries him. Mr. Martin said during the last four years, there has been talk about loOking~at the possibility of doihg some of the things mentioned. He does not th~nk anybody ever said anything about merging functions for any reason other than for economic viability. There were studies and it was said that the functions were not economically feasible to'do. Now~Council wants to talk' about other things which have to do with economic viability. If any of these things had been looked at from a point of view other than economic viability, he thinks the outcome would have been different. He does not feel any opportunity has been foregone or that any window of opportunitY is closing now. He will volunteer to be on the education committee. Some of the issues that should be discussed are: magnet schools, Murray High School, and alternative education in the City. There is no reason why students can't use Murray. It should be talked about. Mr. Toscano said that adult education, technical knowledge, summer schools and special education should be added to that list. Ms. Slaughter said she would like to work on that committee, also. Mrs. Thomas said the Albemarle School Board feels it has gone as far as it can on its own. To come away from this meeting with a list of things to be discussed will be good. Mr. Perkins said a lot of things have been mentioned, but he does not believe everything can be dealt with tonight. Mr. Toscano asked if Council and the Board can get closure on the education issue. Ms. Slaughter suggested a sub-group from this group get together to see what it will have to do. Mr. Martin said he would accept recommendations from anybody. Mr. Toscano suggested that Mr. Martin, Ms. Slaughter and Mrs. Thomas be the sub-committee. Mrs. Thomas said she would be happy to work on the committee. Mr. Marshall said he is willing to serve on a committee for housing or economic development. Ms. Daugherty said there was talk a few years ago about having some joint arrangement between the County and City Planning Commissions and that could include housing. (Mr. Martin left the room at 8:45 p.m.) Mrs. Humphris said the PACC-Tech Committee has been looking at areas of concern. Ms. Slaughter said housing is a good issue to study° Mr. Toscano said he has been on the PACC for eight months and they are supposed to operate as a joint planning group, but they don~t operate like that. Planning and housing would be two issues to combine. Both have impacts on other things such as transportation. Mr. Marshall said what took place in D.C. today put people off of welfare and these people will need jobs. Mr. Martin said the whole issue of welfare reform is something that both localities will have to face at about the same time. Mrs. Thomas said she knows staff has been working on this jointly already. Mr. Toscano said Council and the Board need to know more about what they are doing. Mr. Perkins asked if education, planning and housing are enough topics to start with. Mr. Toscano said he is willing to work on these topics. He and Mr. Perkins should have continuing discussions. Mrs. Thomas said there are some other areas that have not been men- tioned. She has heard that Chattanooga, Tennessee, and its surrounding areas hold a joint budget hearing. This is an interesting idea and could save a lot of agencies from making separate presentations. She pointed out that since 1982 there have been some significant things done in the community. There is creation of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, the Children & Youth Commis- sion, and construction of the Towe Park. She does not want anybody to think the two localities have not continuously looked at ways things could be done together. Mr. Vandever said Mr. Martin has said quality of life is one issue that should be considered and not to just evaluate on economic viability. He said September 19, 1995 (Ad~°urned Meeting) (Page 7) 00080:1. the two localities do quite a few things together, but around the fringes are some central services that have an effect on the quality of life and theSe things need to be lOOked a~, Mr. Toscano said it has not been mentioned tonight, but formula-based funding of services could also be studied. He does not know how to attack that issue. In the future, there will be funding needed for health issues. Mrs. Humphris said everybody is talking about a humongous amount of work. If the window of opportunity is closing, she hopes City Council will make sure that everybody involved in gathering petitions knows of the amount of good work the Board and Council members undertake on behalf of their citi- zens. If the petition is filed, all of that good work comes to a halt and the issue goes to the lawyers. ~Mr. T0scano said that is a reason to make positive progress fast. Mr. Vandever said Council has not heard whether the citizens will file a petition The unique part.of the reversion .legislation is that it gives City Council the right to vote yes or no. Mrs. Humphris said in the meantime, she thinks Council could influence the petitioners. Mr. Vandever wondered what would happen if the petition were filed and City Council and the Board went to the commission and said it was a bad idea. Mr. Perkins said the Board could say it is not a good idea and have nothing happen. Mr. Marshall said he thinks it would be a good idea to ask these people to stop. ~ Mr. Toscano said City Council is negotiating in good faith. He thinks things have gone about as far as they can tonight. Mr. Perkins said two members of City Council are needed to work on planning and housing sub-groups. Mr. Toscano suggested that he and Mr. Perkins be the housing committee. He said a time should be set for Board and Council to reconvene. It was agreed by consensus that the next meeting will be held on October 30, 1995, at 5:15 p.m.,at the main branch of the Library. Mr. Bowerman said he will join Mrs. Humphris and Mro Marshall on the housing sub-committee. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.