Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-12-14 AdjournedDecember 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) A special meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 14, 2000, at 1:30 p.m., Room 331, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman and Mr. Charles S. Martin. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White, Executive Assistant, Lori S. Spencer, County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m., by the Vice-Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Meet with Legislators to Discuss 2001 Legislative Plan. LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Emily Couric and Delegates Mitchell Van Yahres and Paul Harris. Ms. Thomas then turned the program over to Lori Spencer who made a presentation on Albemarle County’s legislative program. Ms. Spencer said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) works with the County and other Planning district members each year to develop a legislative program for the General Assembly session. Planning District 10 includes Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, as well as the Counties of Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson. The 2001 TJPDC Legislative Program was provided to Board members and Legislators, and will form the basis of today's discussion. Also present is David Blount, the TJPDC Legislative Liaison. The 2001 Legislative Program follows the same format as in prior years, with six broad categories of general policy and legislative requests and a section highlighting some of the most important issues. Ms. Spencer said an Executive Summary outlining items for which the County officials are requesting sponsorship or support was provided to the legislators and Board members. Under the category of Transportation: · Support development and funding of the TransDominion Express with stops in Oak Ridge and Charlottesville and funding to study economic tie-ins to communities along the way. · Support for relaxing state transportation standards to give localities more flexibility regarding road construction in neighborhoods and traffic calming measures. Delegate Harris said Item Two under Transportation will be included among the recommendations coming from the Governor’s Commission on Transportation Policies which basically turns more of this type of authority over to localities. He stated that Fairfax County is already well along in terms of having more control with its secondary road systems. He believes the State will be moving toward doing more of this on a statewide basis. Ms. Thomas inquired about the funding situation for localities. Delegate Harris replied that the funding will be turned over to the localities, although in some cases the funding involves state property. One of the Transportation Commission’s concerns is whether there will be a request from localities for a funding plus scenario. He explained that this involves turning over the current stream of funding to the localities plus more money for a transition, which could pose some problems. Senator Couric referred to Arlington County’s form of funding. Mr. Davis responded that there is a formula set out in the State Code for funding localities, but Arlington and Henrico Counties are not involved with this system. Senator Couric noted that they are very happy with their form of funding. Mr. Davis said Arlington and Henrico officials have never regretted their decision not to join the State’s funding system. Delegate Harris stated that there have been changes and reforms in this area, and the idea is to turn more of VDoT’s responsibilities over to the localities with regard to secondary roads and traffic lights, etc. Senator Couric pointed out that in Arlington and Henrico there is some sort of protocol as to how funding should be funneled. Mr. Tucker commented that Arlington and Henrico have the County Manager form of government. He said with this type of government, county officials can set up a system to handle all the roads in their counties. Senator Couric emphasized that this is true, but the funding still comes from the State. Mr. Davis remarked that these two counties also have their own maintenance system for the roads. They have public works departments which perform the same duties as VDoT. This is an expensive transition for localities to make. Delegate Harris stated that nobody is willing to touch the statewide transportation funding formula December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) that is now in place. He added that one of the main drafters of the new proposals coming from the Transportation Commission is from Henrico, and he is familiar with how things have been done there. Delegate Harris said he has worked with special cases in Henrico, Arlington and Fairfax and, under current law, counties can opt to take over more of these duties and responsibilities. State officials are now saying they should be more aggressive in turning over some of these responsibilities to localities as well as the funding. He emphasized that the question relates to how much the transition will cost the state, which is the only area that may be contentious in terms of money. Senator Couric suggested that the counties may want to try to predict what they might need in terms of the transition if it is going to be a problem with setting up their own public works department. Ms. Humphris remarked that the whole idea is overwhelming. Senator Couric agreed, but it is a good topic for discussion since it is a big issue. Ms. Thomas pointed out that the state standards are such that anyone building a subdivision or enlarging a road going to a subdivision has to go through a process that results in wider roads than desired. This is keeping Albemarle County from having the connections among new subdivisions that are desirable. She explained that as soon as the developer has more than a cul-de-sac that will be carrying more traffic, then suddenly he has to build big roads. She also mentioned that when a place such as Bellair has a new entrance road, it has to be built to huge standards. She has been told that eighteen wheelers are turning around there thinking it