HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-07-27 adjJuly 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
471
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 27, 1988, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was
adjourned from July 20, 1988.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke (arrived at 7:44 P.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins
and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept the items on the consent agenda as informa-
tion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke.
Item 4.1. Notice of application from Virginia Power, dated July 18,
1988, was filed with State Corporation Commission to increase its base rates,
was received for information.
Item 4.2 Arbor Crest Apartments: Revised Monthly Bond Reports for months
beginning May, 1987, and ending with May, 1988, were received for information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing:
Improvements Program and 1988-89 budget:
on July 12 and July 19, 1988.)
Proposed 1988-89/1992-93 Capital
(As advertised in the Daily Progress
Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor to summarize the Capital Improvements Program
(CIP) for the Board and public.
Mr. Agnor summarized the categories, agency requests, proposed funding
and source of funding for the 1988-93 CIP. (Mrs. Cooke arrived at 7:44 P.M.)
Mr. Agnor also provided the following financial data:
June~ 1978
June, 1988
Total Debt $16,488,586
Debt Per Capita 436
Ratio, Debt to Assessed Value 1.8%
$13,389,586
240
0.5%
Tax Rates
Real Estate 72~ 62~
Revenue Sharing 0 +10~
Total 72~ 72~
Personal Property
$ 5.90 $ 4.40
Mr. Way explained that he would call out ~he various categories as they
are listed in the proposed CIP and anyone desiring to speak is requested to
come for~ward and do so at that time.
472
Administration and Courts.
There were no comments made.
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
Education.
Mr. Lowery Abell said although work has been progressing on the Crozet
School project for several years, the project has been moved back a year. He
thinks the project needs to be kept moving forward for the following reasons:
(1) there is a need for a 46,500 sq. ft. school to take care of basic school
needs; (2) the present school facility is in bad disrepair, i.e., in one fifth
grade classroom the ceiling is falling in and in another classroom the roof is
leaking; (3) the storm drainage system is backed up; (4) the rooms do not have
air conditioning and he knows of one classroom that does not have fans avail-
able; (5) there are cracks in some of the floors; (6) there are two physical
education teachers with only one room available; (7) there is sewage backup in
the playground area; and (8) there is no gymnasium available. In conclusion,
he is a farmer in Albemarle County and his hogs. live in b~tter conditions than
the students at Crozet School. The hogs have a roof over!their heads that do
not leak, the ceiling is not falling down, there is no flooding and he puts a
fan on them when it gets hot in the summer. He would appreciate the Board
moving this project along.
Mrs. Jane Vess, speaking on behalf of the Crozet Elementary staff and
faculty, said the 46,500 sq. ft. being allocated for the new Crozet school is
barely adequate to provide sufficient space for the school's present instruc-
tional program. They urgently request the Board of Supervisors not to reduce
the square footage. As it is now, there is not enough room for two to three
of the programs that they specifically requested when the!educational specifi-
cation plans were submitted. The square footage is not extravagant for a
school serving 450 students because a neighboring county is planning construc-
tion of a new elementary school to serve the capacity of 360 students and the
building is proposed at more than 50,000 sq. ft. The staff and faculty have
no problem with moving salvageable materials from the old,school into the new
complex, however, would expect the same consideration for ~replacing out-of-date
or inadequate materials and furnishings. It has always b~en their plan to
provide the best instructional program for Albemarle County's future. The
faculty and staff request and need your support.
Mrs. Joann Perkins, a representative of the Crozet C.~c~munity Association,
said the Association is proud the Board has plans to go a~ead with the new
Crozet School project. The Association is excited about ~he new school and
the effect the facility will have on the community. There have been discus-
sions with Parks and Recreation to provide programs for c~immunity recreation
as all of the other gyms in the area are used to capacity.~ The programs that
are to be provided by Parks and Recreation will be of service to growing
population, both young and old. Growth is happening in Crbzet. After discus-
sions with realtors and a trip around Crozet, one would quickly realize that
the new sewer line is promoting growth and it is wise thatl the Board is
planning along with the growth instead of behind it. Croz~t is a designated
growth area. The new Crozet School will increase Crozet'S. attraction because
it will show both the county's commitment to education and~'to public recrea-
tion. The Association appreciates the Board's concerns an~ interest in the
Crozet community and each Board~ invited at anytime to c6me and visit the
Crozet co~unity to see that theylare in tune to the needs!as the community
grows.[
Mr. Bob Moje, project architect for the Crozet School!and establisher of
the budget with the School Administration for the project, lsaid he would like
to address how the process occurred and try to clear up sole of the discrepan-
cies. The firm, Vickery Moje Drinkard Oakland Architects (VMDO), have demon-'
strated in the past to the Board that it can plan schools ~n target and on
budget. The most important step is first to establish a p~oper budget. They
have done their homework and have not come back to the Boacd and asked for a
lot of extras. When VMDO was directed by the School Board'-to develop a budget
for the new school they went out and analyzed everything n~eded to do the
project, not just the building. In doing that they analyzed the road work
that would be involved and did an extensive evaluation of the sites from both
a County-wide viewpoint and a school viewpoint. One of the factors in
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 3)
473
choosing the site was that it had the advantage of having access from a road
that is planned for upgrading in the County's Six Year Road Plan. The pro-
posed budget includes funds to make the necessary improvements for water robe
brought to the site.
When the Board looked at trimming the budget for the Crozet School, it
did so by comparing it to Meriwether Lewis. When comparisons are done, it is
important to compare "apples to apples" because the two schools are different
sizes. VMDO added in all of the project costs including purchase of the site
which was not done for Meriwether Lewis. He thinks it is just false expecta-
tions on the Board's part to compare this school with Meriwether Lewis. Just
because the school is a smaller school you cannot expect the costs to be less.
Each item that has been requested in the budget is there for a good reason and
impacts the future of the school. He does not see how this can be a success-
ful project under the funding proposed by the Board. The only option if full
funding is not provided is to cut the building. Site and development costs
are fixed and cannot be changed. The proposed school is in a designated
growth area. He feels it would be foolish to build anything less than a
school that is equal in quality with the other schools in the county. The
budget has been given careful consideration and will withstand any scrutiny by
the Board. The budget is not gold plated and is developed on state averages
and the costs of other schools in the county~ The costs are real and neces-
sary to accomplish this project within the county's rules for developing
property. He would urge the Board to carefully study or ask for more material
before making a hasty decision about the amount of funding necessary for the
project because it will only cause the Board~further suffering and heartache
in the future if funding is cut.
Mr. Lynwood Coffman asked what the demands are from the state on the
county's educational system that the meals tax would help alleviate. It is
his understanding that the legislature enacted the meals tax on the basis that
poor counties who were mandated by the state to do certain things in education
could use the meals tax as a resource. Mr. Way said the public hearing on the
proposed meals tax follows this public hearing on the CIP. Mr. Coffman again
asked if there is anything regarding education mandated by the State for which
funds from the meals tax would be used. Mr. Way responded that he knew of no
such mandate. Mr. Lindstrom said the State does have certain mandates that
are essential to the size of the building. IX that aspect certain require-
ments of the state do have to be funded through the CIP.
