Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-11-30 adjNovember 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 1) 33 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 30, 1988, at 2:00 P.M., Meeting Room #5, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from November 29, 1988. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. , Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 2:05 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 2:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion of Nativity Scene Appeal. Mr. Way said he had received many calls, and he agreed that two people could make brief statements regarding the Nativity Scene Appeal, even though this was not a public hearing. Mr. Lynwood Coffman said that if the decision handed down by the U. S. District Court stands, it will have far-reaching ramifications. Mr. Coffman said he feels this issue is similar to the religious persecution that occurred when John Waller was whipped in Bowling Green in 1771. He has already mailed a letter to Board members stating his feelings on this matter. He then read from Section 16 of the Bill of Rights of Virginia regarding religious freedom. "...that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity toward each other." Mr. Coffman said this is what we are teaching our children in Albemarle County. If this is what we are teaching our children, then we must stand for it as adults. He said if this decision is allowed to stand, there will be implications for Albemarle County. Just a few years ago when the First Baptist Church burned, the County graciously allowed them to use the Jack Jouett School. He said this decision places in jeopardy the sense of accommodation, charity and helpfulness that this community has had through the years. In its place we will be allowing bitterness and division that should not be there. He said this decision may set a precedent to say that no Christian or religious ceremonies such as performing marriages at University Chapel could be held on State property. Allowing this decision to stand would be an encouragement to those who have brought'this suit to continue in other directions, which Mr. Coffman feels would be a detriment to this community. Mr. Coffman said the question has come about concerning having two lawyers on the Board who will be voting on this issue. In the interest of avoiding the appearance of any conflict of interests, if either of these men practice in Judge Michael's court, maybe they should abstain from voting on this issue. Mr. Coffman said it would be a matter of conscience of those Board members. Mr. Ron Gilbert, representing The Amicus Curiae, said there were eight compelling reasons to appeal the court's decision in this case. He said free speech issues impact all citizens of Albemarle. Removal of one type of free speech symbol directly affects all future use of this and other public forums for religious statements of any kind. Secondly, it would be a crucial mistake to drop this case now since the Supreme Court will consider a Pennsylvania nativity scene case soon which may bear on this case. Thirdly, if the Supreme Court rules against the nativity scene in Pennsylvania, this case is still significantly different and deserving of decision by the Supreme Court if necessary. Fourth, the case of McCreary vs. Stone in Scarsdale, New York, was decided in favor of similar free speech/nativity scene issues as those in- volved in this case. Fifth, if Albemarle County appeals and wins, the court may require that legal fees be paid by the American Civil Liberties Union. If the case is not appealed, the County is obligated for a minimum of 50 percent and possibly all of the ACLU legal bills. SiXth, should the County November 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 2) capitulate on this issue, the ACLU will have accomplished its goal of intimi- dation which it accomplished with the City of Charlottesville without having to fire a single legal shot. Further, the citizens will have p=ovided the financing for the loss of the right to use their own property for free speech. Next, should the County fail to appeal, more litigation is likely because this issue has aroused the passions of many citizens in the community. Eighthly, because of the important constitutional rights of citizens desiring to express their religious views, the Amicus Curiae are willing to share the financial risk of any ACLU legal fees that may become payable from this point forward as a result of losing the appeal. This commitment has already been demonstrated by the participation of attorneys from the Rutherford Institute without compensation. Lastly, Mr. Gilbert cited five points from Thomas Jefferson s Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom as addressing the issues raised in this case. Mr. Way said there are some justifiable legal reasons for pursuing the appeal, such as the McCreary vs. Stone case, and especially the upcoming Pennsylvania case which had not been decided which wouldlhave direct bearing on the case. Reading the opinion of Judge Michael, the one thing lacking is he does not go on to say where the nativity scene could Se. There seems to be a general disagreement among various attorneys on this a~peal in terms of how it could be argued. Mr. Way said in his mind it certainly is not absolutely