is the entrance to I-64, and it has caused all sorts of trouble. This is because the standards for roads with certain traffic counts no longer allow the roads to have the appearance of neighborhood streets. She went on to say if the state is going to give the localities this type of responsibility, then she hopes it will also give them the responsibility for imposing standards. Senator Couric mentioned that the legislators often hear complaints from older neighborhoods, particularly in Greene County. The developer puts in smaller roads which are privately maintained. She explained that the developer then leaves, and all of the citizens come to the legislators and want the state to maintain the roads. However, the roads don’t meet state standards, and there are a lot of hard feelings. Delegate Harris remarked that when standards are discussed, safety also is involved. There are many times when corners are cut with standards on the state level, and safety has paid a price. He hopes standards will not be cut to the point where the safety of motoring citizens is in jeopardy. He referred to Route 20 where the state constructed a narrow road. He said everybody recognizes now that Route 20 needs to be wider and broader to meet current standards. He pointed out that, in the meantime, there have been a number of fatalities there. Under the category of the Comprehensive Services Act: · Support for full funding of the state pool for Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) costs, with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need, calculated on a three-year rolling average. Further, the state should tap into allowable federal Medicaid dollars to the fullest extent possible and should allow local flexibility in the use of Medicaid and other funding sources to maximize the services provided through CSA. Recommendation includes support for a cap on local expenditures and the establishment of a contingency fund to help pay for high-cost, long-term cases. Delegate Harris asked if the terms “IEPs” within the “CSA” refer to special education. Ms. Spencer answered affirmatively. Mr. David Blount pointed out that the state’s projections for costs over the biennium are close to $75.0 million, and the budget approved this past year addressed only some of the shortfall. Delegate Van Yahres noted that this is nothing new. He added that it has been an ongoing problem for a number of years, and the state is not carrying its fair share. Under the category of Tax Structure and Reform: · Support for the General Assembly to broaden the revenue sources available to localities. Possible options include: return of a portion of the income tax to localities, a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions, a local option income tax or a local option sales tax. · Support for the General Assembly to not cap, remove, or restrict any revenue sources, taxing authority or user fees available to localities, including the local tax for enhanced emergency telephone services (E911). Delegate Van Yahres stated that a citizens task force is going to have recommendations for changing tax structure for the state, but he is uncertain if they will be forgotten or if they will add something of value. He also wondered if the state will cooperate even if the recommendations are valuable. He understands that it is a very comprehensive plan and some of it may be unrealistic. He has heard that the task force members have voted affirmatively as far as their sales tax on service recommendation is concerned, and this is an example of something that might be unrealistic. Delegate Harris referred to the County officials’ recommendation for a reduction in the number of sales tax exemptions, and he wondered if they have any specific ones in mind. Delegate Van Yahres indicated that there are approximately 50 or 60 sales tax exemptions currently being studied. Ms. Humphris mentioned that she has seen a list of all of the sales tax exemptions the General December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) Assembly has allowed up to the present time. She said it is obviously out of control. Delegate Van Yahres concurred. The situation is being considered by the Finance Commission. Mr. Blount referred to the proliferation of tax credits that have been approved over the past six years. Under the category of Land Use and Growth Management: · Support preserving existing authority for localities to regulate land use. · Support for enabling legislation that would provide local governments with various land use tools to manage growth (such as impact fees, adequate public facilities ordinances, changes to VDOT road standards, and transfer and purchase of development rights). · Support for legislation to enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts. · Support for increase in state funding for land preservation and related measures to purchase and preserve open space and recreation lands, including directing the bulk of any available federal funding to localities. Regarding legislation to enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts, Ms. Thomas remarked that Vince Callahan chaired the Advisory Commission on Intergovern- mental Relations for a number of years, and he was very interested in the issue of visual quality and how it impacted on tourism, as well as other economic development facets of the state. She said House Document 99 was released in the 2000 General Assembly session discussing how important visual quality is and how Virginia is one of the states that least allows local governments to pay attention to visual qualities in their land use regulations. She pointed out that at the local level, Albemarle County proposed a Mountain Protection Ordinance, and a lot of citizens asked why County officials were regulating the steepness of driveways and the number of houses allowed. They wondered why the regulations would not just indicate that the County did not want buildings to be visually obtrusive such as bright, white buildings stuck out on the foreheads of mountains. She stated that County officials answered that this is what they wanted to do but could not because of State law. State law