Mr. Way said the reason the Crozet Schoo~i was compared to Meriwether
Lewis was because Meriwether Lewis was just recently completed for 650 stu-
dents and cost approximately $4 million. Although he does not have all of the
plans, it seems logical and reasonable to him!that a school to be completed a
year and a half from now for 450 students should not cost a great deal in
excess of a school completed this year for 658 students. It has also been the
Board's experience that whatever figure they put in the budget for a school
will be the cost of the school and possibly even more. He believes in his
heart that if the Board put $5.5 million intel, the Crozet School budget, the
price would come in at $6 million. He thinks ~there must be a stopping point.
His reasoning does not mean he wants an inadequate school at Crozet because he
wants that school to be comparable to other CqUnty schools.
Mr. Charles Witt, Principal at Crozet Elementary School, said he would
encourage the Board to see that funds are available to provide adequate square
footage to support instructional programs tha~ are needed in the elementary
school. He has tried to match the plans for ~he new school with their pro-
grams and there is simply no extra space in t~e proposed new building. He
feels that the square footage they have at present is probably adequate to
provide only the basic program. If the squar~ footage were to be cut there
would be a building that would be inadequate to support the instructional
program as it currently exists. Again, he enqourages the Board to see that
funds are available to provide a school that ~ill adequately support instruc-
tional programs. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said the essence of the Bo~d's concern was the dramatic
increase in the square footage cost projected'~for the new building over the
just recently completed Meriwether Lewis SchoOl. He thinks that the Board's
474
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
experience at Meriwether Lewis gave them some concern that there were things
that could have been cut that would mot have affected the educational program,
square footage or the function of that building; and the county could have
saved a substantial amount of money. By adopting the proposal that is before
Board, it is an attempt to instill as much conservatism into the design,
construction and selection of materials for not only the Crozet School but the
other buildings in the CIP budget. He does not think there is a Board member
who wants to cut a classroom, shrink a cafeteria or anything fundamental to
the educational offering of any county school. He thinks the Board wants to
insure that it is not putting in materials that are in excess of what is
necessary to provide that basic educational instruction. If the Board does
not begin with a conservative budget, the budget will continuously grow out of
control. He has never seen a budget that has not gotten bigger.
Police, Fire, Rescue, and Safety.
There were no comments made.
Highways and Transportation.
Mr. Alan Howard, a resident of Crozet, speaking about Park Road and the
Route 240 connector, read a letter, on file, dated July 27~, 1988, requesting
that the road listed in the CIP as a "necessary" project f~r funding in FY
89-90 be lowered in priority to a "deferrable" project and~ restudied within
the context of all of Crozet's road and highway needs. THe reasons for
objection to include the road in the CIP are: (1) the extension has been
inadequately justified; (2) this project is being considered before much more
needed improvements to Crozet roads and highways; (3) the~iproposed new connec-
tions between Park Road and Route 240 East via a northerly, route and a connec-
tion to Route 250 via a southerly route will provide more-significant reduc-
tions in travel distances and alternate outlets from the Park Road area; and
(4) an extension of Park Road with routing close to existing houses facing
Route 240 will destroy an existing neighborhood, devastat~property values,
and increase traffic noises to houses already burdened with traffic on Route
240. Also, the property owners most likely to be adverse%y affected by the
proposed extension were unaware of the project until after the concept had
been approved by the Board of Supervisors. He handed to the~Clerk a petition,
in ~pposition to the project, signed by the property owners. There is no real
justification for the project and no traffic count. This lproject is an
attempt to grab available money from a pot, but does not address Crozet's
transportation needs.
Mr. Floyd Artrip asked that his letter to the Board be entered into the
record (the Clerk did not get a copy). The letter addresses the Avon Street
connectors. He discussed the reasons he is in favor of an!interchange at
1-64. He thinks that money-wise there could be a good case made for connector
to 1-64 as opposed to building expensive connector roads. ~He thinks that the
proposed Biscuit Run connector over to Fifth Street is tooiexpensive and the
money should be spent somewhere else. Mr. Artrip discussed more reasons why
he feels an interchange shouldbe considered and asked why~routes north of
1-64 were not studied.
Mr. Way said he had received Mr. Artrip's letter and personally agrees
with his comments about an interchange. He has written to'the newly elected
Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, and they are in the process of meeting
to discuss ways to try to get the State to reverse its opinion concerning an
interchange.
Mr. Horne said in response to Mr. Artrip, the County ~ngineering Depart-
ment originally did a study that included routes north of ~-64, but that study
did not include detailed topography or engineering data. ~fter thoroughly
reviewing that data, it was apparent that the costs associated with those
routes was severely underestimated and that it would be fa~ more expensive
than originally estimated. That was just not a viable alt~Ynative. The
B~scumt Run connectmon ms not proposed for mmmedmate funding because it is an
extremely expensive alternative. In terms of an interchange, the staff has
received word directly from the Highway Commissioner ~
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 5)
475
that in no way will the Highway Department consider the interchange. The
Board must keep in mind that the area south of town is being rapidly developed
and if the County does not take the action to reserve or acquire right-of-way
for the roadways, it will be precluded from doing so in the future.
Mr. Perkins said, regarding Park Road, it is his understanding that a
study will be done on the transportation needs in Crozet to determine the best
route and the best place to have connectors. Mr. Home said included in his
department's budget is funding for a feasibility and alignment study for a
north-south connector road in Crozet. That is the only other major option
available for moving people out of that general area, although topographically
a connector north-south, from Route 240 to Route 250, will be expensive.
Before putting funding in the CIP for construction of a connector, a more
detailed study will be done by the Highway Department and the County as to
what options are available and if there is a feasible connection that would
not adverse affect the neighborhood.
Libraries.
Mr. Peter McIntosh, President, Board of Trustees, Jefferson Madison
Regional Library, said the Board of Trustees met last night and supports the
proposed CIP. For information, more than 50 percent of the patrons of the
entire regional library system are County residents. Albemarle County resi-
dents make up for 54 percent of the Central Library's circulation of 815,000
volumes a year and 58 percent of the Gordon Avenue circulation. Gordon Avenue
was designed to hold 25,000 books, but instead it now holds 54,000 books. He
is appreciative of the $15,000 funded by the .Board of Supervisors to do a
master plan on the library's needs. The Boa=d of Trustees have requested, and
would appreciate the support, the renovation Of the Gordon Avenue branch and
the construction of a northside branch the equivalent of Gordon Avenue.
Miscellaneous.
There were no comments made.
Parks and Recreation.
There were no comments made.
Utilities.
