Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-03-25 adjMarch 25, 1991 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) 207 (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 25, 1991, at 1:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from March 20, 1991. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Executive, Ray B. Jones; Assistant County Executive, and Executive Assistant, Roxanne W. White. Tucker, Jr.; Deputy County Robert B. Brandenburger; Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:04 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: 1991-92 County Budget: Item 2a. Items for reconsideration from the SChool Division budget. Mr. Bowie suggested that the Board members look, first, at some new information provided by the County Executive. He asked Mr. Tucker to discuss his memorandum. Additions: Implementation of the salary study Additional school based funds Growth TOTAL BUDGET ADDITIONS Subtractions - Basic BudKet: Walk to school -from operations $ 43,350 -less three buses 150,000 Eliminate consultants Reduce non-school equipment 50 percent Duty free lunch Reduce staff development Reduce additional funding for CA-TEC Other operating expenses, i.e., further reductions in staff Development and travel, improved ~tnagement of instructional and non-instructional supplies, a further reduction in sala~ costs, and elimination of four-wheel drive trucks. Subtotal Subtractions - Growth BudKet: Amortize five buses Other operating expenses, i.e., phasing in of equipment and computers, reducing one position and equipment at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. Subtotal Subtractions - Murray BudKet: Phase in machinery/equipment 50 percent Subtotal TOTAL BUDGET SUBTRACTIONS REVISED SCHOOL BUDGET: Less: State funding for gro%~dh Dropout Prevention Grant NET LOCAL FUNDS REQUIRED $ 639,633 120,000 2,416,163 $ 3,175,796 193,350 25,200 ;-,~,8,230 103,520 25,000 50,000 280,500 $ 725,800 $ 189,750 112,963 302,713 24,500 '24,500 $ 1,053,013 $ ~45,888 105,064 $ 1,571,831 Mr. Tucker stated that the staff had basically used Mr. Bowerman's earlier proposal regarding the School budget. He said that in meeting with the School staff other areas and options had also been discussed for reduc- tion. These items, shown above, total $725,800. Mr. Tucker said the CA-TEC category shows $50,000 reinstated from the loss of State funds, as well as providing funds for applied academics at CA-TEC in order to meet Federal funding requirements. He went on to say that "growth budget" options were also studied and additional reductions totalling $327,213 are proposed. The primary amount is from the amortization of buses. He explained that when buses are amortized there is an additional cost of about 13 percent for finance costs over the five-year amortization period. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon (Page 2) Adjourned Meeting) 208 Mr. Tucker mentioned other options such as phasing in the purchase of equip- ment and computers over a two-year period. He said this proposal deletes one additional position and additional equipment at the Vehicle Maintenance Facility. He noted that the net local additional school funding recommended by staff is $1,571,831. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Tucker if the amortized school buses could be paid off, should the economy get better. Mr. Tucker explained that the amortiza- tion charge could be paid off at any time. Item 2b. BEGINNING RESERVE FUND COUNTY EXECUTIVE' S ADJUSTMENTS -plus reduction in 1991-92 Debt Service $+300,000 -plus Juvenile Detention Home budget reduction +16,681 -plus fuel adjustment @ $0.85/gallon +46,360 -less shift differential adjustment in 911 budget - 4,827 -less State/Local Hospitalization for indigent medical care -12,152 TOTAL OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S ADJUSTMENTS $ 346,062 TOTAL RESERVE FUND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' (BOS) CHANGES - GENERAL GOVERNMENT Staff development/Personnel budget $ -2,730 Vehicle waxing contract/Police Department -4,500 Scottsville pumping station +1,000 Northside Library - additional staff person +35,000 Virginia Certified Planning Commissioner' s Program -800 Architectural Review Board staff/operations - 13,970 Gypsy Moth Spraying Program +48,000 TOTAL BOS CHANGES - GENERAL GOVERNMENT $ +62,000 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' CHANGES - SCHOOL DIVISION Proposed Options $+1,571,831 TOTAL RESERVE FUND LESS: DEBT SERVICE CONTINGENCY FUND $ 300,000 NET RESERVE FUND TAX RATE OPTIONS FOR NET RESERVE FUND I Equivalent Real Estate Tax Rate of Reserve $0.018 Rounding of Tax Rate Reduction @ $0.02 $ 755,186 Pd~INING RESERVE Equivalent Personal Property Tax Rate of Reserve $0.28 Items for reconsideration from the General Government budget. $ 2,265,258 $ 679,000 $ 2,611,320 $ 2,549,320 $ 977,489 $ 677,489 $ ('77,697) REMAINING RESERVE $ (1,511) Mr. Tucker explained that there are other options and adjustments which the Board did not finalize during its work sessions. Starting with the origi- nal reserve of $2,265,258, there will be a reserve of $977,489 left if the Board concurs with the recommendations set out above. He recommended that a Debt Service Contingency of $300,000 be maintained thus reducing the contingency to $677,489. Mr. Tucker said that if the Board chooses to use reserve funds for a real property tax rate reduction (it would equate to 1.8 cents), a two-cent reduction would require that $77,697 be added to the reserve. If the Board wishes to use the reserve funds to reduce the personal property tax rate (it would equate to 27.9 cents), a full 28 cent reduction would require $1511 being added to the reserve fund. Mr. Tucker noted that the shift differential was not included in the original 911 budget, nor was the amount for state/local hospitalization for indigent medical care. There are some items on which the Board needs to make a decision. Under Staff Development/Personnel, the $2730 reduction shown is the General Government share of this item. The Education share has already been reduced, and is shown in the memo as part of the school's basic budget reduction. Mr Tucker stated that the $1000 shown for the "Scottsville Pumping Station" is to be sure the levy will remain operational. This amount of money can be added to the Engineering Department's budget, and they can handle con- tract preparation with the Scottsville Town Council. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon (Page 3) Adjourned Meeting) 209 Mr. Tucker stated that there is some additional information on the "Northside Library - Additional Staff Person" request. In FY 89-90, the Library Board had $25,000 left in carry-over funds. This year they requested that they be allowed to use the $25,000 for computer equipment, but the request was denied by the Board. This money could be used to pay the cost of the additional staff position. There would still be a $10,000 shortfall, so the staff person could not begin until September, 1991, and that is the scheduled opening date for the Northside Library. Mr. Bowie remarked that when the Library Board requested the computer equipment, they were told to wait until it was known what would be needed for the Northside Library. He asked if the Board approved the position, if there might be $10,000 in carry-over funds from the current year. Mr. Tucker said that is possible. Next, Mr. Tucker recommended that the "Virginia Certified Planning Commissioner's Program" of $800 be deleted as shown. He said that planning commissioners have never attended such meetings. Mr. Tucker then talked about the "Architectural Review Board Staff/ Operations" item. He explained that the item is funded in the budget for $33,000. If the Board approves the amended fee schedules for development activities, that will bring in approximately $14,000 in revenues, so only the net amount of $20,000 is needed, thus a reduction is shown for this item of $13,970. Mr. Tucker stated that funding had already been recommended for the "Gypsy Moth Spraying Program" of $6000 for all public lands. He said that the additional amount of $48,000 is to cover high density developed areas as well as lower density areas. Mr. Tucker commented that after these changes are made, the Total Reserve Fund shows as $2,549,320. Subtracting funds for the School Division in the amount of $1,571,831 leaves a balance of $977,489. If the Board agrees to put $300,000 in a contingency for the 1992-93 Debt Service, the Net Reserve Fund will be $677,489. Mr. Bain questioned the request for a FAX machine for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. If the Circuit Court already has a FAX machine, even though it is a small amount of money, he, personally, does not see any justification for it at this time. Mrs. Humphris said she believes $2000 would buy the most expensive machine on the market, and she not only questions the need for the machine, but the cost. Mr. Bain said he knows that the Commonwealth Attorney's Office shares a FAX machine with the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Tucker indicated that neither the Circuit Court nor the General District Court have a FAX machine. Mr. Tucker said he believes that one FAX machine in the Court Square area should be adequate. Mr. Bowie remarked that if a Board member suggested taking the cost of a FAX machine out of the budget, he would