definite that Judge Michael's decision will stand. Also,. Mr. Way feels that what Mr. Gilbert says concerning the financial end presents a good argument that pursuing this case would not necessarily cost the County more money; it could in fact save money if the case is overturned. AlsO, if the case in Pennsylvania is overturned, and the nativity scene case is not in appeal, he understands that the County would have to start all over !again, incurring more expense. Also, the Amicus Curiae have indicated willingness to share in costs should the Board decide to appeal. Finally, in Mr. Way's opinion, the most compelling reason to seek an appeal is the question of what will be next. This tactic has been used by the ACLU on other communities. In Charlottes- ville, they simply raised the threat, and it never even got into court. It seems to Mr. Way to be intimidation, and he is quite sure that this incident will be listed among the successes of the ACLU if Albemarle County does not seek an appeal. Further, as he reads the case, the people Of Albemarle County are being banished from a particular section of their pro.perry to exhibit freedom of speech. Religion is being banished from a particular portion of Albemarle County. Without meaning to sound "preachy", Mr~ Way said he felt that was wrong. To roll over and give up would not be inlthe best interest of the citizens of this County, and the Board has an obligation to continue the appeal. The decision to allow the nativity scene to be P~aced there was made about one year ago in good conscience, and nothing has changed since then, except that one man has said it cannot be done. Mr. Way !~aid he would support the appeal and hoped the other members of the Board wouldlas well. He added that he did not feel that Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bain would have any conflict of interests in this matter at all. ~ Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John to elaborate as to what ~e felt was the narrow scope of Judge Michael's opinion. Mr. St. John salad the question is whether this opinion is one step toward the mandatory ban!$shment of Christmas music from public schools, elimination of the use of County buildings by churches, of Easter music from schools, etc. He said he ~id not think this opinion was a step in the direction of religion being banhed from every place government had anything to do with. He said Judge Michae~ was very careful to tailor his statements so they would not be seen as a stepi~in that direction. He said the reference in the opinion was to this particular nativity scene in this particular place at the County Office Building with ~he United States Flag and the Virginia State Flag behind it. The imprint ~f government is part of the vision one gets in looking at this nativity scene ~t this place, giving the unmistakable impression of endorsement of the Christian religion. That means that the presence of the nativity scene under those!circumstances constitutes establishment of religion by the County of Albemarle. The Supreme Courts have said that where government allows the impression to be created that it is endorsing religion, then that government in permitting this is advancing religion. If the government advances religion, ithat is governmental establishment of religion. The original language of the O~onstitution does not say anything about separation of church and state. It sa~s, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion no~ prohibiting the November 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 3) 35 free exercise thereof." Judge Michael ruled that what took place on this lawn amounted to the establishment of religion. He said nothing that would give the slightest hint of what his decision would be on a case arising from Christmas programs in school or church use of public property. He said nothing of how he would rule if this or some other nativity scene were put at the Babe Ruth baseball field, which is County property. Mr. St. John said he could not say there would not be other cases brought to suppress more and more religious expression on public property. This case encourages that, even though Judge Michael did not intend that. Mr. St. John pointed out that a careful reading of the pleadings in this case and a reading of the Judge's opinion is necessary. The plaintiff had asked for a declaratory judgment that this nativity scene be declared illegal. They also asked for an injunction enjoining Albemarle County from having this or any nativity scene on any public property in Albemarle County by any citizens. The judge granted the first request, but he refused the injunction, which would have been a perpetu- al restriction. He said some of the plaintiffs even perceived this case as being sweeping, even though Judge Michael's decision was specific. Mr. St. John said he feels the ACLU will also encourage the sweeping interpretation and quote this case as authority, but he does not feel that is the correct interpretation. Mr. Bain then asked Mr. St. John to speak concerning the symbolic free speech versus the establishment of religion. Mr. St. John said the establish- ment clause is one of the fundamental parts of our Constitution. It gives rise to rights which people have the privilege to go to court to protect when they are violated. That is what these plaintiffs