Mr. David O'Neil, a resident of BenningtOn Road, regarding the Bennington
Channel, said he has been asked to speak on b~half of the residents on Benning-
ton Road. The residents of Bennington Road drafted a letter which was sent to
the Board members (Clerk does not have a copy). The letter stated that the
residents of Bennington Road are concerned about the creek whichruns through
the back yards of their properties. Their homes were originally built in 1979
and 1980. At that time the creek was a quaint touch of nature that added a
rustic charm to the neighborhood. About 1982 the County granted a developer
permission to construct a small group of homes near Bennington Road. This
development now called Bennington Terrace created significantly greater runoff
into the Bennington Road creek. Recognizing that this additional runoff would
have detrimental effects on the creek and adjacent property, the County
required the developer to place $5000 in escrpw so that the County could
upgrade the creek and avoid foreseeable erosion problems. For several years
the County has considered the creek project a~d even put the project out to
bid several times. On numerous occasions thei~residents were assured that the
creek would be soon fixed. Meanwhile, as was~anticipated, the erosion continued
to take its toll on the residents' land and with the added runoff from Benning-
ton Terrace the erosion has continued to work~iits way closer to their homes.
The water has cut more deeply into the creek 5~d and has seriously eroded the
root system of nearby trees. A once quaint rUStic creek is now an ever
increasing hazard. The hazard has increased each year. Now the residents not
only worry about the erosion, but that their children will fall down the banks
of the creek, water leaking into their basements, and trees falling onto their
476
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
homes. The march of the creek toward their homes is an unrelenting one. The
next casualty will be the sewer lines which the creek has already exposed.
Recently the County put the project out to bid again. The bid exceeded
available funds by about $20,000~ The available funds would have been more
than enough when the need for the creek upgrade was initially identified. If
nothing is done this year, the cost will be even greater next year. In
dealing with the County, historically, available funds haVe been a couple of
years behind the bid costs. If this problem persists not only will the safety
of their homes and children be jeopardized, but the eventual crisis solution
will cost much more than what the county saves each year ~y putting off the
project. The time has come to do the project anticipatedland planned for
years ago. The residents ask that the additional funds necessary be appropri-
ated to meet the current bid. He summarized a letter which was signed by five
residents who live along the creek. A second letter was sent and signed by 22
different households in the Bennington Road area supporting the project and
recognizing that it is a hazard for the children.
Every year this project has been a sure thing and he-is present to
impress upon the Board how bad the situation has gotten. He presented some
photographs to the Board starting at the beginning of the creek behind 294
Bennington Road of the damage caused by the erosion. He thinks that it is
only a matter of time before trees begin to fall down. He feels the most
expensive problem is the exposed sewer lines. He hopes that the Board will
consider all of this and if it has any doubt as to the severity of the prob-
lem, encourages the members to come out and walk along th~ creek. Lastly, he
feels there is a potential liability problem if somethingi~is not done. Again,
he asks that the Board give the project favorable consideration.
Speaking with regard to the entire CIP, Mr. George B~iley asked that the
Board not raise taxes. The rural taxpayer gets little in~ithe rural areas for
the tax dollars they spend. He hopes that the Board will !take into considera-
tion the blue collar taxpayer having a hard time. He thinks the following are
solutions that would help the funding situation in the CoUnty: the County
Executive could cut every category in the CIP by 20 perce~t, the Board's
salary could be cut back to what it was two years ago, an~ delete the funds in
the budget for out-of-state conventions. He does not think the Board members
realize what a hard time people in the County are having ..... Looking at the
various categories, two-thirds of County residents do not .use the library or
th~ parks and recreation areas. A small percentage of Co~ty residents have
utilities provided by the County. When his well goes dry i~e has to dig deeper
and install a new pump. Two-thirds of the people do not have use of these
utilities yet the Board is asking everyone to pay. He hoP~s that the Board
will take all of these things into consideration when it ~nsiders raising
taxes.
Mr. John Carter, a resident of Earlysville, said the hecessity for a
meals tax rests solely on the claim that the County does ~Ot have enough money
to fund the third, fourth and fifth years of the proposed CIP which is not
surprising. After all, the 1988-89 CIP is larger than anyi:.previous CIP and
one wonders whether this could possibly be the result of the potential meals
tax bringing in additional revenue. Suddenly the resident~ are being asked to
believe that the County is in desperate need of brand new ~oads, major renova-
tions at two schools, two replacement schools, a new library, a $1.3 million
park program and utility projects, some of which have beeni-languishing for
years and others that have been ongoing for years. The question is how valid
are these multitudinous projects and how important is it that they all be done
within five years. He contends that if history is any gui~e, the CIP has been
little more than wish lists and the Board has actually fun~ed no more than a
fraction of the requests and the amount of money that the ~ounty had to take
out of its General Fund to make up the difference between What was available
and what was appropriated was but a fraction of the appropriations. Mr. Agnor
has stated that the county has on hand $17 million to fund i~the first two years
of the CIP which is not bad for a county that is supposed ~o need a meals tax
to meet its obligations. The County is not obligated to bqild a new library
or roads that never existed, nor is he sure that the Count~ is obligated to
spend another $200,000 on renovations to the County Office'~uilding. After
reviewing past CIP's it seems that the County is always indeed of three
things: county office building renovations, county computer upgrading, and
roof repairs on schools.
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
477
The last three years of CIP's have simply not been carried out. He then
used examples of funding spent in the past years to support his reasoning. In
su~rmary the CIP's of the County are not and have not been carried out much
beyond the first year with the final three years being virtually ignored, but
it is those final three years that the County Executive now says need to be
funded in their entirety. He finds the County Executive's claim hard to
believe. If the Board sincerely believes that it needs another $1 million to
run this county then say so, but stop telling the people that the CIP is so
set that it must fund virtually every agency request. Such funding has never
been done and he doubts it need be done now.
Mr. Floyd Artrip asked if the County is allocating an additional $78,000
to the Rivanna Park project. Mr. Agnor responded no. Funding was moved from
one year to another to match funding in the same year as that from the City of
Charlottesville. Mr. Artrip commented that the money seemed to appear out of
nowhere when there were supposed to be no available funds. Mr. Lindstrom
commented that there were numerous work sessions held on the CIP that the
public was invited to attend.
~ ~ who did not identify himself, said the public has to work to
pay County taxes and does not have time to attend work sessions. Ail of the
requests sound nice and good if they can be afforded. He does not use those
facilities. The County does not furnish him with any of those services. Not
all of the people need these services and are just trying to pay'their neces-
sary bills. It now seems that the County is igoing into the road building
business. He thinks the Board should let the~state handle what it has tradi-
tionally handled in the past. He opposes wholeheartedly the meals tax. If
the meals tax is enacted, the Board will never have to answer for the tax
again as it will be in place forever. He would suggest that if it is a must,
the Board increase personal property taxes and not support a meals tax. He
does not like taxes that just come to the people automatically. He wants the
Board to come to the people every year and state its needs for a specific
purpose and then allow the people a chance toivoice their opinions.
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie said he realizes that the average citizen cannot come to Board
work sessions. The CIP has had some media coverage as the Board progressed
and if the people chose to look, they knew about the requests before tonight.
