HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 04 1994 PC Minutes10-4-94
OCTOBER 4, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 4,
1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr, Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmanu; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; and Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner. Absent: County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
September 13, 1994 and September 20, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the September 21, 1994 Board of
Supervisors meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
South ganiops Office Complex III Minor Site Plan Amendment -Request for off-street
parking.
[NOTE: Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant had requested that the Albemarle Square
Minor Site Plan Amendment be placed on the October IIth agenda.]
Referring to Consent Agenda items, Ms. Imhoff requested that, in the future, the Commission
be provided with maps for these items.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Consent Agenda be approved. Mr. Jenkins seconded
the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Review of Keswick Agricuitural/Forestal District - The existing Keswick Agricultural/Forestal
District will be reviewed for a proposed ten-year renewal. The district consists of 6,064 acres
located on both sides of Rt. 22, and also on Rts. 648, 612 and 616.
and
Addi 'on tq Keswick Aer ulturaUForestxl District - Proposal to add 320,521 acres to the
Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District. Properties described as Tax Map 63, Parcels 42A and
40, and Tax Map 80, Parcels 114A, 115, 3H, and 2, are located off State Route 612 and State
Route 22.
1-:5 /
10-4-94 2
and
La-1_1Qaks Request to Subdivide in Keswick District - Request to subdivide 5.25 acres within
the Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District, leaving 92.56 acres with the farm parcel. The
main house and one dwelling are existing on the proposed parcel, the land use will not
change. Property, described as Tax Map 80, Parcel 176 contains approximately 97 acres.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report for all three items in the Keswick District. The report
stated that both staff and the Advisory Committee were recommending approval of all three
requests.
Referring to the Open Space Plan's recommendation for "mountain protection above the 700-
foot contour," Mr. Blue asked Ms. Scala to explain the meaning of "mountain protection."
[NOTE: One-third of the Keswick District is recommended for mountain protection.] Ms.
Scala responded: "The protection hasn't been decided upon yet, but it's an area that is
sensitive because of the steep slopes and because it has visual qualities. I merely pointed that
out because I wanted to show you the different resources that are being protected by the
agricultural and forestal district. At this point we do not know what shape, if any, regulations
will take to adopt it." She stated that staff is not currently working on these regulations
because the Commission directed, some months ago, that study be deferred until completion
of the Comp Plan review. Mr. Blue noted that he had voted for the Open Space Plan, but he
now finds it somewhat embarassing not to know what mountain protection means. Ms.
Imhoii expressed an eagerness to develop a definition. She noted that there are several good
models to look at within the state.
There being no public comment on any of the Keswick Ag/Forestal District requests, the
matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that all three Keswick District requests be approved_ Mr.
Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Review of Kinloch A cultural/Forestal District - The existing Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal
District will be reviewed for a proposed ten-year renewal. The district consists of 1,685 acres
located on both sides of Rt. 231, and also on Rts. 22, 640, 740, and 783.
and
Addition to KiWpgAtura�I 2%9a-l.1]istrict - Proposal to add 393.160 acres to the
Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District. Property, described as Tax Map 66, parcel 3A is
located on the east side of St. Rt. 231.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Both staff and the Advisory Committee were
recommending approval of both Kinloch District requests.
104-94
Nls. Imhoff excused herself from discussion of, and action on, this item, Citing a possible
conflict of interest.
There being no public comment on either of the Kinloch Ag/Forestal requests, the matter was
placed before the Commission.
MCT10N: Mr. Nitchma"a movCd that the two Kinloch AgnoulturallForestal District requests
be approved. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed (6:0.1), with Ms. Imhoff
abstaining.
WORD SESSION
Com rehensive Plan - Economic DevelopMent Policy
Mr. Cilimberg introduced the topic and briefly explained the history of the Policy. He stated
that, thus far, only the GOAL has been formally adopted by the Board.