indicates that first and foremost there have to be safety and health considerations, and the visual impact is not the only thing to be considered. She added that County officials can make this determination in entrance corridors leading to historic districts, which is the reason for so much landscaping on roads leading up to Charlottesville. However, it can’t be done on a road leading to an industrial park or mountain ridges. This is where the County officials’ interest coincided with Vince Callahan’s interest. She emphasized that he has introduced House Bill 1630, but it is too late to ask the legislators to sign on as co-patrons, since it has already been filed. She said it corresponds nicely with the County’s constituents’ interests in having localities be more direct about what is desired rather than talking about health and safety issues. County officials are following this piece of legislation closely because of the history relating to citizens’ questions concerning this issue. There are statewide organizations interested in this issue, and one of them is a new organization called Scenic Virginia. If the three legislators are asked if Albemarle County would be willing to pilot such a program, the answer is “yes.” Delegate Harris inquired as to how the County would balance scenic protection or tourist enhancement district ordinances with private property rights. Ms. Thomas responded that this is done all the time on entrance corridors. Delegate Harris asked why, then, is this particular legislation needed. Ms. Thomas answered that there are areas other than entrance corridors to which this legislation should be applied. Delegate Harris asked how the County balances its ordinances with private property rights on entrance corridors. Mr. Davis replied that there is an Architectural Review Board (ARB) appointed by the Board of Supervisors which oversees a certain process. The ARB uses applications for entrance corridors which only apply to nonresidential structures, and they are incorporated as part of the site plan process. There are a set of guidelines which have been adopted by the Board that are used as a measure of suggesting and requiring visual improvements to keep these sites consistent with what the County desires to have on the entrance corridors leading to historic areas. The experience has been fantastic during the course of this ordinance which has been in effect for seven or eight years. He emphasized that he can count the number of appeals on one hand, and the process has had wide community support, even in the business community. He stated that other jurisdictions routinely call his office inquiring how the County developed its ordinance because they want to do the same thing. They have noticed the dramatic impact it is having particularly on the Route 29 corridor as well as other corridors. It has been a very positive experience in Albemarle County. However, there are other areas that cannot be included in entrance corridor regulations under enabling legislation because they have to involve a certain type of road leading to historic designated areas. He said mountain ridges were the main area the County wanted to protect. There were instances where citizens indicated they would gladly accept regulations for earth tone houses, but they did not want the County to tell them how many houses could be built or where they could be located. This may get into property rights issues. He added that citizens were very willing to compromise on the color of roof tops, etc., because they want to protect the mountains as well. Most of the people who live in the mountains have more of an interest in protecting the scenic quality of the mountains than anyone else, but they don’t want to give up their development rights or property rights as they envision them. He suggested that there could be a board established with very little bureaucracy, but it would have a list of color designs, etc., that could be selected. Delegate Harris asked if Mr. Davis is saying the legislation would give the County authority in the area of color, design, etc. Mr. Davis answered that this is basically what it amounts to now, since the December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) historic districts relate to design, color and architectural objects that affect the quality of the development. He said building standards, etc., are not considered as they are with a Zoning Ordinance. He stated that it doesn’t prohibit uses, and it doesn’t take away any zoning rights. Delegate Van Yahres remarked that the original bill was designed for visual impact in the entrance corridors, and it doesn’t get into all the other regulations. Ms. Thomas mentioned that although there is a title in the information entitled “Land Use and Road Management,” it is not a road management item. She said people cannot be told not to build, but the appearance of it would be considered. Delegate Harris referred to the first item under these recommendations which speaks to precluding VDoT from allowing construction of commercial, mobile or land based telecommunications facilities such as monopoles or towers without prior approval of the affected locality’s governing body. He asked if it matters if the facilities are built on a state property. Mr. Davis responded that under existing law if the facilities are being built for private use, the County’s position is that they already require local government control and approval. It becomes problematic when VDoT builds towers under the pretext that they are for its own use, and then the County is stuck with a tower that VDoT may or may not really need. The County would like to have coordination with VDoT whereby it could only build those facilities consistent with the zoning in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Delegate Harris inquired if there have been towers proposed to be built in Albemarle County under the ruse of being for the combined public and private use that really have no public purpose. Mr. Davis replied that there were towers proposed by VDoT for Albemarle County that might have far exceeded any public purpose that could be identified. He noted that at one time there