If the people would have chosen to look, theyi~would have known that the Board
cut 30 percent of the requests and 30 percent of the costs in every single
line item and then took an additional five percent and held that aside requir-
ing any agency that cannot get along on 95 percent of what was left to come
back to the Board to justify the request. ThUs, 35 percent has either been
taken out completely or put into a reserve. In addition, there are other
studies going on by members of this Board to cut some of the costs. One such
study is being done on computers. He would p~int out that the County's debt
ratio is lower than it was ten years ago and t~he debt per capita is lower in
total dollars because this county "pays" as it goes. He considers the CIP an
investment in the future and not a cost for future generations.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees 100 percent with Mr. Bowie. One of the
major problems in the county is that it is no longer a rural community and the
needs have changed. He agrees that there are a lot of rural people in the
county that do not take advantage of all of the services, but that is by their
own choice. There is much greater density in the urban area and, as a result,
if the Board does not set aside areas for parks, and if it does not begin to
identify right'of-way for roads, then the County will have locked its future
generations into a completely inadequate system of parks and recreational
infrastructure. If the County does not plan for that growth, then it will pay
a lot more ten to twenty years from now to cateh up. That is the whole idea
behind a five year CIP. He has no problem with the proposed CIP budget and is
willing to take action on the budget tonight. !Mrs. Cooke said she is also
prepared to take action. ,
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
1988-89/1992-93 Capital Improvements Program as advertised, and to adopt the
1988-89 Capital Improvements budget.
478
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
Mrs. Cooke said she is aware of several projects, particularly the
Bennington Road drainage project, which is critical and she knows that there
is a need and she is prepared to move forward. She is satisfied and comfort-
able with what the Board has done and with the budget as it is before the
Board.
Mr. Bain said he also supports Mr. Bowie in his comments. He is aware,
as are other Board members, of other needs that are not even shown in the next
five year period. The Board cannot just "bury its head in the sand" and
ignore the needs that are in the county. He thinks the staff has done a good
job in terms of reviewing the needs and the available funds. He supports the
motion.
Mr. Perkins said he is pleased with the turnout tonight. It is good to
have constituents who are concerned about the way the county spends its money
and it is important that those people come out and express those opinions.
A citizen made a response from the audience of which Mr. Bowie responded
by saying that the meals tax is not directly related to whether or not this
budget goes forward, and is merely a funding option.
Mr. Agnor commented that there may be some modifications to this budget
forthcoming to the Board. Specifically, final costs have not been received on
the asbestos removal from the Old Scottsville School building. In addition,
some funds would be needed to be shared by both the Countyl and the Albemarle
County Service Authority for the Scottsville Levy project for relocation of
some sewer lines. Lastly, there may be a possible need for funding for the
right-of-way and the location of the Meadow Creek Parkway Project from Rio
Road at the intersection going north.
There being no further comments, roll was called and i~he motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, ~iPerkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted CaPital Improvements Program is as follows:)
1988-89 ~989-90 1990-9~ 1991-92 1992-9~
I. ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS $12,195,557 $ 5,901,778 $ 300,000 $ 5,601,778
II. EDUCATION 29,213,150 29,213,150 10,486,697 18,726,453
III. POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE, AND SAFETY 90,000 90,000 0 90,000
IV. HIGHWAYS ANDTRANSPORTATION 9,180,700 8,085,975 170,000 3,195,975
V. LIBRARIES 2,008,700 1,676,219 0 1,676,219
VI. MISCE~OUS 794,500 794,500 0 794,500
VII. PARKS AND RECREATION 5,081,365 3,756,430 2,472,560 1,283,870
VIII. UTILITIES - COUNTY PROJECTS 6,274,177 3,970,677 171,215 3,799,462
IX. FUNDED RESERVE 0 0 0 0
$ 83,000
2,879,177
90,000
656,975
8,019
210,500
433,300
729,285
0
$5,090,256
$ 0 $ 0 $ 118,750
9,544,840 902,310 528,870
0 0 0
1,790,750 454,100 24,700
14,725 357,675 1,212,390
107,825 0 O
501~600 305,544 59,565
1,370,068 589,000 166,464
701,559 137,296 111,091
$14,031,367 $2m745,925 $2,221,830
$ 320,625
0
0
142,500
0
0
34,437
791,136
67,827
$1,356,525
480
?
ALBM~kRLE COUNTY
TOTAL
PROJECT COUNTY
PROJECT COST SHARE
1988/89-1992/93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
PRIOR
ALLOCATIONS REQUEST 1988-89
ADMINISTRATION AND COURTS
1. Regional Jail-Expansion $11,487,557 $ 5,443,778 $ 300,000 $ 5,143,778
and Renovation
2. Cotmty Office Building:
a. Exterior Renovations 125,000 125,000 0 125,000
b. Interior Renovations 83,000 83,000 0 83,000
3. Charlottesville-Albemarle
Health Dept. Clinic Wing 500,000 250,000 0 250,000
SUBTOTAL $12,195,557 $ 5,901,778 $ 300,000 $ 5,601,778
2I. EDUCATION
1. Albemarle High School:
Parking Lot $ 75,000
Facilities Study and Design 300,000
2. Brownsville Elementary:
Electrical/Mechanical 236,705
3. BurleyMiddle School:
General Improvements 3,960,000
4.-.' ~r~zet'~Etementary~
Replacement School 4,578,000
5. Greer Elementary:
Electrical/Mechanical 115,000
6. Hollymead Elementary:
Roof Replacement/Mechanical 843,800
7. Meriwether Lewis:
Replacement School 4,284,001
8. Red Hill Elementary:
Replacement Roof 71,000
9. Scottsville Elementary:
Pod Roof Replacement 71,000
10. Southside Elementary:
Replacement School 5,622,000
$ 75,000 $ 55,000 $ 20,000 $
300,000 100,000 200,000
236,705 0 236,705
~,2PP,qq9 ............. 2,!R7,~30 ............ 1,162,570
4,578,000 248,000 4,330,000
115,000 0 115,000
843,300 0 843,800
4,284,001 4,063,000 221,001
71,000 0 71,000
71,000 0 71,000
5,622,000 0 5,622,000
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 PRIORITY
0
83,000
83,000
0
0
0
0
624,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
815,000
o $ o
0 118,750
0 0
0 0
0 $ 118,750
19,000
0
0
0
3,207,200
0
76,000
0
67,450
0
4,165,750
0
0
0
0
109,250
725,610
0
0
67,450
0
$ 0
0
224,870
$ 285,000
0
0
35,625
$ 320,625
$ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Urgent
Desirable
Urgent
Urgent
Necessary
0 Urgent
0 Desirable
0 Necessary
0 Urgent
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Urgent
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Urgent
OO
o
482
?
PROJECT
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
COUNTY
SHARE
1988/89-1992/93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
PRIOR
ALLOCATIONS RE~T 1988-89
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 199~-93
PRIORITY
III.
IV.