support it. He said that some action needs to be taken. Mr. Bain said that at this time he is just questioning the need for the FAX machine. Mrs. Humphris called attention~e following information regarding the Personnel Budget: "The staff development line-item of $31,000 in the Personnel budget provides training funds for approximately 1200 classified and administrative staff in both General Government and the School Division; the amount is broken down as follows: $ 6,000 for tuition reimbursement 5,000 to co-sponsor four full certificate programs with PVCC 12,000 to pay instructors to present in-house workshops 8,000 for materials, i.e., videotapes, audio cassettes, manuals March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) 210 In the current year, $13,000 was cut from the staff development budget, $12,000 for outside instructors, and $1,000 from the certif- icate programs. In-house staff was used to present the in-house training workshops. The General Government share of staff develop- ment is 21 percent, based on the ratio of General Government and School Division employees." Mrs. Humphris said $8000 seemed a large amount for materials. Mr. Tucker responded that this is a carry-over item. It had been planned that video tapes and audio cassettes for training, etc., would be purchased during this current fiscal year. This amount of money has already been shown as a reduced amount in next year's School and General Government budgets. Mrs. Humphris asked about the $2730 reduction under the Staff Develop- ment/Personnel budget. Mr. Tucker responded that the $2730 is the General Government's share for Personnel. He explained that the Personnel budget is funded based upon the number of employees in General Government and the School system. General Government is 21 percent of the total Personnel budget. Mr. Bowie remarked that when there are so many statistics to study, it is easy to overlook items. He said that even after all of the controversy about four-wheel drive vehicles, he did not find this item in the School budget. Mr. Tucker answered that there were two four-wheel drive vehicles deducted under the category of "Building Services." Mr. Bain questioned the following item entitled "Engineering - Breakdown of Recovered Revenues." "Following is a breakdown of the local revenues that are recovered for the operation of the Engineering Department. The CIP recovery funds are technically not new local revenues, but represent only a transfer of local dollars from the CIP Fund to the General Fund to cover engineering work done on specific capital projects. FY 90/91 FY 90/91 FY 91/92 FY 91/92 Budgeted Revised Requested Recommended Erosion Control 12,000 10,000 11,000 11,000 CIP Recovery 99~520 99~520 m 50,000 ~* 100~610 TOTAL $ 111,520 $109,520 $ 61,000 $ 111,620 *Original FY 91/92 revenue projection from Department of Finance prior to County Executive's revision. **Funds to be transferred from the CIP to cover following operat- ing expenses in the Engineering budget: Capital Projects Coordinator Clerk of the Works Engineering Inspector (Proposed) (75 percent of salary and fringes) $43,000 37,000 20,610" Mr. Tucker replied that the above memo will answer Mr. Bain's question as to where the money comes from to fund the Capital Projects Coordinator, the Clerk of the Works and the proposed Engineering Inspector. He reminded the Board that the funds will be taken from the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Bowie inquired if the amount for the Pumping Station in Scottsville is based on an accurate estimate. Mr. Tucker explained that Mr. Richard Moring, the County Engineer, had gone through a review with some staff members of the Albemarle County Service Authority several months ago. A pumping station is similar to a dry hydrant in that it will need to be reviewed every month to make sure it is in good working condition and that any repair needed will be done timely. He said that Mr. Moring felt a contract for this mainte- nance check would cost approximately $1000/year. Mr. Way stated that this was not what he had in mind when he brought up the subject. The Town already has a contract with someone for the inspection of those pumps, so that is not the issue. Last year this Board had agreed to March 25, 1991 (Afternoon -~Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 211 assist the Town either with maintenance of the pumping station or an electri- cal bill. He cannot remember precisely what sort of help the Board was to give, but it was a small amount of money, and was to be taken out of the contingency fund. He thought the Parks and Recreation Department was to be involved. Mr. Tucker said the Board may have agreed to help with mowing at the pumping station. Since he is now unsure as to what assistance is needed from the County, he suggested that the $1000 be left where it is to be used for the pumping station. Mr. Way said there is to be a meeting soon with the Mayor and he is sure that the Mayor will remind this Board of its agreement. Mr. Way stated that he wanted to delete the Gypsy Moth Spraying Program item. Mr. Bowie said that if the infestation happens, it is still a year away. He does not believe it is smart to tie up $48,000 for a full year when it is not known if and to.what extent the infestation will occur. Mr. Bowie said Mr. James Butler is on the Gypsy Moth Committee, and Mr. Butler has pointed out that the State now allows some of the cost to be charged to the affected landowner. While it is a County problem, the benefit to those who need the spraying is greater than to those who will never see a gypsy moth. Mr. Bowie recommended that the budget be left as it is, instead of tying up $48,000. Mrs. Humphris said she thought there was no doubt that the Gypsy Moth infestation was going to happen. Mr. Bowie replied that the infestation will probably happen, but it may not be until Spring, 1992. Even if it was a sure thing that it was going to happen, it does not make sense to him to tie up $48,000 for that period of time. Mr. Bain remarked that this Board should know by August of this year whether or not the funding is needed for the Gypsy Moth infestation. Mr. Perkins replied that Mr. Bain is correct. Mr. Tucker explained that by Fall, 1991 it should be known what the egg masses are. Mr. Perkins suggested that the Board look at other ways of paying for this item such as assessing those people who are actually going to have their property sprayed. He noted that in areas where the spraying is supposed to occur, there are now people who don't want the spraying. He said these areas will have to be flagged and avoided, even though the egg masses are there. He added that this situation will probably be the same for the next year. Mr. Bain asked if the $48,000 is the County's share, and if the remainder of the amount is Federally funded. Mr. Tucker said the County's share of the funding is 30 percent, which has increased from approximately five percent last year. The program is Federally funded. Mrs. Humphris said that assessing landowners would make it difficult to achieve the desired results. Although the Gypsy Moth Committee has indicated that assessing the landowners would be an option well worth considering, but the Committee also stated that collecting the fees could cost the County as much as $40,000, as opposed to spending $48,000 for the spraying program. Mr. Tucker said that this amount is an estimate of what the County would have to fund for the spraying program which would be done in the Spring. Mr. Bain suggested that half of the $48,000 be put in a Contingency Fund, and the other half collected from fees. Mr. Bowie said if the money is going to be put in a contingency account, he would suggest that the whole $48,000 be put there so the money will be available when it is needed. Mr. Bain indicated that he does not have a problem with Mr. Perkins' suggestion concerning the assessment of affected landowners. However, when the assessment plan is considered, it may become an insurmountable problem. Mrs. Humphris agreed that it will take some study before deciding what is the best approach to the Gypsy Moth situation. Mr. Tucker said the funding could be appropriated as a contingency for Gypsy Moth spraying, and all that this Board would need to do is authorize the transfer of funds when the need arises. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) 212 Mr. Bowie commented that the Northside Library staff position was men- tioned earlier, but the question was not resolved. He had forgotten that there is $25,000 being held aside, and he believes it is logical that this money be used for the extra librarian. He added, however, that if this Board appropriates $10,000 and releases the $25,000, if the Library Board has a fund balance at the end of this year, he thinks it should be Used to match this Board's $10,000 appropriation. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Bowie. Next, Mr. Bowie asked what the Board wanted to do about the FAX machine for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. Mr. Bowerman commented that the point was made that there is only one FAX machine for the entire County 'Office Building. Even though it may be inconvenient, if it is needed, it can be used. He would take the $2000 out of the budget for the FAX machine. Mr. Bowie asked for a consensus from the Board and then announced that the request for a FAX machine for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court had been removed from the budget. Mr. Bain asked if the fuel adjustment item listed is for General Govern- ment only. Mr. Tucker said "yes"; the School System has already reduced its fuel costs. Mr. Bain asked if it has been decided how many additional election precincts will need to be funded in this budget. Mr. Tucker indicated that funding for three additional precincts is included in the budget for a total of $15,135. Any precincts over that number will add $3000 per precinct. At this time, Mr. Bowie asked if there were any comments or questions concerning the proposed School System budget. Mr. Perkins said the Superintendent's salary is shown at $85,000. He asked if this salary is the top of the scale. Mr. Tucker replied that the Superintendent's salary is not on any scale. He said that it is set by the School Board. Mr. Perkins wondered if there would be funds remaining in that category since there is no one in that position at this time. Mr. Tucker responded that there could be some money left, but it would depend on whether or not a new Superintendent is hired, and whether or not that person begins work during this fiscal year. Mr. Perkins remarked that there is a similar situation with the School system's Director of Finance position. Mr. Tucker stated that the School system will probably not have a carry- over at the end of this year because of reductions in State funding and the County's $1,200,000 reduction. He said it will depend on what changes the school system makes before June 30, 1991~. Mr. Perkins had questions concerning the cost of a conventional bus as compared to a transit-style bus, and mentioned that two of the transit buses are to be equipped with lifts. Mr. Tucker answered that the handicapped buses are needed with lifts. The staff did look at the possibility of a mixture of the transit-style bus and the Type B style bus which is less expensive. RFP's for both styles of buses were put out to bid. The transit-style bus will carry more students (74), so the school system has been inclined to purchase these buses. The Type B bus, which is a regular school bus, carried fewer people (66). When the mixture of the two buses was discussed, it was pointed out that if this were done, one extra standard bus would have to be purchased to make up the difference in the loss of capacity that would be available with the transit-style bus. Mr. Perkins asked the difference in cost of the two buses. Mr. Tucker answered that the standard Type B bus costs approximately $37,000 as compared to $49,000 for a transit-style bus. Mr. Perkins indicated that for every four transit-style buses bought, a conventional bus could be purchased. Mr. Bain noted that the School Board did not get this budget information until late Friday. Mr. Tucker agreed that the School Board had just received the budget information and has not had a chance to make any decisions. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) 213 Mr. Bowerman wondered if the two nurses' positions at Albemarle and Western Albemarle High Schools are in the school budget. Mr. Tucker said that they are not included the School budget sent to the Board of Supervisors. He noted that there is a possibility the Health Department might provide some contractual service that might give the school system some flexibility for providing nursing care to the schools. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Health Department's budget is sufficient to provide this contractual service to the schools. Mr. Tucker answered, "no." He added that this contractual service would be furnished by the Health Department with the funding being provided by Albemarle County. Mr. Bain inquired about the salary scale for School classified employees. He asked if Mr. Tucker had any indication as to what would be done if the Board of Supervisors requested that the pay plan be implemented. Mr. Tucker replied that School staff supports funding the pay plan. He went on to say that if General Government provides for this plan, it is felt that from a commonality standpoint, the School system should do the same thing. He added that the School Board members believe this is an item that should be funded, but the School Board believes that ~%'~should be funded by the Board of Super- visors, if the Supervisors fund the plan for General Government classified employees. Mr. Bowie commented that CA-TEC is another issue that needs to be dis- cussed. He said that $100,000 was requested to change the direction of CA-TEC, but the majority of this Board did not want the direction of CA-TEC changed. Mr. Bain stated that there is $50,000 in the School budget which brings the funding back to its original level, since there has been a reduc- tion in State funding. Mr. Bowie agreed that the $50,000 is in the budget, but the other $100,000 is not, which was based on this Board's decision not to redirect CA-TEC. He noted that the School Board can make the changes in CA-TEC's program, if it wishes. He said that the same thing is true with the classified employee pay plan. He feels that before any appropriations are made by this Board, the School Board should make some sort of agreement as to how the funds will be used. Mr. Tucker said he thinks it is important for this Board to meet with the School Board and CA-TEC representatives to find out what is actually being proposed. Mr. Bowie disagreed that this Board needs to meet with CA-TEC representa- tives. He said, however, that this Board needs to meet with the School Board to see what priorities are being funded. Mr. Tucker said that he understands what Mr. Bowie is saying. However, the Albemarle County School Board is not in control of what is being done at CA-TEC. The School Board is only a part of the CA-TEC Board. Mr. Bowie stated that the CA-TEC Board could not do anything that is not funded. Agenda Item No. 3. Set Tax Rates. Mr. Bowie then stated that if an adjustment allows for the Northside Library to use the $25,000 for an additional staff person, plus an appropria- tion from this Board of another $10,000, and if the FAX machine is approved for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, the amount necessary for a two cents reduction in the tax rate is $50,697. He believes that $50,000 could be handled without further adjusting the budget. He added that if the Board accepts this recommendation, it will generate a tax rate of 72 cents/S100 for real property and will leave the tax rate for personal property at $4.40/$100. He said that if there is a successful motion to do this, the budget process will be over. If not, then the Board will need to decide what is acceptable to it. Mr. Bowerman wondered if Mr. Tucker has a recommendation on the tax rate, or just a series of options. Mr. Tucker replied that his document shows lots of different options for the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Tucker to distribute sheets entitled "The Effect of Tax Rate Reduction on FY 91-92 Tax Payments." Mr. Tucker did so and noted the average home cost scenarios if the tax rate was changed and also if the tax rate stayed the same. Mrs. Humphris continued that she had asked that this information be provided because she felt that it was necessary for the March 25, 1991 (Afternoon (Page 8) Adjourned Meeting) 214 Board and the public to know what the tax rate change could mean to them when tax bills are received based on the 1991 general reassessment of real proper- ty. She thinks that this is very pertinent information. Mr. Bowie commented that some people would look at this tax information and think that tax bills would cost them a lot of money, while others would not be concerned. Mrs. Humphris agreed that it certainly depends on how much income is available to pay taxes. She said that the problem is trying to find a way for people to own property. Mr. Bain stated that he has done some research and has talked to several people about land use. He noted that probably 80 to 85 percent of the parcels in the County that are eligible for land use are not enrolled in the program. He thinks that there needs to be a better job of getting this information to the people who live on a fixed income. He pointed out that he is not anxious to decrease the County's revenues, but he believes that people on fixed incomes should be informed of this option. Mr. Bowie said the land use option will not help low or moderate income people who bought a home 20 years ago and whose house is now appraised at a much higher rate today. Mr. Bain commented that the $15,000 exemption in the "Tax Relief for the Elderly and Handicapped" ordinance is not really an exemption, but tax relief is based on a sliding scale. Mr. Bowie remarked that he does not feel that changing the exemption to $30,000 will not help anyone either. Mr. Bain stated that he would like to have this ordinance studied because a higher exemption might make a difference. Mr. Bowie said that when property taxes increase, it also affects people paying rent. He then explained, in reply to a question from Mr. Bowerman, that if the Board accepts this recommendation to include $300,000 in a Debt Service Reserve, there would be the equivalent of a two cents reduction in the tax rate and would give the Board a couple of options to consider. Mr. Bain mentioned his concern relating to the reduction of force in the classroom. He said he understands that the School Board is considering cuts in the administrative and classified staffs and also teachers, but he does not want to see the teacher/pupil ratio reduced. He would like to see $346,000 put back into the budget to address the reduction in force specifically as it relates to teachers. He said it is astounding to him what the School Board has been able to do, particularly with the shortfall in State money. He went on to say that he is not very concerned about the amortization of buses, since the same thing is being done with schools when bonds are used and payments are spread over a number of years. He stated that it really bothers him to put the burden on the teachers. Mrs. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bain. She has received input from citizens during the last few weeks. She said that when a reduction in force in the classrooms is considered, the impact it will have on the children needs to be balanced with consideration of all of the residents in the County who have taken pay cuts or have been laid off at the University and other companies. She believes, too, that consideration has to be given as to what will happen next year when the same assessments are being done on the same property, and the tax rate goes up. Mrs. Humphris commented that it may be difficult for the Schools this year, but she asked how much of a burden can this Board place on citizens who are seeing their taxes increase from $200 upward a year when they don't have the income to pay those taxes. She recalled the days of the Albemarle County Taxpayers' Association and said that is where she learned of the number of people in Albemarle County who are truly land poor. She said that in fifteen years the problem has compounded. She has friends who are living on land where their great grandparents lived near Free Union, and because of the development occurring around them, they have had to sell off some of the land for development and will have to sell more. She said that at least these people have land to sell, but there are some people who would have no other place to live if they were forced to sell their land. Mrs. Humphris said there is not anyone who is a bigger proponent of public education than she is, however, times are tough. She said that when she goes into the County classrooms, she sees beautifully equipped classrooms in beautiful school buildings that are well maintained. She commented that March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) 215 when she was in Japan, she saw cinderblock buildings with a couple of feet of asphalt for the children to play on, and she called attention to what these people do in education. She is concerned about the hardship that the County citizens may have to endure for the next year or so. She said that even though all parents will be upset, this Board has got to be the leader and take into consideration every person in this County and do the best for every one of these people no matter who they are. She believes that these tax rates need to be considered carefully. Over the last five years, it is quite possible for a home to be appraised at $250,000. Mr. Bowie cox~nented that nobody's income has gone up as fast as property taxes. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She wishes that all of the people who want the 74 cents tax rate could be directed to the General Assembly in Richmond. She thinks that the General Assembly needs to be informed that Albemarle County has got to have the ability to extract taxes from people based upon what they are able to pay and not based on the value of their land. She said that taxes based on the value of the land makes no sense in 1991. She understands Mr. Bain's feelings because she goes into the schools and sees the stress on teachers. She pointed out, though, that landowners are under stress too, and landowners do not have anywhere to go. She noted receiving a call from a person who, when he was laid off from his job, sold his home and moved into a townhouse. .Now, this person cannot pay his tax bills. She reiterated that this Board has a responsibility to everybody. Mrs. Humphris said she is concerned because the people who are asking that this tax rate be maintained have the money to pay an increase in taxes. Some of the people who were the most vocal at the public hearing about main- taining the 74 cent tax rate saw older members of this community speak and told Mrs. Humphris that they had no idea there were people like that living in this community. She said that these people thought that everybody lived in a nice brick house, in a nice area, and had a good job with an increase in pay every year and perhaps even a bonus. She said that this was a learning experience for them to see that other people in the County live in different circumstances. She commented that some of these people's paths never cross the paths of the older citizens and they do not deal in any way with the people who don't have jobs or are retired. She said that they do not know what it is like to get older and to have income disappear because of new garbage fees, etc. She remarked that she loves the schools, but this Board has to be aware of what is happening this year and what will occur in the County next year with no reassessment to consider. Mr. Bowie agreed that whatever the Board approves now will be the basis for next year, also. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bain if he was suggesting that $346,000 be added back to the School Board's basic budget, or should it be added to the County Executive's proposal. Mr. Bain responded that if the $346,000 were added to the County Executive's proposal, it would reduce the $677,689 reserve funds by approximately one-half. Mr. Perkins remarked that the impact of the tax rate will be on business owners instead of the average homeowner. He said that business owners have told him that their property assessments have increased as much as 45 percent and that their sales are off by 50 percent this year. He believes that the School Board has done a good job, but he thinks that there are still things that need to be cut. He said that private businesses are reducing their budgets, and he mentioned that the business where he is employed is reducing its budget by five percent over last year. He added that usually the private sector has leaner budgets than government budgets. Mr. Perkins then distrib- uted information that he had collected and mentioned that implementation of the Solid Waste Authority is an actual tax increase of approximately two cents. Mr. Bowerman stated that one of the problems this year is that the Federal and State governments have made some politically expedient decisions as to where to put the responsibility for funding local needs. He approached this question, not on the basis of maintaining, reducing or increasing the 74 cents tax rate, but instead by considering what services are needed by this March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) 216 community based upon what the people in this community say they want. He said it is difficult to reduce funding further without really impacting the quality of education being provided when there is a growth rate in the school system this year and next year of nine percent. HH mentioned that he did not think larger pupil/teacher ratios have been considered, because most of the reduc- tions he has seen dealt with other than cor~ classroom education. Mr. Bowerman said he does not want to go backwards in education because he believes it would be more difficult to get back to todav's standard in the futuref He mentioned that in terms of the ~ervices delivered, instead of 74 cents being the tax rate for personal property in this County, it is really 64 cents because ten cents of this tax revenue goes to the City of Charlottes- ville. He added that when all tax revenues are considered, including the revenues from the State and Federal governments, Albemarle County has less personal property revenues than most communLties to fund education. Mr. Bowerman agrees that the School Bo~ preparing its budget. He spent quite a bit and his School Board representative examini~ obligation to see that there is no excess i~ Ltd has done an excellent job in of time with School administration Lg the school budget, and he has an L the budget and that it only provides the necessary services. He is comJlortable, after discussing and talking at length with these various people~ that the School Board has reduced its budget as far as possible. He also thinks that this Board owes it to the community not to take a step backward. Mr. Bowerman said that at this point, based upon the contingency plan that Mr Tucker has presented for Debt Service, he is not sure what the tax rate for personal property should be. Mr. Tucker's plan was derived from Mr. Bowerman's plan submitted at the Board meeting a week ago using a 73 or 74 cents tax rate. He mentioned that Mr. Tucker has allowed for an additional $100,000 in revenue that he did not allow f~r, and he has reduced expenditures for CA-TEC by $50,000 which is $150,000 different from what Mr. Bowerman submitted. He went on to say that this would make a penny over the net change between his and Mr. Tucker's presentations. He thinks that this is where the people can have an impact at the local leve%. He added that this Board is accountable for what it does, and if lowering the tax rate means that the level of services that this community needs will not be provided, then he does not think that the tax rate should be lowered. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bowerman what ~ould not be provided that he thinks this community needs. She asked himto explain the negative impact of lowering the tax rate. Mr. Bowerman answered that he thinks that it sends a message to the new school superintendent that education is not as important as this community would llke for it to be. He said that everyone says that they want the best education in the world, but cl this community, because it cannot be afforde more to education than just the money. He s of the staff and administration, but more im community who support education. He believe School Board budget, the school system will money. He is having a difficult time decidi perhaps this is the difference between how h Board budget and how Mrs. Humphris feels abo Mrs. Humphris reminded Mr. Bowerman tha She said that she had talked in general term Mr. Bowerman responded that he thought l He said that it is really a question of what the budgets and looking at the services that early it cannot be provided in d. He mentioned that there is mid that there is the dedication portantly, it is the people in the s that if $100,000 is cut from the continue to operate with less ~g how much money is enough, and m feels about reducing the School at it. she had not yet taken a stand. about the whole situation. rs. Humphris had taken a stand. he believes after going through are being offered as to what he feels is appropriate, based upon what his co~stituents have told him. He said that it is difficult for him to argue agains~ a budget that Mr. Tucker has already discussed with the school administration Which deletes another $280,000. He stated that if this is a c°mprpmise, he might accept it. He knows, however, that the School Board has no~ had an opportunity to consider this propoSal, and the School Board did not have an opportunity to look at Mr. Bowerman's proposal, either. He believes that if the School Board can reduce its budget by $280,000 more, then he would have to say that it should be considered as an alternative. He added that it is difficult for him to consider any amount of money without the SchoolBoard's input. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon (Page 11) Adjourned Meeting) 217 Mr. Bowie stated that if this Board wishes to delay things and send the budget back to the School Board, it is fine with him. He reminded Board members, however, that there has been reams of input, and it is now up to this Board to make a decision. He reiterated that before appropriations are made, he feels there will have to be some agreement with the School Board as to how the funding will be used. He said that this is important, but it is another issue. He remarked that this Board has worked on the budget for weeks, and a decision needs to be reached. He wondered if the Board members would like to take a break or if someone would like to make a motion. He said that every- thing had been said so eloquently that he had nothing to add. Mrs. Humphris believes that this Board needs to have more discussion on the budget. She said that she is expressing her feelings, and not the way she might vote because she wants to hear what everybody has to say. Mr. Bain said he would love to have an option for a local income tax and let the people vote for this option. However, the State is restrictive of what local governments can do, and localities only have local funds. In terms of people on fixed incomes and landowners, there are limited ways of address- ing these issues. He mentioned that reverse income taxes have not been considered, and he realizes that it will not be considered during this budget cycle. He thinks that things of this nature could be considered in the future, if this Board seriously wants to address the needs of the people. He went on to say that this Board is given only a couple of ways to bring in revenues, and they are very limited. He said that this is the cause of the problem. Mr. Way thinks that~it is unreasonable not to have some sort of tax reduction when there have been the kinds of assessment increases that this County has had. He noted that Mr. Tucker, the School Board and everybody else has done a tremendous job of reducing the budget, but he believes that if the average person in Albemarle County were asked, that person would say that the County's money needs to be managed better and maybe the government shouldn't be doing all of the things that it is doing that this Board has been convinced are so important. He believes strongly, as he has stated before, that the School System is usurping the responsibility and authority of parents in this County, and the School System is taking away from the parents the right to raise their children. He agrees that there are working parents and single parents, but he believes that the parents of this County, in the final analy- sis, will help their children, and it is the parents' responsibility and not the schools' responsibility. He does not think that the con~nunity is helped by giving the impression that the government is going to take care of every- body's needs. Mr. Way recalled that someone at one of the budget meetings remarked that she had children with different problems, and the schools were not going to take care of them. His response is why should the school system take on the responsibility for these children. He said that it is not the school system's job to do this. He thinks that the parents have some responsibility, and that the parents can probably do a better job of it than the school system and the taxpayer. He believes that the school system is being asked to fund all of these needs that don't benefit anyone. He believes that this type of situa- tion makes a society that is totally dependent upon government, and as far as the school system is concerned, upon the educators to tell the community what is best for the children. He appreciates the work that everybody is doing because the people believe in what they are doing. He said that they are dedicated and sincere people, but there is a limit to what can be expected of general government and the schools. He believes that in difficult times such as these, it is totally unreasonable. He personally is not going to support the County Executive's recommendation because he thinks that the budget needs to be reduced more. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Way that it is a matter of what is reasonable. He hears from his constituents that a lot of parents are not going to be upset if the School budget is reduced because they are worried about putting clothes on their children's backs and paying taxes for school programs that their children will not be taking part in. He knows that some parents are going to feel that taxes should not be lowered. He also thinks it is unreasonable to expect the average citizen to have a 22 1/2 percent increase in taxes in one year. He mentioned that 1980 was the last time that there was over a 20 March 25, 1991 (Afternoon (Page 12) Adjourned Meeting) 218 percent increase in taxes. He said that increase was passed by the Board and included in that year's budget without a question. In those days the equiva- lent tax rate did not have to be advertised so the reassessment of 22 1/2 percent was approved and became the base for the budget for all future years, and the total amount of that budget was spent. He said that property values have more than doubled since that time, so the tax rate has increased over what it was in 1980. Mr. Bain stated that tax rates have increased by virtue of the increase in the appreciation of the value of the property. Mr. Bowie replied that he did not want to go over his studies again, but in 1980 the ten cents which was added to the tax rate for the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City was not necessary, but it was approved. He noted that approximately four or five cents goes to the City now. Mr. Bain corrected Mr. Bowie that revenue sharing with the City was approximately nine and one-half cents. Mr. Bowie agreed. Mr. Bowie remarked that he thinks that the personal property rate should be adjusted as well as the rate on real property because he thinks it will help a lot of people who do not own property even though they pay rent. He does not intend to support a 74 cents real property tax rate. He can support the County Executive's recommended budget with some further minor adjustments that will allow this Board to make reductions if it so chooses. He noted that this has been his stand since the budget process began this year. Since no one offered a motion to finalize the 1991-92 budget, at 2:36 p.m., Mr. Bowie suggested that the Board recess for a few minutes. At 2:51 p.m., the Board reconvened and continued with the discussion of the budget. Mr. Bowie said that he had a request from Mr. Richard Bagby, a member of the Albemarle County School Board, to say a few words. Mr. Bagby noted that the School Board had received some additional information on the budget last Friday, but did not feel comfortable discussing it since the meeting was for another purpose and the budget discussion had not been publicly announced. The School Board had hoped the supervisors would fund the