Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-04-28 adjApril 28, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 191 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle~County, Virginia, was held on April 28, 1988, at 4:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from April 21, 1988. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 4:05 P.M.), and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 4:06 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 4:07 P.M.), Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 4:06 P.M.) and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:08 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. 1988-89 County Budget. Mr. Agnor summarized the budget process and said the Board needed to approve the budget by adopting the resolution set out below. The actual Appropriations Ordinance will follow at a later date. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the 1988-89 County Budget by adopting the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1~, 1988, be approved as follows: General Government Administration Judicial Public Works Public Safety Human Development Community Development Parks, Recreation, Culture County/City Revenue Sharing Refunds Capital Improvements Grants Education - Operations Education - Debt Service Total $ 3,113,074 1,102,322 1,669,472 4,241,639 2,886,036 1,293,319 1,691,278 2,368,027 59,600 1,000,000 6,320 45,480,927 2~043~666 $66,955,680 Mr. Way said he listened to the comments made during the public hearing on the budget and appreciated the perspective of citizens who expressed the opinion that to hold the current tax rate would be detrimental to the County. He said he has vacillated on this issue and he did not make up his mind until last night. He said he knows that Mr. Overstreet and the School Board have agonized over this budget as much as this Board has. He has thought long and hard about this decision, he said, and has decided that he will support the motion. He said he thinks adding $3.5 million to the budget, which is an increase of 14 percent in the local share, will be enough for County schools to continue to be good schools. He said it is probably true that the school systems that spend the most money, such as Chesterfield and Fairfax Counties, are rated the best in the State, but he believes the County schools are among the best. He said he thinks it is neither necessary nor reasonable to contin- ue inflating the Schools budget. He said he thinks the budget presented will fund the necessities of the County school system, its programs and salaries for its teachers. Within the next few years, he said, there may have to be a bond referen- dum for the many capital needs of the County, not just for schools, but for other needs, too. How the public will greet Such a referendum will depend on how well the County's budget has been managed~i~in the past, he said. He said he thinks it is important to continue funding~the operations of both General Government and the school system out of the increases in revenue brought by growth in the County. There will be a reasseSsment next year, he said, as 192 April 28, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) well as the possibility of a meals tax, which he feels is a potential way to increase the tax base. When there is a bond referendum, he said, there will then be a major tax increase and he will probably be willing to support such an increase, because then it will be clear how the taxes will be used. Mr. Bain said he still believes as he did last week, that an increase of only $2.2 million in the School's budget Will have a negative effect on actual instructional programs. For this reason, he said, he cannot support holding to the current real estate tax rate of 72 cents per $100. Increasing the real estate tax rate by four cents would be reasonable and would fund $950,000 of the school budget. This is what he thinks the Board should do. Mr. Lindstrom said he has carefully examined the budget proposed by the School Board and believes it should be cut substantially,~ but not by the amount required by the resolution. He cannot see how this amount could be cut without cutting into programs. He said he believes the budget set forth in the resolution would have a negative impact on some of the educational pro- grams he thinks are important. He said he believed about $1.5 million could be cut from the budget proposed by the School Board, but ihe does not want to assume that, because if the budget can be reduced by thi~ much, it can be reduced by more. He said he will not support the motion and does support increasing the tax rate to add $950,000 to the schools b~dget. Mrs. Cooke said she has also thought long and hard about this budget. She said she is concerned that some of the expenditures of last year's school budget did not represent the best uses of the taxpayers' ~dollar. Some of those expenditures, she continued, had nothing to do witH'education, class- rooms, programs or teachers' salaries. She said'she believes the Board, as the steward of the taxpayers' dollar, must check what sh~ considers to be an improper attitude toward spending on the part of the sch6ols staff. She said she was disappointed that the Board reduced the tax rate i~last year, because she feels the County will face horrendous expenses for roads and other capital projects as it becomes less rural and more urban. Despite her concerns over last year's school budget, she said, she agrees with Mr. ~Bain and Mr. Lindstrom that the resolution will jeopardize some educational programs. She said she supports a tax increase to increase the funding .for the school system. Nevertheless, she said, she hOpes that the Board?ican convey to the schools administration that its attitude toward spending ~oncerns the Board and should be addressed in the future. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board should look at ~hat has happened throughout the country in the past few years. Those who ~anage private companies have had to tighten their belts and make their ~ompanies more efficient, he said, and he thinks the same thing should h~ppen in the school system and general government. He said everybody, not just the schools staff, asked for more money this year and he does not think the Board should grant increases to everybody. He thinks the school administration should manage their money and personnel better. He said he believes that too much of the schools budget goes to the administrators and cuts can be ~made here. In defense of the major increase in the schools budget last ~ear, he said, the School Board promised that its funding needs would level Qff soon. He said he does not think the schools turn out a muCh better product3now than they did five years ago, yet today, they spend about $2000 more pc= student. He said cuts can be made to the school budget and if they are mad~ in the right places, the school system will be just as good now as it ~as in the past. There was no further discussion. Roll was called an~ the motion failed by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. If the Board cannot pass a budget, Mr. Way said, Mr. St. John has told him they will be locked in a room until they do. Mr. Bain said the Board would have to hold another public hearing if it were to consider an increase in the tax rate, and then wait a week before a resolution could be passed. He said this would give the B~ard more time to think about the proposal he plans to make. ~ April 28, 1988 (AfternoonAdjournedMeeting) (Page 3) 193 Mr. Bain offered motion to advertise for a public hearing for May 11, 1988, on raising the real estate tax rate to 76 cents per one hundred dollars of assessed value, with final action to be taken on May 18, 1988. He said this increase would add $952,000 to the school budget. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. NAYS: Messrs. Bowie, Perkins and Way. Mr. Way suggested that the members of the Board take a five minute recess to think about the budget~ (Note: The Board recessed at 4:34 P.M. and reconvened at 4:43 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom said it was obvious that someone had to give, or there would be no budget. As he has ~tated before, he said, he has conflicting feelings about the request of the School Board, but he will support a motion to reconsider the motion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to reconsider the original motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. Mr. Perkins restated his original motion to adopt the resolution, as set above, setting the FY 1988-89 County budget totaling $67,955,680. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindst~om, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 2a. Adopt resolution to set 1988 Tax Levy. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Perkins to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of SUpervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the taxable year 1988 for General County purposes at Seventy-Two Cents (-$0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of real ~estate; at Four Dollars and Forty Cents ($4.40) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Forty Cents ($4.40) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of machinery and tools; at Seventy-Two Cents ($0.72) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service assessments; and FURTHER orders that the Director of'Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable per- sonal property, including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public S~rvice Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads ba~ed upon the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and Certified by it to the Board of Supervisors both as to lOcation and valuation; and including all boats and watercraft under five tons as Set forth in the Code of Virginia; and vehicles used as mobile ho~es or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code; except farm machinery, farm tools, farm live- stock, and household goods as set forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508. 194 April 28, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. Lindstrom said he feels he must support this resolution, but he has a problem with so doing. He said this year's budget will be funded with $960,000 in carry-over money, which he thinks should go into the Capital Improvements budget. He said he thinks the operation of schools and general government should not be funded with unpredictable sources of money in the face of the tremendous need for capital improvements in the County. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3. Set public hearing on an ordinance to partially vacate plat of Lots 3-10 as it pertains to Lots 9 and 10 of Northwood Neigh- borhood. Mr. Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator, presented the following staff report: "Proposal: To partially vacate plat as it pertains to lots nine and ten of the Northwood Subdivision to enable the relocation of the private road right-of-way. At present, the dwelling~s located on lots nine and ten do not comply with the front setback requirement of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The relocation Of the right-of- way is to be performed in such a manner so as to provide adequate front setback. Location: Off the south side of Route 600, approximately two miles north of Watts. Tax map 33, Parcel 37J and 37K, Rivanna Magisterial District. Staff Comment: Single family dwellings have been constructed in the recent past on lots nine and ten of the Northwood Subdivision and the certificates of occupancy issued on June 9, 1987, and May 20, 1987, respectively. The setbacks of each structure were checked by an Albemarle County Inspector prior to the footings being poured and said setbacks were thought to be adequate. In December, 1987, the Zoning Department was informed by an adjacent property owner that the front setback of both structures did not comply with~'the measurement required by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (that requirement being 75 feet). Upon further review, it was found that the front setback of the dwellings provided from the private road right-af-way measures 56 feet for lot nine and 42 feet for lot rem. The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request to reduce the front ~etback for both dwellings on March 8, 1988. An appeal of that decision is pending in the Albemarle County Circuit Court and is scheduled ~o be heard on May 3, 1988. !~ In reviewing the history of the Northwood Subdivisio~ it appears that several errors have been made which have adversely a~fected lots nine and ten. The original subdivision plat was approved!iin 1979, but does not show a property building setback line for 16ts nine and ten. The building setback line is located approximately 46 feet from the private road right-of-way line on the cul-de-sac. T~is measurement should be 75 feet. ~ In late 1982 it was recognized by the County Engineering Department that the location of the cul-de-sac was not constructed in the location shown on the approved plat. The as-built rdad plan was requested and provided on March 9, 1983. No subsequ~e~t changes were made to the road and the road bond held by Albemarle !