11. Stone Robinson Elementary
12. Stony Point Elementary:
Major Renovation
13. Walton Middle School:
Electrical/Mechanical
14. YanceyElementary:
Major Renovation
15. Woodbrook Elementary:
Electrical/Mechanical
16. Henley Middle School:
Electrical/Mechanical
17. Jouett Middle School:
Electrical/Mechanical
18. Bus Shop
19. Plan/Asbestos Abatement
SUBTOTAL
POLICE, FIRE, RESCUE, AND SAFETY
1. Albemarle Co. Fire Dept.:
Refurbish Engine 11
HIGHWAYS ANDTRANSPORTATION
1. Sidewalks:
a. Hydraulic Road Sidewalk
b. Georgetown Rd. Pathway
Replacement
c. Sidewalks, Rio Rd. East
2. Streetlights:
(PHASE I)
a. Hydraulic/Lambs/Whitewood
b. WhiteWood Road Park Area
(PHASE II)
3,138,4~4
1,935,900
120,000
1,354,300
120,000
913,800
1,234,200
160,000
80,000
$29,213,150
90,000
$ 90,000
3,138,444
1,935,900
120,000
1,354,300
120,000
913,800
1,234,200
160,000
80,000
$29,213,150
90,000
$ 90,000
2,928,267 210,177 210,177
175,000 1,760,900 500,000
0 120,000 0
120,000 1,234,300 500,000
0 120,000 0
0 913,800 0
0 1,234,200 0
0 160,000 0
0 80,000 80,000
$10,486,697 $18,726,453 $2,879,177
0 90,000
$ ......... 0 .............. $ .......90,000 ......
90,000
· .$ 90,000
0 0 0
1,197,855 0 0
0 0 114,000
697,585 0 0
114,000 0 0
0 0 95,000
0 0 95,000
0 0 0
0 0 0
9,544,840 $ 902,310 $ 528,870
0 0 0
$ o $ o $ o $
20,000 20,000 0 20,000 20,000 0 0 0
9,950 1,475 0 1,475 1,475 0 0 0
55,000 0 55,000 0 52,250
0 Urgent
0 Urgent
0 Desirable
0 Urgent
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Urgent
0
184,000
30,000
10,000
30,000
10,000
0 Urgent
0
0 Urgent
0 Urgent
0 0 0 Necessary
0 30,000 30,000 0 0 0
0 10,000 10,000 0 0 0
0 Urgent
0 Urgent
484
!
} - ] .... }
PROJECT
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
COUNTY
SHARE
1988/89-1992~93 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
PRIOR
ALLOCATIONS REQUEST 1988-89
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 PRIORITY
a. Hydraulic/Georgetown Roads 16,000
b. Hydraulic/Con~nonwealth Roads 16,000
(PHASE III)
a. Whitewood Rd./Greenbrier Dr. 10,000
b. Four Seasons Dr. at inter-
section w/rec area parking 10,000
c. Rio Rd. from Hydraulic to
Crenshaw MHP 8,000
(PHASE IV)
a. Rio Road at Pen Park Rd. 16,000
b. Mountainwood Road 10,000
Roads
a. Rt. 678 Relocation 320,750
b. Peyton Drive 200,000
c. Rt. 810 (Crozet School) 100,000
d. Berkmar Drive Extended 250,000
e. Avon St.-Rt. 20 Connector 1,375,000
f. Meadowcreek Parkway - (COSTS TO
north from Rio Rd.
g. Rts. 708/631 Intersection 100,000
h. Park Rd. - Rt. 240 Connector 175,000
i. Barracks Road 600,000
j. Greenbrier Drive 650,000
16,000 0 16,000
16,000 0 16,000
10,000 0 10,000
10,000 0 10,000
8,000 0 8,000
16,000 0 16,000
10,000 0 10,000
188,500 170,000 18,500
200,000 0 200,000
50,000 0 50,000
250,000 0 250,000
1,375,000 0 1,375,000
BE DETERMINED BASED ON FURTHER STUDY)
50,000
100,000
350,000
350,000
1. Fifth St.-Avon St. 4,870,000 4,870,000 0
Connector
m.
0 50,000
0 100,000
0 350,000
0 ............ 3.~O,OQO
100,000
150,000
Crozet Rt. 2~0 - Rt. 250 (COSTS TO BE DETERMINED BASED ON FURTHER STUDY)
Connector
0 15,200 0 0
0 15,200 0 0
0 0 9,500 0
0 0 9,500 0
0 0 7,600 0
0 0 0 15,200
0 0 0 9,500
18,500 0 0
200,000 0 0
50,000 0 0
250,000 0 0
77,000 1,233,100 0
0 ~7,500 0
0 95,000 0
0 332,500 0
................ O .......... 0 - --3B2.,500
0 0 95,000
0 0 0
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Desirable
0 Desirable
0 0 Urgent
0 0 Urgent
0 0 Urgent
0 0 Urgent
0 0 Urgent
Urgent
0 0 Necessary
0 0 Necessaary
0 0 Necessary
0 ................. 0 .....Necessary
0 0 Necessary
0 1~2,500 Deferrable
Deferrable
SUBTOTAL $ 9,180,700 $ 8,085,975 $ 170,000
LIBRARIES
1. Master Plan Consultant 15,000 8,019 0
2. Gordon Ave. Branch:
Renovations 651,000 325,500 0
$ 3,195,975
8,019
325,500
656,975 $ 1,790,750 $ ~54,100
8,019 0 0
0 1~,725 294,500
$ 2~,700
0
0
$ 1~2,500
0 Urgent
0 Urgent
486
~-~
VI.
VII.