were five towers proposed at 199 feet tall and, from the County’s experience, there is no VDoT use for a tower that tall . A private carrier would love to have five towers 199 feet tall in Albemarle County. The County was interested in the fact that VDoT was going to lease some of the towers to private carriers to circumvent Albemarle County’s Comprehensive Plan. The County has a problem with this, as well as other localities across the State. He noted that Fairfax’s authority was upheld by the State Supreme Court. There has been some recent litigation in other localities, and VDoT has backed off of their proposals in all of these localities recently. He thinks localities are gaining ground with VDoT, but this legislation would set the record clear about following the process required by localities. Delegate Harris stated that he believes one reason VDoT has backed off of some of its proposals is that the amount of money VDoT spends in litigation is astounding. He said every dollar spent in litigation is a dollar less spent for building or maintaining roads and, at some point, it is not worth it. He stated that VDoT can build a tower 100 feet tall purely for public purpose, and it is responsible for paying for it which means the taxpayers are responsible. He added that VDoT has the responsibility for building the same tower at higher elevations under circumstances where the tower can serve both a public and a private purpose, and VDoT can then lease the tower at less expense to the taxpayer. He said it is easy to rail against a department such as VDoT and certainly there are a lot of things wrong with VDoT but, in a sense, we can’t have our cake and eat it, too. He thinks it is proper to explore ways to get a private and public benefit out of situations that actually cost the taxpayers fewer dollars and frees up VDoT to use more of its money for building and maintaining roads. Senator Couric remarked that she does not think subjecting the towers to the Comprehensive Plan should cause VDoT problems. She noted that Delegate Harris signed off on the bill last year. Delegate Harris responded that he had done so, but the bill did not indicate that prior approval to affected localities would be needed. The language was not as strong in last year’s bill. Senator Couric stated that some compromise language had been prepared, and she thought agreement had been reached, but the phone companies’ lobby was very powerful. She said VDoT was also opposed. She noted, though, that originally the proposal had included comprehensive planning. She emphasized that she is not introducing the bill this year. Instead, she would wait until the following year, hopefully, with more success. Ms. Thomas pointed out that it is very lucrative for people to have these towers on their properties, and it is a private enterprise issue. She stated that often farmers who have land can get $1,000 a month rent for a small portion of property. She wondered if the state should be competing for the income from the people who own the land along the roads. She noted that these towers do have to go through the County’s process, and County officials are happy with this situation. Albemarle County has approximately 70 towers, but only a half a dozen of them can be seen. She explained that most of them are at treetop height and are almost invisible. She emphasized that landowners are benefiting from having towers on their properties. She said in weighing things, it is not the total answer, but the state could work with individual landowners on this matter. Ms. Humphris commented that the service in Albemarle County is excellent, and everybody seems to have the type of service they want from the companies that are permitted to operate here. The Board members get comments from people all over the state that they can tell when they enter and exit Albemarle County as far as the height of towers are concerned. She then mentioned that the people in the Bellair Subdivision now have two towers in their backyards, and people traveling on Routes 250 or 29 have no idea that the towers are there, and they are right beside the road. These people have a nice retirement income. Senator Couric inquired if the towers are unattractive. Ms. Humphris answered, “no.” She suggested that Senator Couric go to look at the towers. Ms. Thomas said the only way she can locate them is because she knows they are close to the sign indicating that a right turn will lead to the University of Virginia. The sign is on the right, and the towers December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) are on the left. She noted that they can be seen better in the winter than summer but they are a prototype as far as the appearance of cellular towers in Albemarle County. Ms. Humphris concurred with Ms. Thomas that there are probably 70 towers in Albemarle County, and most of them resemble the ones at Bellair. They are visually unobtrusive, and they are on private property. Senator Couric asked Mr. Davis if litigation is pending now concerning this issue. Mr. Davis said he received notice last week indicating that VDoT has withdrawn all of the tower applications from Rockbridge County, so litigation is not necessary there. He mentioned that there was another county which had a VDoT proposal for a tower and litigation was pending, but VDoT has withdrawn this application also. He does not think there is anything in litigation on this issue at this time. Delegate Van Yahres inquired if there are any examples of VDoT having towers which are used strictly for private enterprise but not for VDoT’s use. Mr. Davis answered, “yes.” He went on to say this happened in Fairfax County and possibly in Richmond and Chesapeake. However, he is not aware of such a situation in this area. Under the category of Standards of Quality (SOQ) Funding: · Support for the state to fund its share of the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and the actual educational needs and practices employed by school divisions across the Commonwealth. · Support for the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) to stabilize employer contribution rates and reimburse localities for VRS costs