did. In the first amend- ment, there is the free speech clause also, Hoth of which are considered by the courts as fundamental rights. When a fundamental right is infringed upon, it calls down what the courts call "close scrutiny". In order for government to deny certain people the right to say whatthey please symbolically, the courts will scrutinize any such action closely, and there must be found a compelling state interest. You cannot tell Nazis they cannot have their flag on a true public forum because that is an abridgement of their freedom of symbolic speech, unless the state has a compelling interest at stake, such as national security. The prevention of a violation of the establishment clause is a compelling state interest. That justifies an infringement of freedom of speech according to Judge Michael's thinking~ He followed this step by step process. He found that Albemarle County has~a compelling interest in not violating the establishment clause, and thaticompelling interest justifies suppression of this particular symbolic speech. That is where the opinion leaves the reader hanging in Mr. St. John's opinion. The courts have also said in order to infringe upon a fundamentallright even when you have a compelling state interest, it can be only to~ithe extent absolutely necessary to serve that compelling state interest. AnY remedy must benarrowly tailored so as to do that only to the extent necessar~ to prevent the endorsement of religion. The opinion of Judge Michael does!not go very far into the narrowly tailored process. The next time there is a nativity scene, the court gives no hint of the action it would take. It would ~ust be new business. Mr. St. John said the pros and cons of An appeal have been well laid out ~ . here with respect to the financial and legal~conszderations and the general ! public s feeling. He said he would not makeiia recommendation to the Board as to whether it should appeal. He thinks ther~ is a reasonable likelihood that the Supreme Court will decide a case this co~!ng year that will have a sub- stantial effect on this case. Mr. Perkins asked what the possibility is of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granting a postponement of briefing. Mr. St. John said he did not know. He had not asked for such a postponement and did not know that you could ask for it. He does not feel that would have any effect on the decision made here. Mr. St. John said if the Board appeals, the process is that he will file a document of "Notice of Appeal". ~here is then a time schedule in which the Clerk of the Court sends the recordtto Richmond. In this case there is no record to be prepared, since there were~ no witnesses and cross examina- tions~to be typed. Everything done in this trial was stipulated in a package that is ready to go now. Once the attorneys get word that the record has been received in Richmond, they have four months, Mr. St. John thought, to write a brief. He would check that to be sure. After that, Richmond calls for oral arguments to 'be presented. That could be a t~ree month or a three year wait. After that, one day by mail, the verdict is r~ceived. November 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 4) Mrs. Cooke said she will vote to appeal and concurs with the remarks the Chairman made in the beginning of the discussion. After listening carefully to the County Attorney, she said she felt that the Board is a steward of the finances that the citizens pay as taxes. The Board is also here to help protect their rights as citizens. It is incumbent on her personally, she said, to help see that all rights are preserved. Motion was then made by Mrs. Cooke to appeal the decision of U. S. District Court Judge J. Harry Michael to ban the nativity scene from county property in Smith v. Lindstrom, C.A. No. 87-00§8(C). Mr. Bowie said he would second the motion. Although he has the highest regard for Judge Michael, he felt that when the Board voted to allow the people of this County to use their land for a nativity scene, that vote was correct. To say that when we lose, we quit, is wrong. If this Board believes in something, Mr. Bowie felt it should fight for it. Mr. Bain said he appreciates the remarks of Board members, and he voted to allow the nativity scene on the lawn as well. However, he sees a very narrow interpretation of a specific fact situation, and given that narrow focus and scope of opinion, he thinks the Board should leave the decision alone. Mr. Bain said he would not support the motion. Mr. Way said the former chairman of the Board used td talk about the "nose of the camel" being under the tent, and he feels this is the nose. Mr. Bowie said he absolutely believes that if the BoArd does not appeal this case, there will be future suits by anyone who does not agree with the Board. He said if the Board does not stand up for what it believes, it is just opening the doors for those law suits. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not support the motion. He said he felt it was important to say that he is a Christian, and he takes'that seriously as a matter of deep conviction. Mr. Lindstrom said he made that statement when he voted against putting the nativity scene on the lawn the first time. He said he agrees precisely with Judge Michael. He does not have a problem with this County accommodating religion in the fashion in which it has been done over the years. There is a line between accommodation and advdcacy. In his opinion placing the creche on the front lawn of the County Office Building in the position in which it was located, becomes advocacy wh~ther it was intended that way or not. He is also concerned that because this is a democracy with majority rule, we have a Bill of Rights which is intended .to protect the rights of everyone, regardless of what the majority may think from time to time. He suspects that in this community, Christianity i~ the religion of the majority. That may not always be the case. If the Board~takes action to allow in any way the advocacy of religion today, it may b~ one in which he agrees and believes. However, in another decade the majority may feel differ- ently. Mr. Lindstrom said if he goes by the County officel Building and sees symbols other than those out there a year ago, he might fe~l very differently. He does not want to advocate his beliefs, as a government Official, in a way that will come back to haunt him in the future. Tables are easily turned in this country because that's the nature of a democracy. M~. Lindstrom said there are certain things we have set aside that are beyond the power of government to affect. He agrees with the concerns expressed about government being devoid of religion. Finally, Mr. Lindstrom expressed great concern about establishing the front lawn of the County Office Building as a public forum. He said he did not want to see the Communist Partyior the Nazi Party or the Republican Party or the Democratic Party or any other party or group of citizens who have some argument to voice to the public using the front lawn. He does not have a problem with it being done in some othet place, and he agreed with Mr. Henley's comment previously that the baseball field might be an appropriate place. He does not believe that the Board ~an engage in the kind of discrimination that one of the members of the Board indicated was possible. That is, if it is somebody with whom the Board does not agree, they won't be allowed to use it. That is not a reasonable or legal position for this Board to take. Mr. Lindstrom said those were his reasons for saying that Judge Michael's decision is one with which he could abide and feel comfort- able. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not look at it as a sweeping decision. November 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 5) 37 Mr. Perkins said the nativity scene, though it may offend some people, is symbolic. There are Christian symbols throughout our country such as in the Supreme Court building and the Capitol building. Mr. Perkins said he could not see why it was offensive to have a nativity scene here when there are other Christian symbols on the major buildings of our government. He feels that if this nativity scene is not allowed, then other Christian symbols will be removed. Also, there are extensive Christian writings in our Constitution all the way back to the Mayflower Compact. For these reasons, he said, he will support the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3. Draft Statement: HOuse Joint Resolution 125 - Development Impact Fees. Mr. Way said as a result of a previous Board meeting in which staff had requested that a member of the Board make a brief presentation to a General Assembly subco~nittee meeting regarding Development Impact Fees on December 7, 1989, a draft had been prepared for the Board's review. The draft contains the Board's position that there is a projected annual growth for Albemarle County of 2.1 percent to the year 1990. From 1990 to 2000, the projected growth is the eighth highest rate for counties in Virginia, and this does not even include the University of Virginia's recent expansion plans. The cost of growth estimated by the Piedmont Environmental Council in 1984 for residential development in Albemarle County was that each dollar of revenue is offset by $1.16 in expenses for development. University of Virginia growth provides little revenue yet creates additional residential needs. The County's current Capital Improvements Program includes over $53 million in projects.which would be financed through County sources. There i~ no mechanism under current State legislation for the County to assess even a Portion of these p~ojects' cost to new development that will in part necessitate their construction. It is projected that existing revenue sources will fall short of capital project needs over the five year plan by $5.5 million. With the failure of the meals tax referendum, among the alternatives to ma~e up the deficiency are increas- ing long term indebtedness and property tax ~ates. County residents have made it clear from the meals tax vote that they d~ not want to pay increased taxes for projects from which they will not benefit or that are necessary because of future growth. Therefore, Albemarle County b%lieves that a logical solution is through legislation for development impact fees that would extend as a local option throughout Virginia and would in'corporate all public facilities and communities as eligible for funding unde~ the impact fee system. Mr. Bowie suggested that the reference tO alternatives to make up the shortfall should be clearly stated that ther~ are only two alternatives. Those are raising taxes and increasing indebtedness. Mr. Bain asked what are the long term indebtednesses referred to. Mr. Bowie said that was Literary Fund loans or bonds. Mr. Bain said it is really more narrow than they were indicating in the ~raft because some of these long term debts could only be done after referendum. The Board agreed that Mr. Way would submit the draft presented to them and revised as Mr. Bowie suggested to the House Joint Resolution subcommittee meeting. Agenda Item No. 4. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. Before the work session began, Mr. Hornei~asked the Board to give author- ization to the Planning staff to begin the process of applying for a grant program through the State Water Control Board!for funding to allow groundwater drastic mapping as referred to in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. The grant would most likely be totally funded, and the County contribution would be an "in kind" match for office space and personnel. The drastic mapping would be used as a basis for generating better information on groundwater planning. This would allow funds for hiring personnel fqr the specific task of 38 November 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 6) developing maps that compile geologic, soil, and groundwater data that can give a relative measure of the susceptibility of groundwater in certain areas to pollution. There would be no local funding necessary. Mr. Home said the staff hoped to use some of the data from these maps as a stepping stone for measuring availability of groundwater. Mr. Bain asked if the grant was for individual counties or more for planning district commissions. Mr. Horne said this grant would mostly likely be for Albemarle County, although neighboring counties might want to join in. The Board agreed to give authorization to the planning staff to begin drafting application for the grant. The work session began on Page 194 with the last paragraph on that page. On the bottom of Page 195, Mr. Bain asked what is entailed in carrying out the strategies listed for this section entitled "Water and Sewer Facility Planning". Mr. Home said a great majority of the work has already been done through the City, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), or through the University of Virginia physical plant. He said in his opinion what is needed is a planning process administered at the County level to try to bring all those things together. He does not envision new staff; rather it is a coordination process more than a technical process. Mr. Bain said he is concerned as to where we are presently in "the ultimate design capacity" in the urban growth area referred to in the first strategy on the bottom of Page 195. Given what we have in terms of densities, the planning for pump stations, and what the University iR talking about doing, is it projected in the long range planning that these strategies in terms of treatment capacity can be accomplished? Mr. Home said that in the discussions with Mr. Bill Brent and Mr. George Williams, ithe planning staff had not actually determined the total ultimate capacity, i~if every square inch of the urban area were built to full capacity. He said staff could figure that capacity if the Board wanted that figure. Mr. Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development, said he felt part of the idea for ~this strategy is that staff is one step away from developing those figures and ~needed to get to that point. With Board approval of the plan, the development ~potential in every growth area will be identified and from that the utility services. The County and the City can then get together and look at the ultimate capacities to serve that development potential. Mr. Brent said that to'his knowledge, in the foreseeable future, there is no anticipated short fall at the AWT plant. He said what would have to be done is a comparison of the!present projected growth plan versus the growth plan that was used when the!! figures were generated to decide the present plan. He does not believe that the growth area has changed drastically from what it was in the latei 1970's when the treatment plant was designed. Mr. Bain said he felt that!~eventual determination is necessary as part of the overall plan. Mr. Bowie wondered what is actually meant by building water and sewer facilities to "ultimate design". Will that prevent~utili~ies from being built similar to the problems that arise in meeting VDOT designs for roads? Mr. Horne said his understanding is that if the developer installs a particular line size and ACSA determines that a larger line size is actually needed, ACSA will participate in the additional cost of using the larger line size. Mr. Brent said that is correct. He said ACSA tries not to li~it the design of a pipe line to the Comprehensive Plan's designated growth a~ea. From previous discussions with the Board, it was agreed that when those~i.types of situations are encountered, it would be brought before the Planning qommission to get their concurrence. Mr. Horne said it was not staff's int~ent to limit design, but it would be almost to the ultimate design capacity consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Horne asked Mr. Brent if ACSA has a problem funding these situations. Mr. Brent said that to date, they have not been faced wit~ that problem. (Mr. Agnor left the meeting at this time.) Mr. Way suggested that the second paragraph on Page 1D6 which begins, "The County will have to consider contributing funds to provide utilities in areas where it is necessary to attract new growth, .... "should be better read as, "The County will have to consider contributing funds [o provide utilities in areas where it is desirable to attract new growth, .... ?' Mr. Horne said November 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 7) language in this section is intended to show an expanded role for County government to make those decisions because in the past it has been left largely to the private sector and the authorities. Mr. Bowie said that Strategy No. 1 on Page 196 should be reworded to clarify the word "hierarchical" so that the reader will understand it refers to developing a plan of utility funding. He said the strategy should be clear without having to read the entire section to understand it. At 3:45 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:00 P.M. Mr. Bowie cited the fifth Commercial Land Use Standard on Page 199 and noted that the wording seemed to imply the County wants to convert historic buildings to commercial uses. Mr. Home said the intent is that if historic buildings are converted to commercial use, they be done in character with methods of historic preservation. Mr. Bain said he felt that it should be made clearer as well. Mr. Lindstrom said the third and fourth items under "Industrial Land Use Standards" on Page 199 were almost contradictory. Mr. Home said he agreed the two standards seemed to send mixed signals to the reader. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that one way of dealing with it would be to delete the third stan- dard. The fourth coul-d be rewritten to say,! "Encourage the location of industrial uses in areas where public utilit~ies and facilities are adequate to support such uses." He said current zoning .accommodates these uses, and this rewording would allow some flexibility for unique types of use. Mr. Bain said that page numbers should ~e added in the paragraph in parentheses on Page 199 at the end of the "Commercial Land Use Standards" and on Page 200 in the parenthetical paragraph mt the end of "Industrial Land Use Standards" to help locate the tables referen,~ed. Mr. Perkins asked what the difference i~ between "rural residential developments" in the last paragraph on Page ~00 and "conventional develop- ments'' in the first paragraph on Page 201. Mr. Horne said the intent is that conventional developments are to be in the g~owth areas. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that t~e County is requiring roughly the same kind of plan for commercial zoning for three!.~acres as is required in the first paragraph on Page 200 which states, "Accomplish rezonings to an industrial designation for sites of 50 acres or more under a planned development zoning designation accompanied by a transportation analysis plan." He said he is concerned about the rationale for having 50 acres developed as an industrial designation. He asked staff to take anotherI look at the size of that designa- tion and provide further information regarding the transportation analysis plan. Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with th~ last item on Page 200 under "Residential Scales" which refers to a maximUm of 20 dwelling units. He said there is no mention of a plan for road development or other plans of develop- ment for the rural area as compared to those~i~in the growth areas. He said he is not proposing to make changes at this time, but he hopes that as the entire Plan is reviewed, some track is being kept of the items that have been men- tioned which will need to be readdressed in more detail at a later time. Mr. Bain asked what staff specifically has in mind to implement recommen- dation five on Page 201 under "Residential D~velopment Design" which states, "Make available a variety of development approaches to the developer that encourage innovative design and reduce housing costs, including cluster development, zero lot line subdivision, and solar design incentives." Mr. Horne said as an example of something the CoUnty has not done, and in his opinion should do, is allow zero lot line development. He explained that it is a residential development pattern where one side of the house is set on the property line. He said it is a method of plaCing structures on small lots that generates larger usable yard area. It ~llows more detached units on less acreage and still have usable yard space. HE' said that is one example of a way to structure ordinances to encourage design incentives. 4O November 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 8) The next work session will begin with Page 202, "Growth Areas". Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public and Board Members. Mr. Bowie said the Board had received a letter dated November 11, 1988, from Dr. Joseph Chicurel regarding a school matter. He thought the letter should be forwarded to the School Division for answer. Mr. Lindstrom said that at a meeting at Woodbrook School regarding the Route 29 North Study, a representative of the consultant informed the group that of the current truck traffic on Route 29, 75 percent of the trucks have a local destination. The estimate of traffic was about 790 trucks per day. He said that study should be available in February. Mrs. Cooke said it was amazing that a lot of the people at the meeting were surprised there is that much in Charlottesville to draw that traffic. Mr. Agnor returned at 4:30 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom said he had received a telephone call from Mr. Charles Tolbert, Chairman of the School Board, indicating there was a delay in getting revenue projections for next year's budget preparations from the County Executive's office because the Audit Committee had asked that the information be held until the audit was complete. He referred to Mr.~Bowie's report from the Audit Committee dated January 9, 1987. He said it contained five recommen- dations, and Mr. Bowie used it to support his proposal for a tax reduction in 1987. He said one of the recommendations was that a review be conducted annually to determine a tax rate to be used as budget guidance for the Board. He said he supposed that the hold up Mr. Tolbert referredlto is PUrsuant to that recommendation. Mr. Bowie said that was only step one. Step two wasi~the second report of December 2, 1987, presented at the December 9 Board meeting. He said there was a recommendation that the annual reporting function be made the responsi- bility of the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee met w~th the auditors this morning to receive the audit and will have the required report on the agenda next Wednesday. Mr. Lindstrom went on to say that he had forgotten the action of the Board concerning the Audit Committee, which was a four to~two vote. He said he voted for it, but qualified his vote at the time sayin§ he supported it primarily to get information. He is concerned about how ~he budget guidance by the Audit Committee will be done and about how effective the process is. He said at a subsequent meeting the Board should think more about how the Audit Committee should function. His concern is that two,members of this Board are authorized to propose a tax rate for the County~'.which is the way the process essentially may work. He suggested that this!matter be placed on the agenda for the December 7, 1988, meeting. He felt that budget guidance should be given by the County Executive's office.instead of two Board members having that responsibility. He said he did not want to h~td up the school budgetary process any longer than necessary. ~ Mr. Perkins said he did not see how preparation of the School budget was being held up. What they needed to do was to try to bring a balanced budget to the Board. He said every year there was a "wish list" submitted which always had to be cut. He said there were things that coul~ be done to prepare their budget without waiting for the Audit Committee figurps. Mr. Bowie said there are certain things they have to do to start budget planning. He feels they should build the budget on what iR needed to run the schools, not on how to spend all the money that is available. Mr. Way said that Mr. Bowie had asked him if the Audit Committee report could also be placed on the December 7 agenda. Both itemsilwould be placed on the agenda then. ~" Mr. Agnor said that when he contacted Jensen Associates to do the second opinion for the Crozet Replacement School plans, they gavelhim broad figures of $3,000 to $4,000 for Crozet and for reviewing an old set of plans such as November 30, 1988 (Adjourned Afternoon Meeting) (Page 9) 41 those used for Brownsville Elementary School. Mr. Agnor said when he asked for a specific price, Jensen Associates indicated they needed to see the old Brownsville plans and the new preliminary plans for Crozet. Jensen Associates found that the old plans would take fairly extensive updating in terms of code requirements. Therefore, the price is for reviewing the Crozet preliminary plans only, and that is $3,200. The reason it is more expensive is that computer plans often have no dimensions or other information. VMDO have said they will forward the needed information. Mr. Agnor said he told Jensen Associates to proceed on the Crozet plans because the preliminary sketches need to be finished. On the idea of reviewing an old set of plans, with an eye to developing a set of standardized school plans, he asked if the Board wanted to proceed or just get the second opinion on Crozet at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said that the second opinion idea was a long range planning item, and that the second opinion for Crozet is needed. The Board agreed that was the case. Mr. Agnor said the fee involves a written report and the trip to Charlottesville to present the report verbally. It should be ready next week. He said he had not engaged Jensen Associates to develop a second opinion on the new Southside as yet. His understanding was that estimates for different gym sizes would be brought back first from the architects. He told Jensen that if the Board was satisfied with the second opinion work on Crozet, they could then engage Jensen Associates for that project. In the meantime, the Brownsville plans will be held until the other two decisions have been made. At 5:00 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 5:25 P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn to 1:30 P.M., December 7, 1988. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None.