PROJECT
TOTAL
PROJECT
COST
COUNTY
~HARE
1988/89-1992/93 CAPITAL IMPROVemENTS PROGRAM
PRIOR
ALLOCATIONS
Northside Branch Library:
New Construction
SUBTOTAL
1,342,700
$ 2,008,700
1,342,700
$ 1,676,219
$ 0
MISCELLANEOUS
1. County Computer Upgrading
SUBTOTAL
794,500
$ 794,500
794,500
$ 794,500
~QU~ST
0 1,342,700 0
$ 1,676,219 $ 8,019
0 794,500 210,500
0 $ 794,500 $ 210,500
PARKS AND RECREATION
1. Rivanna Park
2. Southern Regional Park
3. Crozet Park - bldg/grounds:
Improvements
4. Scottsville Comm. Center:
Bldg. Improvements
5. Greenwood Comm. Center:
Building Improvements
Recreation Improvements
6. Mint Springs Valley Park:
Handicapped Access
Picnic Shelter
Maintenance Area Paving
..... ?v--.--Beaver Creek Park:
Handicapped Cccess
8. Albemarle High School:
Tennis Court Resurfacing
Tennis Court Addition
9. Meriwether Lewis Elementary:
Additional Rec. Facilities
10. Whitewood Road Jogging Trail
11. Chris Greene Lake:
Beach Shelter
2,715,780
1,864,000
85,010
10,000
22,000
20,400
50,000
40,000
12,000
25,000
12,200
132,275
48,000
26,700
18,000
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
SUBTOTAL
1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93
$ 5,081,365
0 63,175 1,212,390
$ 1~,725 $ 357,675 $1,212,390 $
107,825 0 0
$ 107,825 $ 0 $ 0 $
1,390,845 1,275,250 115,595 0 0
1,864,000 1,169,000 695,000 250,000 422,750
85,010 28,310 56,700 19,500 12,350
10,O00 0 10,000 0 0
22,000 0 22,000 5,000 6,650
20,400 0 20,400 15,400 4,750
50,000 0 50,000 50,000 0
40,000 0 40,000 0 38,000
12,000 0 12,000 0 O
25,000 0 25,000 25,000 0
12,200 0 12,200 12,200 0
132,275 0 132,275 0 0
48,000 0 48,000 48,000 0
26,700 0 26,700 8,200 0
18,000 0 18,000 0 17,100
$ 2,472,560 $ 1,283,870 $ 433,300
$ 3,756,430
202,920 0
0 0
11,400 11,590
0 9,500
PRIORITY
0 Necessary
0
0 Urgent
0
0 Necessary
0 Necessary
0 Urgent
0 Desirable
0 9,500
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 il ,400
0 0
0 Urgent
0 Urgent
0 Urgent
0 Necessary
0 Desirable
0 Urgent
0 0 0
91,224 0 34,437
0 0 0
0 17,575 0
0 0 0
$ 501,600 $ 305,544 $ 59,565 $ 34,437
Urgent
Necessary
Urgent
Necessary
Necessary
488
VIII.
PRO3ECT
UTILITIES - COUNTY PROJECTS
TOTAL
PROJECT COUNTY
COST SHARE
1. Woodbrook Channel Z0,000 ZO,O00
Z. Keene Transfer Station 117,500 117,500
3. Windham/Jarman's Gap Rd. 63,677 63,677
Channel Improvements
4. Peyton Drive Detention Basin 188,000 188,000
5. Bennington Channel 50,000 ~6~500
6. Lickinghole Creek Regional 1,810,000 1,510,000
Sedimentation Basin
7. Crozet Drainage Study 25,000 25,000
8. Ivy Landfill Improvements 4,000,000 2,000,000
SUBTOTAL
IX. FUNDED RESERVE
SUBTOTAL
1988/89-1992/93 CAPITAL IMPROV~4ENTS PROGRAM
PRIOR
ALLOCATIONS REQUEST 1988-89
PROPOSED FUNDING BY FISCAL YEAR
1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 PRIORITY
$ 6,274,177 $ 3,970,677
0 0
$ 0 $ 0
0 20,000 0 0 0 19,000 0
7,500 110,000 110,000 0 0 0 0
29,000 34,677 0 32,943 0 0 0
0 188,000 0 0 0 147,~64 31,136
27,215 19,285 19~285 0 0 0 0
107,500 1,402,500 0 1,313,375 19,000 0 0
0 25,000 0 23,750 0 0 0
0 2,000,000 - 600,000 0 570,000 0 760,000
171,215 $ 3,799,462 $ 729,285 $ 1,370,068 $ 589~000 $ 166,464 $ 791,136
0 0 0 701~559 137,296 111,091 67,827
0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 701,559 $ 137,296 $ 111,091 $ 67,827
GRAND TOTAL
$64,838,!49. .$53,4.88~!2? ........... $.l~p~,~6~0?m~ ........... ..~}_5,_!..6..8,Z5.7. ........... _~.~090~,25_6 ......... $1~k,031,.367~. $2,745,925 -$Z, 22.t,830 $1,356,525
Desirable
Urgent
Necessary
Desirable
Urgent
Urgent
Necessary
Urgent
490
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
PROPOSED FUNDING FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 1988/89
1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 TOTAL
EXISTING SOURCES:
General Fund
Rescue Squad Repayments
Fire Department Repayments
Sale of McIntire School
Capital Improvements Fund Balance
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000~000 $ 1,000,000 $ 5,000,000
20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000
40,000 40,000 0 0 0 80,000
55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 55,000 275,000
920,000 0 0 0 0 920,000
Subtotal #1 $ Z,035,000 $ 1,115,000 $ 1,075,000 $ 1,075,000 $ 1,075,000 $ 6,375,000
ADDITIONAL SOURCES:
1. Carry Over Balance: General Fund 0 500,000 400,000 400,000 400,000
2. Carry Over Balance: School Fund 0 350,000 400,000 450,000 450,000
3. Interest on Idle Funds 300,000 250,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
4. Increase in General Fund Appropriation 0 850,000 850,000 1,750,000 1,750,000
5. Transfer from General Fund 1,000,000 0 0 0 0
6. Meals Tax @ 44 47,000 1,387,000 1,387,000 1,387,000 1,387,000
._Subtotal .#2 ................................. .~$~:t~34L,000 .......... $~-~357V000 ......... -$-~.~7~000 ....... $ ~,187-i000 .... $ 4,187,000
Total i~mds Available
1,700,000
1,650,000
1,150,000
5,200,000
1,000,000
5,595,000
Projects Recommended
Repayment-Principal
Repayment-Interest
$16,295,000
Total lqmds Needed
$ 3,382,000 $ %,%52,000 $ ~,313_.,000 $ 5,262,000 $ 5,262,000
Diff. Funds Ava~l]l~unds Needed
5,090,000 14,031,000 2,746,000 2,222,000 1,357,000
0 85,000 250,000 250,000 250,000
0 111,000 741,000 687,000 534,000
Long Term Borrowed Funds
Temporary Loans
25~446,000
835~000
2,073,000
Total Bo~ Funds
$ 5,090,000 SZ~,Z27,000 $ 3,737,000 $ 3,159,000 $ 2,141,000 228,355,000
-9,775,000 575,000 2,103,0OO 3,121,0OO -5,685,000
1,708,000 3,292,000 0 0 0
0 6,483,000 -575,000 -2,103,000 -3,121,000
$ 1,708,000 $ 9,775,000 $ -575,000 $-2,103~000 2-3,121,000
5~000,000
685,000
$ 5,685,OOO
OO
O
492
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 16)
493
(The adopted 1988-89 Capital Improvements budget is set out below:)
Fiscal Year: 1988-89
Fund: Capital Improvement
Purpose of Appropriation:
FY 88-89 Capital Improvement Budget
Expenditure
Cost Center/Category
Description Amount
Information Services
1900012200700700
Fire Department
1900032010700505
Engineering
1900041000702011
1900041000702023
1900041000703020
1900041000702024
Street Improvements
1900041020703012
1900041020703013
1900041020703014
1900041020703015
1900041020702015
County Office Building
1900043100701002
School Board
1900060100300411
1900060623999999
1900060627709999
1900060632999999
1900060633701002
1900060635701002
1900060641999999
Parks & Recreation
1900071000701012
1900071000702002
1900071000702014
1900071000702027
1900071000702025
1900071000702022
1900071000702026
1900071001999999
Regional Library
1900073020300235
Storm Drainage
1910041044704000
1910041048704000
1900093010596003
1100051000510100
Data Processing Equip-New $
Vehicle Refurbishment
Hydraulic Road Sidewalk
Georgetown Road Pathway
Street Lights
Ivy Landfill
Peyton Drive
Rt. 810 (Crozet School)
Berkmar Drive Extended
Avon Street-Rt. 20 Connector
Rt. 678 Relocation
Alterations to Buildings
Asbestos Abatement Plan
Crozet School
Meriwether Lewis School
Stone-Robinson School
Stony Point School
Yancey School
Southside Elementary
Greenwood Community Ctr.