Mr. Nitchmann added to Nix. Cilimberg's introduction by explaining that because he had felt,
in 1992, that Economic Development needed to be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan, he
had proposed the adoption of this Economic Development Policy. Mr. Nitchmann also
expressed his support for the Regional Economic Development Partnership and the feeling
that the County needs to participate in this partnership because of ifs position as the
commercial "center and nucleus," of the counties involved in the partnership, a position which
should be taken seriously. He noted, however, that because of changes which have taken
place since his original proposal (e.g. the formation of the partnership, changes in the
Commission, and additional research), he felt the policy should be reviewed. He pointed out
that the recently completed County survey had shown that 70% of County citizens agreed that
some type of economic development plan was needed, including 68% of the higher -income
survey participants who agreed there was a need for the creation of better, higher -paying jobs.
He felt the first step in this process was to determine if there was a consensus among the
Commission as to the need for an Economic Development Program.
COM!h'8sioti coaiihftts Oft the Goal and Objectives of the Policy were as follows:
COAL: Develop a comprehensive economic development program that is consistent -with
other Comprehensive Plan goals and achieves a stable, sustainable economic environment
within which the citizens of the County can pursue economic well being.
Imhoff - She felt the factual paragraph that followed the goal statement was out-of-date and
that it should be "fine tuned and updated." She agreed with Mr, Nitchmann in terms of 3
changes which have taken place since the adoption of the Goal and felt it needed to be
reviewed. She made reference to a report of Robert deVoursney's, (copies of which had been
given to the Commission), whom she felt had a better grasp of those things which are
impacting the area, e.g. the change in the state's
0J�
10-4-94 4
economy, decline to defense spending, competition with other world regions, dwindling job
mobility. She felt those items should be checked by star to see if they apply to our
community. She was skeptical that there was "hidden underemployment" as mentioned in
paragraph 2, page 1, of the staff report. Slightly later in the discussion, she stated she felt an
economic policy should state "where you are and where you want to go." She said that part
of the reasons businesses come here have to do with the natural resource -based industries of
this area. "People are either building on those industries or they are attracted because of what
those industries provide —agricultural views, forestry, historic resources." She did not Know if
this should be a part of the Goal or if it should be included in some other place such as
Program Implementation.
Dotson - He agreed the statement should be expanded. He felt it shoo}d be talking about
economic opportunity (the terra used in the community visioning statement), wore Blasi au
economic development program. He suggested that staff revise this to incorporate the vision
statement. He mentioned items such as "maintaining steady low unemployment, providing
people with various skills and educational levels with job opportunities, maintaining a strong
tax base." He felt the Program was a "strategy" and not a "goal." He noted that in 1992 we
were ,just begining to emerge from the recession and so a lot of things which may have been
true then, are not true now. Referring later to Mr. deVoursney's article, he stated: "We need
to focus on people who, perhaps, have fewer opportunities as a strong component, so it needs
to address the worker as well as the employer." (Mr. Nitchmann felt this had been the
original intent of the plan.)
Jenkins - He felt that there already exist in the Camp Plan assorted statements which could be
"Pulled out" and would come close to making an Economic Development Policy. He felt it
was important to be "fairly general," Le. that it not be made to fit the current economic
situation. He felt the most important issue which the goal should address is its "being joint."
He agreed with Mr, Nitchmann regarding Albemarle's position as the commercial center for
those counties involved in the Partnership. He pointed out that housing is a part of the
economic picture and "an economic policy which is jointly put together (with the other
regions) may be the best thing we can do for addressing the housing situation."
Nitchmann - He concluded, from the statements of other Commissioners, that the Commission
was directing staff to re -write the Goal and put it into a "more timely context" to reflect
today's situation and what we hope it will be in the future. He agreed with Mr. Jenkins that
the statement should be "timeless."
Objective; Provide the resources necessary to develop and maintain a viable County
Economic Development Program.
Nitchmann - He felt this objective was out of place, since it is really what comes at the end.
He suggested that discussion be skipped at this time. Other commissioners agreed with Mr.
Nitchmann. Mr. Dotson pointed out that it had been previously agreed that a "department
wasn't in the cards and that a designated staff person would be a better approach."
10-4-94 5
Objective: Develop a plan to work with employers presently located in the community that
will assure their retention and prosperity.
Jenkins - He felt "nurturing what we've already got" is very important.
Dotson - He felt the objective -- to work with employers -- should be expanded.