for positions filled in excess of SOQ requirements. Delegate Van Yahres remarked that the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) is doing a two year study, and there will be interim reports this year and a final report next year. Ms. Spencer said Albemarle also supports that a mechanism for appealing the Local Composite Index (LCI) to the state be established and that funding for the at-risk four year olds program be increased, so that grants are available for 100 percent, rather than 60 percent of those unserved children. Delegate Van Yahres remarked that there will have to be a formula for the amount of extra reimbursement going to localities. He said it is too complicated to do without a formula since things are different in each locality. He emphasized that nothing should change until the JLARC recommendations are presented. The Standards of Quality are less than minimal, and as one of the members of the Appropriations Committee said years ago, they should be called the Standards of Mediocrity. The name has not been changed, and neither has the formula. Senator Couric said she does not believe a mechanism for appeal of the LCI to the state will happen. She has worked on this issue, but the appeal has nowhere to go. Delegate Harris commented that it is fundamentally unfair for only a few localities to appeal and have a different standard that would only apply to them. Senator Couric noted that she has worked with people trying to develop a new formula to capture Albemarle and Nelson Counties. However, every time the wealthy counties were also captured, so it didn’t work. Mr. Davis remarked that the standards should relate more to factors over which the localities have some control. Delegate Harris assured the Board members that Albemarle County is not the only county in Virginia with the same concerns about the Composite Index. There should be some recognition of the local problems. Ms. Humphris mentioned that land use taxation is important, but it is not included in the scenario for the formula. Next, Delegate Harris inquired about the number of at-risk four year olds in the County who are involved with the at-risk four year olds program. Ms. Thomas responded that it is approximately 60 percent of the total eligible population of four year olds. Senator Couric pointed out that the students in some of the federal programs, such as Title I, are not counted. This is unfair because it punishes the schools using Title I money to address four year old needs. She suggested funding the four year olds program, and allowing the schools to use the Title I money in the lower primary grades. Delegate Van Yahres remarked that there are about 60 localities which, some years ago, used Title I money to do the same thing as the at-risk four year olds program. Now, they are being penalized by not getting this funding. He added that Charlottesville is one of these localities, but Albemarle County is getting full state funding for its four year olds program. Ms. Thomas commented that if the school principals are asked about the best thing the County has done in recent years, the Bright Stars program will be at the top of the list. Under the category of Public Safety: December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) · Support for legislation that will enable additional localities to install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems. Senator Couric noted that she is introducing this piece of legislation as it was last year. Delegate Van Yahres announced that the carry over legislation for this item was killed yesterday. However, he will be introducing another bill statewide using a different formula. He will use traffic counts and intersection design as criteria, and he will still introduce a bill for Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Referring to the TJPDC's legislative position, Delegate Harris called attention to the second bullet under Local Government Structure and Laws where it shows opposition to intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures, local government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees, matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance and procedures for adopting ordinances. He asked for an example of this type of situation. Ms. Thomas responded that this is a TJPDC issue, and it does not relate to Albemarle County. Delegate Harris said most people regard the Fair Labor Standards Act as generally a good thing. He then wondered if the County has any concerns or views about the living wage movement in the City of Charlottesville. Ms. Thomas answered that the County already has an $8.00 an hour minimum for its employees. Delegate Harris said he is talking about additional things outside of the minimum. He pointed out that Alexandria is currently trying additional measures along this line. Mr. Blount referred to the fourth bullet under Local Government which involves supporting enabling legislation that authorizes localities to require contractors, as a condition of public contracts awarded through the procurement process, to pay employees a living wage. Delegate Harris inquired if this organization supports a requirement to have contractors pay a living wage. Ms. Humphris remarked that this is in the TJPDC’s program, and it doesn’t mean that Albemarle County supports it. Delegate Harris said he understands Albemarle County’s position, but this type of legislation would allow localities to require payment of a living wage from contractors. Delegate Van Yahres said he believes Alexandria is talking about requiring this of contractors. However, the contractors or the Chamber of Commerce have promised to bring suit against Alexandria if this is done. Delegate Harris stated that Baltimore has made this a requirement for contractors, and some West Coast cities have been very aggressive with it. Ms. Thomas inquired if these places have been sued. Delegate Harris responded that there has been some litigation, but he is unsure about the results. Basically the litigation has related to discriminatory government policy. The minimum wage law requires everybody to be the same, but this regulation requires