growth component in its budget at $2.0 million and from that amount the School Board would agree to pay their classified employees the amount of $640,000. He said the growth component totals approximately $1.4 million. He mentioned that last year for the same number of students, growth was funded at $2.1 million. He said that last year no new school was not opened although Rose Hill students were moved to Cale Elementary School. Mr. Bagby went on to say that he feels the School Board has gone through the budget as closely as possibly, and there are probably items that could be eliminated, but the School Board tried to stay away from line item reductions. The School Board tried, instead, to take percentages off of the bigger items with the hopes that a new Superintendent will reshape and review the programs and find out which are best and which can still be reduced. Mr. Babgy said the School Board also tried to stay away from the children in the classroom as much as possible in making these reductions. He believes that if more reduc- tions are made, or if funding is lessened for growth, the classroom will be affected. He noted that it is hard to turn educational programs off and on. He reminded the Supervisors that the School Board has not had a chance to fully discuss this matter, but his recommendation is to fund the growth component at the $2.0 million level with separate funding for the classified employees county-wide. Mr. Bowie stated that, in effect, he believes Mr. Tucker has already included everything Mr. Bagby just suggested in his recommended budget. Mr. Tucker commented that his recommended budget does not add up to the two figures Mr. Bagby proposed. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Bowerman if he wished to address what Mr. Bagby has proposed. Mr. Bowerman said there were two things he did not take into account in his proposal last week. He did not know about the funding of the Dropout Prevention Program of $105,000. He had also thought that CA-TEC had decided to go back to the old way of funding vocational education, and March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) 219 $100,000 was going to be used just for that. Now, being informed of the $105,000 for the Dropout Program and of the CA-TEC situation, if $150,000 is taken from the $2,069,000 he originally proposed, the total will be more than the County Executive's recommendation. He is uncomfortable with the $280,500, but would be comfortable supporting everything in the County Executive's budget document with the exception of the Schools. The Schools could be funded for an additional $1,919,858 (his original proposal shows local funds required in the amount $2,069,000; reducing that amount by $150,000 because of the new information received last Friday would make a new amount of $1,919,858 instead of the County Executive's recommendation of $1,571,831). He indicated that this figure is $80,000 less than Mr. Bagby's figure. Mr. Bowie stated that he would not support anything without knowing specifically what the figures will be. He said that maybe the County Execu- tive could determine the actual numbers. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker if he understands his proposal. Mr. Tucker answered that he understands the proposal, but he wants to be sure that the figures are correct. Mrs. Humphris asked if the staff needed time to work on the proposal. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mr. Bain pointed out that the Board has not voted on the $48,000 for the Gypsy Moth Spraying Program. Mr. Tucker replied that he understands that the Gypsy Moth Spraying Program has been left in the budget. Mr. Bowie explained that the Gypsy Moth Spraying Program is a contingency item that is in the budget at this point. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board members need more time to consider this matter. Mrs. Humphris answered that she would like to wait until the staff has had a chance to get firm figures so she can understand the budget recom- mendation more fully. Mr. Bowerman agreed. After studying the suggested changes, Mr. Tucker stated that the Net Reserve would be $427,320, rather than $677,489. He said that this would allow the Board to do a combination of things such as reducing real property by one cent and personal property by two cents. Mr. Bowie inquired as to what the rate would be for personal property if the entire amount were deducted from the personal property rate. Mr. Tucker answered that rate could be reduced by 17.6 cents. Mr. Bowerman asked if the personal property rate could be adjusted by two cents. Mr. Tucker answered that Mr. Bowerman is correct in that personal property could be adjusted by two cents and the real property rate by one cent. At this time, Mr. Bowerman moved that the basic budget be approved with the adjustments made at this meeting which will result in the tax rate on Peal property being set at 73 cents/S100 and the ~ate on personal property being set at $4.38/$100. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Way told Mr. Bowerman that he feels the motion is insulting tokenism. Roll was called and the motion failed with the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: Messrs. Bowie, Perkins and Way. Mr. Bowerman then stated that he would like to try an alternative motion which would leave the tax rate at 74 cents/S100 on real property and reduce the personal property tax on automobiles and trailers by 17 cents/S100. He said that the personal property tax is the most regressive of the two taxes. Mr. Perkins argued that people can make a choice when they purchase cars, but that is not the situation with real estate. ~e said if a person wants to buy an expensiVe car, it is a conscious decision that higher taxes will have to be paid. Mr. Bowie said he understands that the State law indicates that personal property has to be segregated by class, and the class has to be based on reason. He asked if it is possible to have two classes of automobiles. Mr. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) 22 (Page 14) Tucker replied, "no." He said, however, that there could be two classes with 'different rates for boats and airplanes which are over a certain size and weight. He said that the Code does not provide for a differential rate for automobiles or trucks. Mr. Bowie reminded the Board that Mr. Bowerman had made another motion with the same conditions, except that all of the reduction would be out of the personal property tax rate, which would be a 17 cents reduction and would set the personal property tax rate at $4.23/$100. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. Mr. Bowie commented that when he looks at the County Executive's recom- mended budget, without adjustments, there are two choices. The $48,000 for the Gypsy Moth Spraying Project could be left in the budget even though it may not be needed, and the Fund Balance adjusted by $50,000, or it could be taken out of the budget and there not be any Fund Balance. He said this accomplish- es the same thing and allows for a two-cent reduction in the real property tax rate to 72 cents/S100, which is still a tax increase for everybody in the County, but it is less of an increase. He asked what is available to adjust personal property taxes. Mr. Tucker answered that there has been an increase in the Fund Balance over the last year, and he believes that a reduction its total of from $150,000 to $200,000 could be done safely and the cash flow still managed. Usually when the Fund Balance is reduced, cash flow is difficult to manage. He said it is not a good practice to use the FUnd Balance, but it can be done on a sporadic basis as long as the usage is not too heavy. Mr. Bowie said he thinks that whether it is a good idea or not depends on how much is in the Fund Balance. He added that the only purpose of the Fund Balance is to insure that the County will be financially covered from July 1 until taxes are collected. He indicated that for a long time there has been twice as much money as was needed in the Fund Balance. He said that last year, according to the Auditor's report, the Fund Balance increased a signifi- cant amount. He asked about its status in June, 1991. Mr. Tucker agreed that the Fund Balance will show an increase, but not as significant an increase as last year. Mr. Bowie remarked that there are sufficient funds for management. He asked what amount would allow for a five-cent reduction in the personal pro- perty tax rate. Mr. Tucker replied that it would take approximately $121,250. Mr. Way inquired as to what amount could be obtained by requiring an across-the-board reduction of one percent. Mr. Tucker responded that there are certain items which cannot be reduced, such as the amount for the Revenue Sharing Agreement and funding to the Capital Improvements Program. He esti- mated that a one percent reduction could amount to approximately $500,000, in addition to line item reductions. Mrs. Humphris remarked that a public hearing could be scheduled for a higher figure with the possibility of approving a lower rate. She wishes that some more consideration could be given to Mr. Bowerman's first motion because in the time between now and April 10 when the public hearing will be held, there will be an opportunity for everybody in the County to find out what the impact will be, and they have not yet had the opportunity to know this. After the rate is set for the public hearing, more meaningful input can be received from people based on how they feel about higher taxes. Mr. Bowie commented that he does not think that the average citizen will be at the public hearing. Mrs. Humphris said she does not mean that the County citizens have to be at the public hearing, but they would have an opportunity to let their repre- sentative on the Board know how they feel about the tax rate. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 15) 22 Mr. Bowie stated that he thinks that the citizens have been doing this since the budget process started. Mrs. Humphris remarked that the only thing that County citizens are concerned about is how the tax rate will affect them, personally. She said that up until now, there has been nothing to relate to personally. She believes that if County citizens could be given a figure to respond to at the public hearing, this Board could react to the citizens' desires. She added that if the tax rate is too high, she believes that the citizens will let the Board members know. Mr. Bowie said he believes the citizens have let the Board members know how they feel about the real property tax rate. He went on to say that it is up to the Board to decide if it wants to take an exact tax rate to public hearing. He reminded Board members that the motion for a 73 cent tax rate failed. Mr. Perkins feels that most of the people already know what the impact of the reassessment will be, and what a tax reduction will be. He said that the situation is actually worse than has been mentioned because of the recently enacted refuse disposal fees. He noted that with a 73 cent tax rate, there will actually be a 30 percent tax increase. Mr. Bain commented that the refuse charge will have to be paid no matter how it is done. Mr. Perkins agreed, but said there is a difference in whether the refuse charge is paid in property taxes or whether it is paid every month. Mr. Bain pointed out that the citizens are already paying for the trash disposal, but now they are also paying for the capitalization of the improve- ments that the State has mandated under waste management regulations. Mr. Way asked the new amount of the Net Reserve figure. Mr. Tucker said the reserve fund figure is now $703,489. Mr. Bowie said that this will provide for a two cents reduction in real property taxes. He asked how much would be left. Mr. Tucker answered that there would be $377,000 left. This amount would permit the Board to reduce the real property tax rate by one cent and also reduce the tax rate on person- al property by 13 cents/S100. Mr. Bowie stated that with a small adjustment, it would be possible to reduce the real property tax rate by two cents. Mr. Tucker agreed that this could be done with approximately a $50,000 adjustment. Mr. Bowie then wondered how a reduction in the Fund Balance of approxi- mately $120,000 would affect the tax rates. Mr. Tucker answered that it would allow for a two-cent real property tax rate reduction and a five cents reduc- tion in the personal property rate. Mr. Bowie said that he still does not think that it makes sense for $48,000 for the Gypsy Moth Spraying Program to just be held in reserve. Mr. Way asked how much it would cost, in addition to the net reserve figure, to reduce the real property tax rate to 72 cents/S100. Mr. Bowie answered that it would take an additional $51,000, which is close to the amount being held in reserve for the Gypsy Moth Spraying Program. Mr. Tucker stated that $121,250 equates to a five cents reduction of the personal property tax rate. At this time, Mr. Perkins moved that a tax rate of 72 cents/S100 be adopted for real property and a tax rate of $4.35/$100 be adopted for personal property. Mr. Bowie clarified Mr. Perkins' motion by smying that the motion will include approval of the County Executive's proposed budget, with the transfer from the Fund Balance of a minor amount, plus leaving $300,000 in the Debt Service contingency fund. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Bowie asked if there was another motion, or should the Board discuss another subject. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon , Adjourned Meeting) (Page 16) 22 Mrs. Humphris stated that she is inclined to think that the level of growth in the School budget has not been dealt with properly. She thinks that it has to be faced realistically, and that the original motion for a 73 cents tax rate for real property and a tax rate of $4.38 for personal property would accomplish basic needs. There appearing to be no consensus at this time, Mr. Bowie suggested that the Board start the redistricting work session. Agenda Item No. 4. Order Public Hearing on the Budget Advertised. This item was skipped at thiS time. Agenda Item No. 5. Work Session: Redistricting. Mr. Tucker explained that the staff has been working on a redistricting plan which will maintain the six existing magisterial districts, provide for each district to consist of urban and rural segments of the County, and minimize changes to the magisterial district boundaries. He pointed out the existing lines on a map as well as an option that the staff feels meets the guidelines set by this Board. He said that staff tried to stay within a population deviation of plus or minus five percent, and this has been done with proposal named "Option A-i." He asked Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Comnnznity Development, to discuss the changes shown in Option A-1 as they relate to the Samuel Miller, Jack Jouett, Charlottesville and White Hall districts. Mr. Cilimberg distributed a revised table of population figures. He said the changes were described in the handouts last week. He then used a map to describe the proposed changes. Mr. Way wondered if the people living in the small area west of Pancake Falls (Route 631) had made any comments concerning their being moved from the Covesville precinct in the Scottsville District to the North Garden precinct in the Samuel Miller District. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this change only involved 13 people, and it was made for the geographic ease of getting to a polling place. He said that the Registrar, Mr. James Heilman, can speak more specifically concerning this change. He said Mr. Heilman wants to make comments to the Board relating to polling places as well as the relationship of the County's proposal as compared to the House of Delegates' proposal which is currently.been publicized. Mr. Way said that he has no objection to the move, but he would like to know the reason for moving 13 people. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned another shift that moved a part of an area from the Samuel Miller District into the Scottsville District. He said this move will provide more convenience to the Covesville polling place for the people in that area. Mr. Bowie wanted to know about the shift of people from the Rivanna Dis- trict to theW hire Hall District. He asked if there is any change proposed for Briarwood, Camelot, etc. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the Briarwood and Camelot areas will stay in the Rivanna District. The area on the other side of Route 606 will go into the White Hall District. Mr. Heilman stated that the Samuel Miller/Scottsville border alterations were made for voter accessibility to polling places. If a community is located on both sides of a road, that road was not used as a dividing place for the precinct. The changes made around Covesville seem to accomplish what was intended, and there are few people involved. He called a few of the citizens in this area and no one expressed an objection. There is another place in the Covesville area that involves 17 people who could go into either district. He is unsure as to whether there are any registered voters in that area, so it is not definite how those lines will finally be drawn. Mr. Heilman then talked about the Crozet/Batesville line which currently runs along Route 636. He said a change in this line could affect either 22 people or 130 people depending on the change. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon (Page 17) Adjourned Meeting) 223 Mr. Heilman next discussed a shift between the Rivanna and White Hall Districts. He said a line could be drawn down Route 641. Under Option A-l, however, the line is drawn to split Briarwood and North Pines subdivisions, and is drawn down Route 606. He mentioned that another option would be to draw the line up the Marsh Run Creek which is near Route 641. The numbers did not work out quite as well with this plan. The plan given to the Board works well, but can be adjusted five or six different ways. Mr. Heilman pointed out changes as they relate to polling places. He mentioned particularly the big urban pockets, and even though geographically they are small, they involve a large number of people, and this will have some impact on where polling places are located. He said that Option A-1 was no~ referring to polling places or precincts. He is particularly concerned about changing the precinct for the Alderman Road dormitories. He said that this would involve approximately 2082 people, but actually there are few voters in this area. If they are put into the Ivy Precinct, they would have to drive to Meriwether Lewis School to vote, which is the current arrangement for the people who live in Buckingham Circle. He said that the Ivy Precinct is already too large, and it would be nice to split the precinct in half at the north/south line, however, there is no good north/south line for the split, and not many publicly accessible buildings to use for polling places. He can only think of three buildings close to Charlottesville which could be used for voting, and they are the Kappa Sigma building, the Institute for Textile Technology, both on Route 250 West, or the Trinity Presbyterian Church on Fontaine Avenue. He wants the Board to keep this in mind when changes are being made. Another major group is in South Berkeley area which is very close to the Jack Jouett School, and there would not be an accessibility problem. He stated that an Earlysville Precinct has been discussed on the west side of Route 29, and that should not be a problem either. He mentioned that Country Green and Sherwood Manor voters could vote at Piedmont Virginia Community College in the Monticello Precinct of the Scottsville District. Next, Mr. Heilman discussed synchronizing Option A-1 with the Virginia House of Delegates' plan. This needs to be done in order to avoid having voters going to two different polling places. If this were not done, there would be two elections in the same polling place involving two separate sets of precinct rosters, and separate voting machines. He said that is a situa- tion which should be avoided if at all possible. He commented that the House of Delegates will be discussing redistricting on April 1 and will probably be finished soon thereafter. He read in the newspaper that a plan proposed by Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres had been agreed to by Delegate George Allen. That plan kept the 57th House of Delegates District as: the City of Charlot- tesville, and in Albemarle County, the Ivy Precinct, the entire Jack Jouett District and then it added the part of Berkeley Subdivision that is south of Hydraulic Road. He said that Option A-1 fits perfectly with this plan because the shifts were made between the current parts of the 57th district. The plan that came out of the House of Delegates' Privileges and Elections Committee Thursday was not the plan that was proposed by the local delegates, and it included: the City of Charlottesville, and in Albemarle County, the entire Jack Jouett District, all of the Berkeley Precinct, and all of the Ivy Precinct with the exception of 274 voters, who are voters living in the Peacock Hill Subdivision and or who live west of Peacock Hill. He added that no one in Richmond has confirmed this. He then mentioned the 58th House of Delegates' District which is Delegate Allen's district and which would include all of the remainder of Albemarle County plus those 274 people in Peacock Hill, minus the whole Batesville Precinct which has been proposed to be added to the district of Delegate Abbott from Appomattox. He said this district which is south of Albemarle County into Nelson County would include the Batesville Precinct. Mr. Bain suggested that only Option A-1 be considered. He said that the House of Delegates could then decide what it wanted to do. Mr. Bowie wondered if it would be possible to change positions if the County adopted Option l-A, and the General Assembly splits the precinct. Mr. Heilman told Mr. Bowie that the General Assembly will have already voted before the County votes on its plan. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 18) 22 Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Heilman when the General Assembly'would be finished with its proposal. Mr. Heilman answered that the General Assembly would convene on April 1 and is scheduled for either a two or three day session. He said that the General Assembly should definitely be finished with its proposal by the end of the first week. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board have its hearing on May 15. Mr. Bain' agreed with Mr. Way about contacting the few people involved in the move from the Covesville precinct to the current North Garden precinct. Mr. Way answered that it does not make any difference to him if these people change precincts, if they are agreeable to the change. Mr. Bain said he assumes that people will tell Board members if they have problems with the changes, and then minor adjustments could be made after the public hearing. Mr. Bowiementioned that adding precincts had been considered. Mr. Heilman responded that he is nOt sure of how the precinct situation versus districts should be handled. Mr. Bowie remarked that the public hearing on May 15 will be held just on magisterial districts, and if the precinct infor- mation is ready, it would be good to present it at the time. Mr. Bain agreed that he needs more input concerning theprecinct issue. Mr. Bowie said nothing needs to be delayed because the public hearing on magisterial districts can still be held, and within each district, problems worked out separately. Mr. Tucker noted that May 15 is the last chance for a public hearing. He said the proposal will have to go to the Department of Justice soon thereafter. He wants the Board to understand that the decision on adjustments cannot be postponed for a week or two. Mr. Bowie suggested that the date of the public hearing be set at an earlier time, possibly on May 8. At this time, Mr. Way moved that the public hearing for redistricting be held on May 8 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called, and motion carried by the followed recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bowie commented that he thinks that the whole redistricting project has been extremely well done. He said that the Committee has given this Board exactly what it wanted, and after the guidance from this Board at the begin- ning, this Board was not involved. He is pleased with the way it was handled with a minimum of disruption of the citizens. Agenda Item No. 6. Authorization for the Tour DuPont Bicycle Race. Mr. Tucker informed the Board that on May 14 and 15, the Tour DuPont Bicycle Race will be traveling through Albemarle County. He said that on May 14, they will be coming from Richmond to Wintergreen and will follow Route 6 through Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker then described the route that the race will follow as it leaves Charlottesville on May 15. He requested that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign a letter to Tour DuPont granting permis- sion to have the race through Albemarle County. Mr. Perkins made a motion to authorize the Chairman's signature on a letter to give permission for the Tour DuPont Race to travel through Albemarle County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. Mr. Way asked if the County will get any financial assistance. Mr. Tucker responded that the County will get financial assistance for any law enforcement or traffic control that is necessary. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. March 25, 1991 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 19) 22 Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board. Mr. Bowerman reported that he received a call from an individual re- garding the Clean Con~nunity Commission Clean-up Campaign. He said that Bates McLain in Free Union has traditionally taken the trash to a landfill and now the indication is that the County will only accept four or five tons versus approximately 17 that has been picked up in the past. He wonders if this is at cross purposes as to what the County is really trying to do. Mr. Tucker explained that last month Mr. Roger Flint came to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) Board meeting and requested approval for four or five tons of refuse. He said it has been authorized to waive the tip fee for that tonnage. He went on to say that later, Mr. McLain and others learned of the situation and felt that this was inadequate in terms of refuse that will be generated by this clean-up day. He added that the RSWA Board will be dealing with this situation this afternoon, and he believes that the Solid Waste Authority will grant permission for additional tonnage to be taken without a tipping fee. Mr. Bowerman asked where the Highway Department leaves its refuse when it has a clean-up campaign. Mr. Tucker replied that the Highway Department has to go through the same procedure. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Highway Depart- ment has to take its refuse to a landfill. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." Mr. Bowerman then wondered if the Highway Department is charged for this service. Mr. Tucker responded that the Highway Department would have to request'a waiver; waiver requests are handled on an individual basis. He noted, howev- er, that because of the number of clean-up days that will be held in the future, he expects that eventually a standard waiver will be approved. Agenda Item No. 8. Adjourn to March 27, 1991, 1:00 P.M. or to April 3, 1991 at 11:00 A.M. in Scottsville. At approximately 5:00 p.m., Mr. Bowie said that the Board must meet again to'finalize the budget so it can be advertised for public hearing. He sug-. gested that the Board adjourn untilTuesday, instead of Wednesday. Mrs. Humphris indicated that she wOuld be unable to meet with the Board on Tuesday. Mr. Bain then moved that this meeting be adjourned until Wednesday, March 27, 1991 at 3:00 p.m. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Chairman