Imhoff - She recalled the Commission has talked in the past about developing a community
profile of "what we have so that we can build on those industries. She also recalled
discussions that "one of out objectives shod-d be to- diversify," i.e. "It would he better for our
economy to have three I00-employee firms rather than to have one 300-employee firm, for
long-term economic health."
Objective: Provide a "Partners in Progress" business environment that is mutually beneficial
to both the County and business.
Vaughan - She tried to get a better understanding of the term "Partners in Progress." She
noted tFtat many county residents work in the city, or ip Ober counties. Mr. Nitchnaann.
explained: "I think many of the: strategies in here are not saying 'this is what we need to do,'
but 'this is what we need to do to find out who we are, so we can determine what we need to
do."' He indicated it was his intention that businesses in both the county and city, as well as
surrounding counties, be considered in determi-ning how to enhance job opportunities.
Huckle - She wondered if the "Partners in Progress" objective was "too broad," since she felt
it was unclear "what we are promising to do." Ms. Huckle also addressed some of the
strategies specifically. She felt items D and E, related to offering technical skills training and
employer provided training were very important. However, she felt item A, to identify the
key existing employers, was favortism, since she felt small businesses were "contributing the
most right now and may W the wave of the futu-m-" �n strategy 13, she gu-estio ed the
meaning of the statement to "create a dialogue that enables the County to be sensitive to their
needs." She felt this could result in some companies expecting County Subsidies.
Imhoff - She felt this seemed Iike a very specific program and not an objective. She felt
some of the strategies listed under these two objectives were "overly fine tuned."
Dotson - He felt employees in the work force should be included as partners. (Mr.
Nitchmann expressed the feeling that a business is its employees and that was how he had
viewed this statement.) Referring to the strategies, he pointed out that some of these are a
part of the visioning statement and he again urged the staff to look for key words that are a
part of the economic opportunity section. of the visioning statement,
Nitchmann - Regarding identifying key employers, he felt it was important to have an
understanding of the source of a majority of tax revenues and he felt it was important.to work
/..;Jr
10-4-94
closely with the larger employers. However, he stressed that it was not intended to imply that
small businesses should be swept aside.
Blue - Regarding the key employer issue, Mr. Blue pointed out that the University is the
largest employer in the area and it is important to the County's economic well-being to do
whatever it can to work with and cooperate with them to help them prosper. He felt that the
UREF proposal which will soon be considcred by the Commission is "right in line with one
of these objectives."
Imhoff - She felt it might be helpful, at some future time, to look at some of the needs of the
"top couple of employers," in terms of training needs and infrastructure.
Dotson - He suggested that it would be helpfid to look at a study recently done for the city
by the Center for the Survey of Research. They had interviewed employers in terms of the
type of work force needed. Mr. Dotson also pointed out, later in the meeting, that because of
the cut backs in the military force and the resulting reduction in persons trained in certain
skills by the military, it would be advantageous for all jurisdictions to "re -invent" that type of
training.
Huckle - On the issue of education and training (strategy D), Ms. Huckle felt the "main thrust
should be to try to motivate people to accept the educational opportunities that are available
and that all levels of the public schools should focus on that, and even though some are not
going to college, to get as much education as they can so that they will be able to have more
meaningful employment."
Objective: Develop an economic data base that identifies and catalogs attributes and assets
of the County's economic base...."
Plitchmann - He explained that the purpose of this objective is to "find out who we are and
what is the foundation from which to start."
Imhoff - She felt this is one of government's most important roles in economic development,
i.e. "to provide good information about what you've got and where you want to go." She was
in favor of this objective being "raised up and heightened as one our chief roles."
Dotson - He agreed this was needed and pointed out that "it is close to being done." He
wondered if the other counties would have such a data base and he felt this was "an
appropriate function for TJPDC." Regarding the Partnership he asked: "One of my questions
is whether that is a needed vehicle to accomplish this goal for the rural counties."
Huckle ¢ She felt there was also a need to "identify the workers and to quantify them to we
which are the people who are in need of jobs and what their skills are, and the ones who
want to move up and what their skills are."
�-O
1 Q-4-94
Jenkins - He expressed "some problem" with the strategies for this objective, i.e. "to what
degree this gets into running people's lives, l've got reservations with that."