certain groups to be paid a living wage. Senator Couric asked if the Davis-Bacon Act requires the same thing. Delegate Harris said the Davis-Bacon Act drives up the cost of building public schools. Under the category of Health and Human Services: · Support for additional state funding for local social services facilities and for local departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services. Ms. White mentioned that Attachment Four (copy on file) explains the reasons behind the request for support of this budget amendment. The Department of Social Services has been housed in the County Office Building since 1981, and it has been rapidly outgrowing its space. As a result, the Department of Social Services was asked to find some temporary location outside of the County Office Building while the County looks for ways to expand its space. The Social Services Department found space on Millmont Avenue, and will move there in January. The Department is currently operating with 87 staff members in approximately 8,000 square feet of space. This does not meet the standards that have been adopted by the Social Services Department statewide. She noted that there was a study done in 1996 suggesting that 22,000 square feet of space was needed for the staff. The same study examined the adequate reimbursable cost for Social Services, and including some inflationary costs, indicated that it was over $19 a square foot including maintenance and utilities. She added that currently space has been found at $18 a square foot which includes maintenance and utilities. The big issue for County officials is that they have had to go outside the County Office Building to find additional space, and the state has not been reimbursing the full 80 percent it had indicated it should be reimbursing. If it is reimbursed at the current rate, it would amount to about $8 per square foot, which is impossible to find. She emphasized that the County is requesting a budget amendment for FY 02 to help with some of the renovation costs of the new space, as well as the costs associated with installing new software and hardware for communication, and also for 80 percent of the rent. Senator Couric asked if a dollar figure is available. Ms. White responded that the total cost is $533,000 which includes $392,000 for the current renovation costs, and next year’s cost is approximately $160,000. She explained that $160,000 is really what the state should consider on an ongoing basis. Senator Couric inquired if there are other localities with similar budget requests. Ms. White December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) answered that she does not know of any other localities with such requests. There probably will be some in the future. She stated that every year there are space issues, but some communities have put the request in their individual office space requests. Albemarle County is making this request because of the large costs incurred this year with the Social Services Department. Senator Couric asked if a County official would be willing to speak to the finance committees about this issue. Ms. White answered affirmatively. Delegate Van Yahres inquired if the County is currently getting reimbursement from the state of $8 per square foot for the 8,000 square feet of space the Social Services Department is currently using. Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of the Social Services Department, commented that there have been no increases in administrative funding costs since 1988. Delegate Van Yahres inquired if other departments around the state would be getting a different reimbursement per square foot. Ms. Ralston replied affirmatively. Delegate Harris asked if there are five different Social Services Departments in the Planning District. Ms. White stated that there are six of these departments in this Planning District. Delegate Harris wondered if there is a reason some of them are not consolidated in order to cut down on costs. Ms. White responded that this issue has been considered in the past, but it has never been determined that there would really be a cost savings. Some administrative costs might be saved, but the number of case workers and case managers would still be the same for Charlottesville and Albemarle even if they were combined. Mr. Dorrier mentioned that part of the issue relates to the reimbursement from the state for the City and the County. Ms. Ralston commented that the matter could probably be worked out administratively. However, as long as there are separate jurisdictions, one jurisdiction would probably have to contract with the other in order to make the arrangement more efficient. She mentioned that Harrisonburg and Rockingham have a joint situation, but the Code makes it hard for communities to do this because of the separate jurisdictions between the independent city and the independent county. She mentioned that Staunton and Augusta operate as one agency, but she believes they have two different personnel systems and two different budgets. She said it is really a burden administratively, if the communities cannot work out an effective collaboration on the matter. Senator Couric stated that she believes this has happened in some communities. Mr. Tucker commented that one of the ideas coming from the Tax Structure Commission is to fully fund Social Services agencies from the state level rather than having localities share in the funding. He expects the Commission will be examining this very thing as far as ways of saving money, as well as whether there are ways of consolidating. Ms. Ralston suggested that the legislators look at a large Social Services department such as Fairfax and compare it to the local departments. The consolidated agencies don’t serve the localities as well, and big is not always better. Ms. Thomas stated that it is an obvious area to consider, and this question has been asked a number of times. She added that it is not a new thought process, and County officials get back to it every couple of years. Mr. Davis commented that when this matter was considered during the reversion issue with Charlottesville, it was decided that it would cost more money