~ounty was released on or about June 28, 1983. i! When the Inspector checked the front setback of the h%w proposed dwellings, the measurement was made from the right-of, way as con- structed. This is the error which resulted in said s~etbacks being deficient. ~ April 28, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) 195 Staff Recommendation: The proposed ordinance represents a means by which the front setback issue for lots nine and ten of the Northwood Subdivision could be resolved. The staff recommends approval of the ordinance to partially vacate the plat of the Northwood Subdivision." Mr. Lindstrom asked how the setbacks for the houses could be so short of what the County requires. Mr. St. 3ohn said another mistake compounded the problem even before the cul-de-sac was built in the wrong place. He said the surveyor who drew up the plat for lots nine and ten, Mr. R. O. Snow, located the building line too close to the cul-de-sac, using the ordinary setback line one would use on a straight street, rather than the special setback required for cul-de-sacs. Mr. St. 3ohn said the Planning Commission did not see this mistake and approved the plats, even though the setback lines did not conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Furthermore, Mr. St. John said, if a setback line were drawn in accord with the Zoning Ordinance around the cul-de-sac as built, the houses would not violate this setback either. The only thing these houses violate, he said, is a setback line that is not, but should have been, shown on the plats. Mr. St. John said neither the County nor the builder nor anybody else caught this mistake until some of the neighbors objected to the setback violation. In truth, he said, the neighbors complained in reaction to a dispute about the maintenance of the road. Mr. St. John said this matter is pending before the circuit court, but he believes the Board should deal with this independent of that court proceeding. Mr. St. John said the violation affects'~third parties in both cases. The owner of the house on lot nine had temporaryilfinancing on his house. Now that financing has run out, and the owner cannot get permanent financing because there is a cloud on the title. Lot ten, he Said, is still owned by the builder, Mr.. William H. Bailey, who had nothing to do with the development of this property. He said Mr. Bailey had a con~ract on the lot, but the prospec- tive client wOuld not close on the sale because of the problem. Despite the fact that this is a technical zoning violation, Mr. St. John said, he has advised the Zoning Office not to seek an injunction to have these houses torn down, because no judge would approve such an injunction in this case. He said an adjoining landowner could ~eek an injunction only if action in court is begun 15 days after construction ~starts and this deadline is long past. Mr. St. 3ohn said the houses do violate the Zoning Ordznance, but he does not think the regulation can be enforced' because of the inequities involved. He said there are only two ways toi solve the problem: either the Board can vacate the plat and approve the Pl~ as built or the court can overturn the decision of the Board of Zoning iAppeals (BZA). Mr. St. John said he made a mistake at ~he BZA hearing. Several of the BZA members said they wanted to grant the variance, but did not think they could, he said. Mr. St. John said he sat there without saying anything and let what happened happen. The first time the BZA denied the appeal, he said, was to give the parties more time to come to an agreement. When the appeal came before the BZA a second time, it was de~ied because BZA members did not think they had a legal basis for approving the variance. Mr. St. John said that if one looked at the paperwork in the Circuit Court clerk's office, there is no violation, nor a cloud on the title. If one looks in the Zoning Ordi- nance, there is a paper violation. Mr. Agnor said this item was added to the agenda of today's Board meeting so that the Board could set a public hearing during the month of May, if it wished to do so. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to set a public hearing for May 18, 1988, to consider adopting an ordinance to partially vacate the plat of lots 3-10 of Northwood Subdivision. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. 196 April 28, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Appointment Process. Mr. Way asked the Board members to look over the list of appointments that needed to be made to various boards and committees. Mr. Bain asked if the Board as a whole would interview applicants, or if several Board members would form a committee for the purpose of interviewing. Mr. Way asked Mrs. Cooke to respond to this question, since she had experience with both these methods. When the Board interviews as a whole, she said, the process goes slowly. She said the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman interviewed the applicants and then made their recommendations to the Board. She said the process did not go much faster, but it did use less people. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought interviewing applicants was a fitting office for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman. Mr. Way asked if the Vice-Chairman and Chairman recommended one or several applicants to the Board. Mrs. Cooke said it varied. Mrs. Cooke said she thought the process would move faster if the Board were divided into three teams of two, with each team in charge of interviewing applicants. Mr. Way said he thought this was a sensible suggestion. As a matter of routine, Mr. Bowie said, he thought the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman should conduct the interviews. However, he conceded, they might need some help in this case, since there are many appointments to be made. He said he would be glad to help but he did not want this procedure to become the accepted way of doing things. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters. Mr. Bowie said he has received seven applications from citizens who wish to serve on the Planning Commission from the Rivann District. He said he will interview these citizens and should have someone to reco~nend by next week to replace Mr. Richard Gould. Mr. St. John said the court date for the Nativity SCene case has been moved again, from June 22, 1988, to 2:00 P.M., May 12, 1988. He said it is possible that the case may be moved again, if something else is removed from the docket. Agenda Item No. 6. Adjourn. Since there were no mare matters to come before the Board, the Board adjourned at 5:17 P.M.