Objective: Enhance the County's land base, infrastructure and assets as they relate to the
retention of employers and the ability to attract and accommodate desirable new economic
activity to the area.
Imhoff - She expressed problems with this objective, which she felt could be related to the
wording. She explained: "I think there is a lot of good behind understanding what your land
base is and where your infrastructure needs are and where your shortfall might be and an
infrastrucure assessment is critical for attacting and retaining business, but if this enhancement
is just and only for economic activity, which is how the objective tends to read, this is, I
think, the whole role of the Camp Plan and the whole role of planning in a community,
which is the balancing act. We are talking about economic development, but we are also
balancing it against natural resource protection and we are balancing it against our fiscal
responsibility to our citizens and this objective seemed to lose some of those nuances. I
guess I am not quite ready to go as far out on the plank as this objective would take me."
Dotson - "I'm probably more willing to entertain provision of infrastructure than it sounds like
(Ms. Imhoff) is. That depends on our being able to afford it and it being fair, looking at
those who are already in the community versus those who would be coming in. But I would
go further and say we ought to look at it in respect to housing also because as we look back
and say that everything is related to everything else, that may be one of the ways we could
lower the cost of housing. At this point, Pm not ready to state an objective or a strategy
other than a strategy that says 'we are about to have a working Fiscal Impact Model that it
seems to me we ought to play out a number of different possibilities using that Fiscal Impact
Model and see how it would also work out and entertain it.... But I consider it a Iegitimate
tool to direct development to where we want it, so I would like to know more about it."
Vaughan - She was uncomfortable with the way the objective was worded.
Huckle - She felt to enhance the infrastructure was "a way of saying the County will provide
roads and water and sewer. She referred to how Loudon County has used this approach and
has developed 125 office and industrial projects, 5 acres or larger (from 4 acres to 2,900
acres) and she did not feel Albemarle should compete with "an area like that at taxpayers
expense to put m infrastructure in order to try to attract industry." She felt Albemarle
County's strengths for attracting industry are a high quality of life, low traffic volume, low
crime rate and proximity to the university.
Nitchmann - He felt there was no intent to compete with any other county, rather the intent is
"to make a planning decision for today and the future that says if we wish to have the proper
industries in the proper place, then, maybe at some point in time, it is the government's
responsibility to put in some infrastructure to entice those industries, or housing developers, to
be willing to move to that particular area we have identified."
437
10-4-94
Imhoff - She agreed that infrastrucuture is already used as a means to "get the right market,"
but she was still undecided as to whether or not infrastructure should be put in place as an
enticement for certain markets. She also expressed "particular discomfort" with the strategy
to "work with land and building owners to improve the marketability of their property." She
felt this could be very devisive and suggested this type of exercise was best carried out by the
Chamber of Commerce. (Mr. Blue pointed out that some infrastructure projects are necessary
for the public good, though they may incidentally be advantageous to some developers; e.g.
the Crozet sewer line and the Airport sewer line.)
Objective: Establish priorities for targeted economic activity based on environmental
criteria, infrastructure, labor asset pool, and the fiscal impact and economic impact models.
Dotson - He questioned how strategy A, to "develop criteria for evaluating new economic
activity," could be accomplished. He pointed out that once the issues of compliance with the
Comp Plan and the zoning have been settled, "then it is out of our hands." (Mr. BIue felt this
was the purpose of the Fiscal Impact Model.) Mr. Dotson also questioned the county's ability
to "target" certain businesses/industries with its marketing efforts.
Nitchmann - He explained that this objective had been developed with the idea of an
Economic Development Department in mind. He agreed that it needed to be looked at from a
different perspective than was originally envisioned.
Imhoff - She agreed that both this objective, and the one that follows, were really objectives
for the Economic Development Department. She did not think they belonged in the Comp
Plan assessment at this point. She suggested, however, that some of the ideas related to these
two objectives could be pulled out and used in other parts of the policy, e.g. profiling,
education and training.
Objective" Develop a marketing plan/program to seek out and attract that economic activity
that is consistent with the strategic economic development plan.