to combine the two departments. He explained that there would be an additional large capital cost because there was no facility available to combine Social Services in one building. Delegate Harris referred to the population shift away from the City and into the County. He asked if the case load in the City has been reduced because of this situation, and has it increased in the County. Ms. Ralston answered that poor people generally don’t move into the County, but the case loads in both the County and the City have decreased due to federal regulations. She stated that Medicaid cases have increased in the County and City, but they have probably increased more in the County. (Note: Mr. Dorrier left the meeting at 2:30 p.m.) Ms. Thomas explained that Mr. Dorrier left the meeting because he had to be in court. Under the category of Housing: · Support for state-enacted incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures. Ms. Humphris referred to Attachments Two and Three (copies on file) relating to Albemarle County’s position. Albemarle County has recently adopted into its Comprehensive Plan a Historic Preservation Plan. She said one thing County officials feel would be very supportive of implementing the recommendations of the Plan would be to have enabling legislation for a revolving loan fund. This fund would allow Albemarle County, as a locality, to loan money to property owners who want to do rehabilitation work on properties that have been determined, according to the criteria in the Plan, to be historic properties. She noted that this influences a lot of things such as tourism, economic development, etc. When the Historic Preservation Committee met last week to adopt its top ten recommendations to present to the Board of Supervisors, one of the things they specifically wanted to get underway was such enabling December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) legislation, so the County would be able to loan money to properties that would be undergoing rehabilitation relating to the established criteria. She added that Bob Watson, a representative of the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition (CALAC) was attending this meeting. He was very interested and indicated that CALAC would be supportive of any such legislation. She commented that he went on to say it would be very important to the builders, the Chamber of Commerce and the realtors if this legislation is passed. He sent a letter indicating his understanding that the Board of Supervisors was going to meet with the legislators today and request sponsorship of such enabling legislation. He also indicated that CALAC, in its public testimony on historic preservation, made a strong plea for economic incentives to be a paramount ingredient in the Plan that was passed by the Board of Supervisors in November. She said he talks further in his letter about the significant number of jobs that are created in Virginia as a result of rehabilitation of Virginia’s historic buildings, as well as the large number of them needing to be rehabilitated and how labor intensive it is. She stated that he also mentions how important it is to other areas. Senator Couric asked if the legislators could have copies of Bob Watson’s letter. Delegate Van Yahres also asked for a copy of the incentives available currently for developers or owners of historic preservation properties. Mr. Davis suggested that the legislators be provided with copies of the historic preservation section that deals with this topic and outlines what the Committee analyzed as well as a list of tax incentives, etc. Ms. Humphris stated that all of these things would be made available to the legislators. She said Mr. Davis has provided a proposed amendment to the Virginia Code which is a bill to adopt legislation related to historic preservation, rehabilitation and repair of historic properties and would pertain to any locality. Senator Couric inquired if the County would appropriate the money from its own local revenues. Ms. Humphris replied affirmatively. She then referred to the qualifications related to the lodging tax that only two percent can be used for general purposes and the remainder has to be used for direct tourism or related purposes. She said CALAC was particularly interested in being able to use some of these funds for the purpose of establishing such a revolving loan fund. Ms. Thomas mentioned that one of the members of this Committee actually talked to some bankers to see if they would be interested in setting up such a revolving loan program. The reply from the bankers was to inquire if the County had such a program and, if so, would they be interested in participating. These were preliminary discussions, but it sounded as though they were waiting for the County to have such a program before they put any private money into it. This could be another source of funding, but it would be up to the County officials to examine the possibility. Senator Couric asked which banks were approached. Ms. Humphris answered that Wachovia representatives were approached, and there could have been others. Mr. Davis noted that it is also hoped that grants might be available at some point. Delegate Van Yahres mentioned that the interest rates with banks could be a problem. Ms. Humphris remarked that she does not think the bankers were necessarily talking about loans from the banks but, instead, a contribution into the revolving fund. She said it would be a grant. Senator Couric stated that this type of situation could qualify the Community Reinvestment Act Obligations (CRA) as far as the banking law is concerned. Ms. Humphris concurred. This is the reason the bankers were contacted. Ms. Thomas commented that one of the things the Committee pointed out is that a lot of the County’s historic resources are very modest. The people who own the grandiose houses sitting on hills can afford to do things themselves. However, a lot of the things the County is losing the fastest are some very modest buildings that people can’t afford to keep up, and a revolving loan program might be just what is necessary to keep roofs over the structures to keep them from deteriorating. Senator