Whitewood Road
Crozet Park Improvements
Albemarle High School
Meriwether Lewis School
Mint Springs Valley Park
Beaver Creek Park
Southern Swimming Fac.
Master Plan
Bennington Channel
Keene Transfer Station
Total
Trans. from CIP to Storm
Drainage
Trans. from General Fund
to CIP
210,500
90,000
20,000
1,475
40,000
600,000
200,000
50,000
250,000
77,000
18,500
83,000
80,000
624,000
150,000
210,177
500,000
500,000
815,000
20,400
8,200
19,500
12,200
48,000
50,000
25,000
250,000
8,019
19,285
110~000
$5,090,256
129,285
1,047,256
494
Revenue
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
Description Amount
2900019000190304
2900019000190305
2900015000150204
2900051000510100
2900051000512004
2900041000410500
2900015000150101
2910051000512000
2100093010591004
Fire Company Payments
Rescue Squad Payments
Sale of Real Estate
Appropriation from Fd. Bal.
Transfer from Gen. Fund
Loan Proceeds
Interest on Deposits
Total
Trans. to Storm Drainage
from CIP
Appropriated from Gen. Fund
Balance
$ 40,000
20,000
55,000
920,000
2,047,256
1,708,000
300~000
$5,090,256
129,285
1,047,256
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: Proposal to levy a four percent tax
on food and beverages sold for human consumption and consumed on such
premises. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 12 and July 19, 1988.)
Mr. Agnor said the 1988 session of the General Assembly authorized
counties to levy up to a four percent tax on food and beverages sold for human
consumption and consumed on such premises. The Code provides for two methods
to initiate a referendum which was required in all counties except two, those
two were given authorization to adopt the tax by ordinance without referendum.
The referendum must be initiated by the Board of Supervisors or the filing of
a petition signed by ten percent of the registered voters~ If a resolution is
considered by the Board tonight for a referendum, it would request that the
be added to the November Primary ballot.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. Linwood Coffman said he is in opposition to a meals tax. He has
lived in Albemarle County for 21 years and his quality of ilife has decreased
from the time he came here in 1967 to date and he sees it ikeep decreasing.
When he moved to his present home on Northfields Road the~~ had some of the
be.~h drinking water. As subdivisions were built around N6tthfields, that
water supply became inadequate and now they get their wateC from the South
Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. In the summertime the water~ is not fit to
drink. The quality and quantity of traffic on Route 29 N6~th has decreased
his quality of life. It is becoming unbearable for peopl~ to live in Albe-
marle County. The slogan going around in Virginia right now, "Don't Fairfax
our County," applies stringently to Albemarle County. Al~'~marle County is
following in the direction of Fairfax County. Traffic, water, pollution, etc.
all contribute to that. He has been consistently active i~ public affairs.
He fought the County's merger with the City. He fought tl~& City's annexation
of the County. He thinks of himself as one of the affluen~ poor. He has to
be sparing when he spends his money and occasionally does !iike to go out to
eat. He does not eat in the City. He resents Charlottesvlille with all of his
teeth and will not eat in the City because of its meals tak. From his stand-
point it is unfair to be taxed more and more when his quality of life is
decreasing. Another point is that the reassessment is a steady tax increase.
It is not fair to add a meals tax when there are real property reassessments,
personal property taxes, and every other tax that can be t~ought of. It is
his understanding that the legislation was a means for poor counties in
Virginia which had problems funding State mandates on education to have a
recourse. He does not feel that Albemarle County is in that same position.
He thinks the meals tax is wrong and unfair. .:~
Mr. Dave Flynn, owner of LaHacienda and E1 Cabritos, ~aid he cannot
understand how the Board can put something that is so impoStant and affects so
many people, on its agenda with only a three week notice a~d plan on taking
action tonight. This meals tax is the most unfair tax eve~ imposed on the
people in Virginia and any other state. To tax people on ~Uch a basic need as
eating and trying to justify that action by saying, it is a i?'luxury" is the
most ridiculous statement made. What can possibly be a luxury about having 30
minutes for lunch and waiting in a long line? What can possibly be a luxury
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 18)
495
about being married with a couple of children and twice a month trying to go
out to have a meal? If there was one restaurant owner on this Board, this
issue would never have come about. To say that tourism is going to support
part of:this tax is ridiculous. He has been in business 18 years in the City
and one year in the County and 99 percent of his business is local business.
This meals tax would tax the very people who elected the Board members to this
Board. The word "need" should be changed to "want" because he cannot under-
stand how a county with the growth, development and additional real estate tax
alone would "need" an additional tax. What the County needs is to be respon-
sible in how it spends the citizens tax dollars. For example, when the police
were part of the Sheriff's Department, the cost was $1.2 million with about 80
percent of the revenue being funded by the State. The Police Department today
cost almost $4 million with approximately 25 percent being funded by the
State. If that issue had been put to referendum, the County would today
probably be saving $3 million to $4 million in police protection. He would
not have voted for the Police Department. As it is trying to do with this
meals tax, that is something the Board saw fit to shove down the resident's
throats. Another example is the regional library. He has never seen any
problem with over occupancy or a problem with getting the books. Again, is
that a "need" or a "want"? A couple of years ago the county administration
and some departments were housed in a few small buildings on High Street and
today the county still uses most of those same buildings plus the building we
are in tonight. Any day of the week you ride by the County Office Building
and it looks like school is in session with all:of the lights on. He has a
hard time.figuring out what everybody is doing. He believes too much money is
being spen~ on administrative costs. If he had the time, he could provide
many examples of money that are unnecessarily spent. The restaurant business
is probably one of the largest industries in the state, employs more people
and, yet, is probably one of the greatest failures in the state. Approxima-
tely 80 percent of the people restaurants employ change jobs in less than a
six months' time. If there is four percent out there in extra money, that
money is needed to pay the people that remain~in the job for any length of
time. He moved to'the county in the hope that he had put this nightmare
behind him. He fought this tax bitterly in the City. He thinks that the
Board needs to give the residents a break and set an example by Using the
revenue that is already coming in.
Mr. Edward Strauss, a resident of the western part of the County, said
the Board needs to make a stand on something and be consistent. Board members
have spoken out against referendums in the past saying they were elected to
make decisions for the people, yet now the minute this is available they jump
at it. If the Board thinks there is a need for more taxes then it should
raise taxes, not add any additional taxes.