Imhoff - She viewed marketing as meaning large-scale advertising ("international level"),
which she was not comfortable with. She felt that marketing, "in the aggressive sense of the
word, is really appropriately done by a Chamber of Commerce or outside private group." She
felt it would be helpful, at some future time, to discuss the meaning of marketing. She did
not think this was the role of the Camp Plan.
Dotson - He pointed out that developers normally have their own marketing plan_ He also
noted that a survey conducted several years ago (by Fortune magazine) had shown that
businesses usually seek an objective party, such as the Planning Director, when gathering
information. Sometimes they would go to an economic development entity, and less often to
real estate representatives. They were less interested, at least initially, in being assisted by
"active marketers" that, in getting information and taking it back for further study. He was in
favor of the County being involved in "information sharing," which he felt would ble valued
/_3 Y
10-4-94 9
by prospective businesses. He felt an appropriate role for the county would be similar to that
of a church, i.e. "you don't go out trying to steal the flock of another church, however, if
someone walks in your door, you very certainly want to greet them, make them feel welcome,
and acquaint them with what's available."
Nitchmann - He agreed with Mr. Dotson. He felt a problem in the past has been that
businesses really don't know where to go for assistance or information. He felt it was very
important that the Comp Plan address the issue of economic development because he felt that
a perspective business would Iook to that document for guidance.
Imhoff - She expressed the belief that economic development was a broad area which related
to more than just businesses, "unless you mean by that the businesses of the natural resource
industries, services businesses..."
Blue - He noted that a majority of states, including Virginia, are actively soliciting new
businesses. He wondered if "all the states are wrong and they should just sit back and wait
until the industry comes to them or is the local government different from the state
government?" Ms. Huckle responded to this and stated that it probably depended upon the
state, since some states are suffering much more than we are, and they are, therefore,
desperate to attract businesses. Mr. Nitchmann also responded to Mr. Blue's comment and
stated that from "our perspective" it may be an over -aggressive pursuit. But he felt the reason
for their aggressive pursuit was to "position themselves so that they can diversify their
economic base and it is better to do that on an on -going basis." He felt the Commonwealth's
government is going to have to wrestle with the question of "how far do you go with
incentives" in bringing industry to the state.
Objective: Create a mutually beneficial regional approach to economic development once a
County program is in place.
Jenkins and Nitchmann - Both expressed support for a regional approach to economic
development.
Dotson - He felt some things could be done on a regional basis but because of the variety in
the city, county and rural areas, there are some things best done on a local basis. He felt
education and training would be appropriate on a regional basis. He expressed support for a
"mentoring program where businesses and industries that are in the established center -- the
city and the county -- work with people in the outlying jurisdictions who might be interested
in setting up a new business." He questioned whether a new regional entity was needed or if
this could be another function of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, If the
County does participate in the Regional Parthership, he expressed the fear "that we would
likely skim the cream," whether intentional or not. He described a hypothetical situation
where a business would locate in northern Albemarle and Albemarle would then be the
winner in terms of wholesale and retail business and services, but because half the wetkers
may live in Greene County, the tax base in Greene would end up with the burden of
111
10-4.94 10
educating the children of half the workers. He concluded: "So if we really want to talk
regional, why don't we talk regional tax -base sharing?" He felt there could be some real
disparities and hardships which have not been given a lot of thought. He felt the roles for
the city, the county, and the rural areas have to be defined, and he felt there had not been
nearly enough talk about these prospective roles. He sensed there was a lot of pressure for
the County to join in the partnership "just so it would not appear to be the holdout, the stick-
in-the-mud;" and he did not feel this was a good reason to join.
Imhoff = She expressed agreement with Mr. Dotson's comments. She added that one idea
which has not been discussed in relation to the subject of economic development is that "you
have to do some coordinated regional planning before you can do the economic
development." She pointed out that the impact of the UREF development on Greene County
has not been discussed with Greene, nor has Fluvanna County been a part of discussions
about the ongoing development on Rt. 250 East.
Nitchmaan - Addressing Ms. Imhoff s and Mr. Dotson's statements, he felt that the Regional
Partnership would be dealing with these issues. He did not think the Partnership, nor these
other counties, are working in a vacuum.
Mr. Dotson concluded the Commission's discussion of the Policy by stating that he felt there
was "another whole category of new ideas which are not addressed in here," but those could
be saved for later discussion..