Couric said she would be glad to put this issue forward to the Senate. Ms. Spencer stated that this is everything that she needed to bring to the legislators’ attention. Senator Couric thanked the Board for having this meeting and for their ongoing communications with the new session. She is sure the legislators will see a lot of Mr. Blount. She said he is always welcome and helpful. Delegate Van Yahres remarked that City officials are discussing the possibility of putting a member of the City Council on the Board of Visitors at the University of Virginia, although they have not asked him to do so yet. He wondered if the Supervisors would be interested in doing the same thing, if he decides to go forward with this matter. Ms. Humphris said she had heard this information through a news program, and her immediate reaction is that it should be of no concern to City officials. There are ways of communicating with the University. She pointed out that there is a Planning and Coordinating Council which meets regularly, and it involves the City, County and University in a very productive way. She explained that the Council does not do legislative type things, but it is for communication to let everybody know about future plans so there are no surprises. She believes the Board of Visitors at the University is there for very particular reasons, and she thinks that is the way it should be. She added that she does think it is important that there is a student representative on the Board of Visitors. December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) Delegate Van Yahres recalled that in the past there were local representatives on the Board of Visitors. He thinks this gives local consideration because members of the Board of Visitors really do not understand the local situation. He believes they operate in a relative vacuum about the community, and how they affect it. Ms. Humphris explained that she reacted to the situation the way she did because the Supervisors meet with John Casteen and Leonard Sandridge. She believes that Mr. Casteen and Mr. Sandridge do a very good job of understanding the whole picture. Delegate Van Yahres concurred. Ms. Humphris stated that if there were two different individuals who were the President and the Chief Operating Officer, things might be different. Delegate Van Yahres agreed. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she understands the City has requested a small amount of money for the Lewis and Clark festivities. The City and County are working together with a group of people throughout the community. The western states such as Missouri are really making a big deal of the bicentennial that is approaching. It all started here, but this community is in some danger of being left out. She said it is that type of tourist interest that is going to be nationwide for a period of approximately four years, and it would be a shame if this area is left out. She explained that Charlottesville and Albemarle have been taking the lead, but it is a statewide issue as far as getting sufficient interest. Most of the state’s interest in tourism lies in the far eastern part of the state, and she noted that the Jamestown Festival is approaching. She mentioned that equity is involved, since the western part of the state has reason to be recognized, but it would be bad to have Virginia left behind. She emphasized that the City is asking for funding or direction from the State Tourism Commission. Delegate Van Yahres said he believes the City is requesting a budget amount. Ms. Thomas noted that the Board of Supervisors has not had this discussion, but she wanted to let the legislators know that some of the Board members have been appointed to work with the City on this matter. Delegate Harris referred to the Lewis and Clark celebration that is coming up. The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation has a role in this whole process, and Dan Jordan has indicated to him that things are fairly well settled as far as the role of Virginia in these festivities. Ms. Thomas stated that there are exciting things going on at Monticello, and she understands that the University of Virginia is going to have some academic related activities available. She said Monticello’s activities will take about one week, and there will be some tourists, but there will also be a lot of invited special “pomp and circumstance” type of guests. The state, as a whole, is not going to take part in this unless there are other things involved. She commented that this is what the local committee is working on. She noted that a representative from Monticello, Kat Imhoff, is on the local committee so there is no isolation from Monticello. Delegate Harris inquired if the budget request would go to the State Tourism Council. Ms. Thomas answered that the request could very well go to the Tourism Council if it will pay attention to it. At this point, the members of the Council haven’t paid particular attention. Delegate Harris asked Delegate Van Yahres if he has this budget request in the City’s legislative packet. Delegate Van Yahres replied that he does not believe he has it, but he has not looked at the City’s request, yet. He understands it will be sent to him. Delegate Harris next inquired if the proposal dealing with the Board of Visitors is included in the City’s legislative packet. Delegate Van Yahres replied affirmatively. Although he has not had a chance to examine the City’s packet, he has talked personally to the City Council. Ms. Humphris pointed out that it would take some time for only one City Councilor to get a point across with the Board of Visitors. Delegate Van Yahres agreed that one Councilor is not going to sway the vote. Senator Couric mentioned that the Councilor could raise a lot of controversy. She agrees that it would not serve much purpose to have one Councilor on the Board of Visitors. Ms. Thomas thanked the legislators for meeting with the Board of Supervisors. _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Adjourn. At 3:10 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date Initials December 14, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10)