Mr. Nitchmann agreed, and expressed the feeling that another work session was needed
before staff began to re -write the policy. (Earlier in the discussion Ms. Imhoff had expressed
the hope that the objectives would be re -written, She specifically felt there should be an
entire objective devoted to education and training.)
Ms. Huckle suggested that a place to "fine tune some of this material" might be to look at the
special permit and by -right criteria in the industrial zones.
Public comment was invited at this time.
Ms. Nancy O'Brien, representing the TJPDC, addressed the Commission and explained some
of the projects the TJPDC is presently involved in at the regional level. She also explained
the role which is envisioned for the Regional Partnership. She stated that anything done by
the Partnership "will be done consistent with, and concurrent with, and to enhance what the
localities want." It is not envisioned that the Partnership will "take it's one role." She
welcomed suggestions for strengthening the relationship between the local governing bodies
and the Partnership. Regarding Mr. Dotson's comment about tax -base sharing, she stated that
is a concern which is shared by Greene County.
Referring to Ms. OSrien's statement that UREF had Made a presentation on its plans to the
—P , Ms. Imhoff noted that presently there is no mechanism for the Commission to
/Im
1 a-+4-94 11
receive TJPDC's comments on that type of presentation. MS, lrn.hoff expressed concern about
the fact that presently the makeup of the Partnership does not include any citizen
representation.
Mr. Dotson asked Ms. O'Brien if the TJPDC could perform the functions that are envisioned
for the Partnership_ He also asked if the TJPDC would .not find the $200,000 grant
beneficial. Ms. O'Brien acknowledged that any regional agency would find $200,000
beneficial. She explained, however, that the TJPDC will bring "a strong research and data
component" to the Partnership, but "the sort of hosting that is part of this" is best done
somewhere else. She stated also that the structure of the Partnership calls for a Training and
Development Committee and an Education Committee and she felt the TJPDC could help in
those areas.
Ms. Huckle asked if the TJPDC would be a the main office for the collection and
dissemination of this information for the whole region. Ms. O'Brien responded that a function
of the TJPDC is to collect information, and it is disseminated "to the ability that we have
now." She did not think there has been any discussion about the TJPDC performing this role
in the Partnership.
Ms. Huckle asked Ms. O'Brien what guarantees are there that the private funding for this
Partnership will actually materialize.
Mr. Carter Myers, Chairman of the fund drive, responded to Ms. Huckle's question about
funding. He explained that they will be "targeting primarily larger contributors, not to
compete with the small Chamber members, but people who will give significant funds to fund
the private sector dollar -for -dollar matching of the organization." He could not say that "ail
the money's in the bank," but he stated that "we win have all the committments prior to any
public funding --which will not begin until the 95-96 fiscal year." The fund drive will be
complete prier to that time. He was Fonfident th4t the mgneY would be Wised
Mr. Myers made the following comments on (1) Why he feels the County needs an
economic development strategy; and (2) Why he feels the Economic Development
Partnership is needed:
Job Related Points:
--The recently completed County Survey shows that 79% of the County's households
want a more aggressive policy to spur economic growth and 70% want the County to make
efforts to increase the variety of new lobs and only 27% believe there is presently the right
mix of jobs readily available. [Ms. Imhoff later pointed out that there had been even higher
percentages for environmental and historic protection. She felt it would be a balancing act of
"how you grow and hew you save those really important resources."
--The VEC has verified that this area has a below -average state wage base and an
above -average housing cost.
--The TJPDC would not have been working on this Partnership for three years if it
was not important to the region.
1Q-4-94 12
--The United Way can validate the significant needs of the citizens of the County.
--The output of the Sustainability Council and Vision Forum (both of which the
County participated in) address a need for economic vitality.
Tax Revenue Related Points:
--Rising assessments. means, rising taxes.
--The County's tax base is heavily dependent upon residential taxes (83%) Our largest
employer; the University, is a non -tax -paying entity.
--Almost every jurisdiction in Virginia has an economic development department or
are a part of a regional economic development group. They can't all be wrong.
--The County is caught in a bind with pressures for affordable housing and pressures
for natural growth, to be balanced against the costs of education and other services.
--There will be dwithatied pressure to eliminate land uk taxati6n, and if we want to
preserve our open spaces and rural areas we must find a way to balance our tax base with
sources other than residential.
--In order to maintain the County's high Ievel of education, there must be an increased
tax base.
Mr. Myers expressed the feeling that the County needs to take a pro -active role on economic
development so that it can be selective in choosing the types of businesses it wants. In
response to Ms. Imhoffs questions about how this selectivity could be accomplished, he
explained this could be done by targeting small businesses which "have a fit with the
University and the type of work force we currently have, and you give them an opportunity to
grow."
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Myers to comment on the role of the governor's Regional Economic
Development Council. Ms.Jane Ditmar, President of the Chamber of Commerce, responded
to Mr. Dotson's question. She explained that the Council was meant to support the Regional
Partnership, not replace it. Localities will look to the Council for special needs that may arise
to 'bring the goodies home,"
Ms. Huckle asked Ms. Ditmar to explain the function that is en-.4sioned for the Office of the
Regional Economic Development Partnership. Ms. Ditmar explained that there are 2 main
functions of the Partnership: (1) Retention of existing businesses; and (2) The identification
of new businesses which fit our area's needs and values. She stressed the importance of
retaining our current employers by providing them with an environment which will help them
not only sustain their economic well-being, but will also allow them to grow.
Ms. Imhoff expressed a concern about "having the cart before the horse." She was of the
opinion that the areas is which this type of .appro-aeh ha* worked well have beel) those which
have done a let of strategic planning prior to the adoption of monom.ic development
programs. She hoped there would be some "visioning for the bigger picture."
Mr. Harold Morris, Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors, addressed the
Commission. He sassed that thy regional economic development partnership approach has
1,0
10-4-94 13
proven to be successful throughout the United States. There are eight such partnerships in
Virginia. There are presently 18 Governor's Advisory Councils and it is envisioned that there
will ultimately be 18 regional partherships in the state. He felt it has been proven that this is
the right way to go, and that this is an opportunity which should not be missed.
A representative for Citizens for Albemarle addressed the Commission and read a prepared
statement which severely criticized the proposed Economic Development policy. (See
Attachment A.)
Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, addressed the Commission
and read a statement which expressed concerns about parts of the proposed Economic
Development policy. (See Attachment B.)
Ms. Babette Thorpe, speaking as an individual, expressed her ideas on the Regional
Partnership. She also offered information on the role of the Governor's Economic Councils.
She stated that the director of those councils, Mr. Boyd Richardson, had explained to her that
it is expected that they will develop into "a regional marketing entity." She felt it was
important that citizens be involved in the decision about the Regional Partnership, and not
just businesses and government.
Mr. Tom Olivier addressed the Commission_ He expressed the hope that there would be
more information made available as to how the Partnership will work at a regional level in
terms of addressing the different needs of the counties which make up its membership. He
felt the County should be cautious about accepting a proposal of this type without further
information.
No further public comment was offered.
Mr. Nitchmann was upset with some of the comments to the Citizens for Albemarle
statement. He stated: "I don't think anybody is trying to force anything down anybody's
throat. We have to stop looking behind the trees for the indians, and start making some
decisions and move forward.... We have to start working as a team." He also pointed out
that any plan that may be adopted can be reviewed and amended at any time.
Mr. Ciiimberg anticipated that this topic would be scheduled for another work session the
first part of November.
(LLD BUSINESS
Aug4st 30 1994 Minutes (Request for Amendment by Don Wagner) - Referring to Mr.
Wagner's request for certain changes to the August 34th minutes (a request which was made
after the Commission had approved the minutes), Mr. Blue suggested that Mr. Wagner's letter
be m^ :C an addendum to the minutes, but that the minutes not b:. changed. The Commission
14
10-4-94
14
agreed with Mr. Blue's suggestion. Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that Mr.
Wagner's letter be attached to the August 30, 1994 minutes. The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Dotson asked that a review of Parking Requirements be put on the Work Program for
sometime after the completion of the Comp Plan Review.
There being no further business, the meeting Aourned at 10:35 p.m.
K'
.'i
%7