Mr. Paul Holdren, owner of Shoney's Restaurants, said it distresses him
to get upset with people he knows. He argued~this point in the City several
years ago. Thankfully this will be a referendum and not something that will
be voted on by just the Board members tonightli He saw a marked increase in
his restaurant in the County the day after the tax went into effect in the
City. This is a tax on your neighbors. His ~tandard of living is not being
raised by having a meals tax. This is not ai~ing his business. This is an
unfair tax and is discriminatory. It is not ~ luxury to work in a restaurant.
You are not taxing people traveling through, ~ut local people. The Board has
repeatedly fought against funding tourism and !iyet they call this a beneficial
tax through tourism. If the Board were to speind the dollars to bring tourism
to the area then he would applaud that effort~i but that is not where the money
would be going. He does not understand why t~e Board has chosen a special
interest tax on one industry in this town. H~ appeals to the Board to vote
against taking this question to the polls. H~ resents being asked as a county
resident to pay a tax every time he goes out go eat. He will vote against the
meals tax in November if the Board decides to ~send this to referendum.
Mr. Andre Arguad, representing the Galle~ Restaurant, voiced his disap-
proval of the meals tax. If the Board wants ~ impose a tax, why not tax all
luxury items, not just meals. The restaurant ~ndustry has already been
affected by other tax laws. Now the Board wan~s to add to that by taxing its
own county residents. He feels that the meals! tax is unfair and targeted to a
specific segment of the business community. The Board needs to distinguish
between a "need" and a "want".
496
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 19)
Mr. Rowe, operator of a restaurant on Route 29 North, said "the power to
tax is the power to destroy". The latest federal government finding shows
that the average individual spends the first five months of every year working
to pay his taxes, yet incessantly the governments go out and invent new ways
of raising taxes and new ways of naming taxes. He feels that somewhere along
the line the county needs to learn to live on the amount of income that it
generates on a yearly basis. For instance, yesterday he lost a compressor
that will cost him $500 to replace. He cannot go out tomorrow and raise the
prices on his menu to pay for that. The Board should not be able to go out
every time a new need or a new want is found and raise taxes to generate that
revenue. In order to take care of one need, there must be sacrifices made in
other areas. He operates a small restaurant on a tight margin. The tax
increase would deny him the opportunity to change his menu prices in accor-
dance with his labor or food. There is no stipulation in this proposal to
cover a separate set of registers to separate the four percent tax from the
other taxes. He thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. The Board
should learn what he as an individual and business person~knows, you must pay
as you go, but you can only pay with what you have.
Mr. Walter Owen, operator of Chick-fil-a Restaurant at Fashion Square
Mall, said he is opposed to this tax. The county needs to stay within its
budget as individual households must. He feels that more than three weeks
notice should have been given to the people. It is an unfair tax and a
targeted tax. It would hurt business to impose this tax.
Mr. Dave Flynn again addressed the Board and said an ad ran four times in
the past week with the owners of 29 restaurants in the county listed in
opposition to the tax. There are only 42 restaurants in the county. The
Board is speaking directly to an industry as a whole that is against this tax.
Senior citizens are also against the tax. If he does notieven open his
business tomorrow, he will automatically pay $29 to the county in buSiness
licenses, utility tax, property tax, etc.
Mr. Mike Slomski, owner of Barnaby's Restaurant, said. he is not sure if
everybody understands what a dollar means to the people, iFrom a survey done
at his restaurant of 250 people, it was found that none ofi~those people wanted
the tax. If the people elect the Board members and the people say they do not
want the tax, then why spend money to put on a referendum~hen the people are
not going to vote for it anyhow. In his opinion, it is very wrong to even put
thi~ on a referendum. ~
There being no further comments from the public, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is almost tempted by Mr. Holdre~'s con~nents to make
a motion contrary to his feelings to see if it would pass. He supports the
referendum on this issue. He will vote for it on the November ballot because
there has been a lot of growth in the community and anybody who thinks that
growth pays for itself needs to compare the county budget ~nd the CIP for the
past ten years. The projects in the CIP now reflect a substantial increase,
particularly for schools. This results from the fact that i!some of the schools
are getting old and there is an increasing number of students who need to use
those schools. The options the County has to pay for these needs are through
borrowing, raising taxes, ignoring the need or searching f~ir a new source of
revenue.
He recognizes that the meals tax does single out one segment of the
industry. On the other hand, the meals tax does affect everybody who goes out
to eat. If the Board were to go for the full four percent ia $5.00 meal would
have a $.20 tax. He has eaten out regularly since the Cit~ meals tax was
imposed and he has eaten frequently in the City and has no~ once noticed that
tax on his ticket. He knows it is there but it does not d er him from going
to the City. This is a fair means of taxing. There are s~stantial capital
needs in the county. He is not supporting this tax for the~ operating budget.
He would support it for capital needs. He would also be su~rprised if people
went to Zion's Cross Roads to avoid a City or County meals !kax. It would be a
uniform tax and he doubts seriously that most of the peopl~~, that go out to eat
would change their patterns or habits because of the tax. ~{e thinks the
people should have the opportunity to vote on that question?
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 20)
497
Mr. Way said it seams to him that this tax is a way that gives counties
the same privileges as cities, particularly counties that are growing like
Albemarle County. He believes that the people of this county are going to
vote for the meals tax. There is no question in his mind that it will not
pass. He believes that the people want the needs that are listed in the CIP.
He agrees with Mr. Lindstrom in that he believes that there are few people
that choose to eat in Albamarle County instead of the City of Charlottesville
because of the meals tax. He will vote in favor of the tax. He thinks it
should be at three percent like in the City and that it should also be
earmarked exclusively for the CIP.
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with the stataments just made. Of all of the
people sitting on the Board, she eats out as much, or more, than most people.
She gave up cooking when she became a Board member and went into business for
herself. She averages eating out two meals a day in restaurants in this
community. It never crosses her mind to consider whether she is going to have
to pay a tax or not. The main considerationi:she thinks about, and which the
majority of people think about when they go Go a restaurant, is if the food is
good and if the service is good. She is not'going to worry about whether she
is going to pay a small tax if she gets those two things. She thinks the
restaurant owners sell themselves short as a?food provider if they think their
customers will not come back to them if there is a small tax on their bill.
It is important that taxes be levied so that everybody is equally taxed. She
does not know of anything that can be more equal than a meals tax. She will
support this tax. She thinks it is a fair tax and is something necessary for
the needs in this community which are constantly growing.
Mr. Bowie said he will support the meals tax going to referendum. In his
opinion, the Board has cut out of the CIP as much as it can. He thinks the
Board is committed to building the schools, roads and parks that are needed
for the future of the county. Not supporting a service just because some
individuals do not use that service is not the solution, because there are
others who use the service. Without available taxes, government has no way of
paying for the things it needs. He does not iknow whether thereferendnm will
pass or not, but the Board is committed to providing the services needed. The
only alternative is to borrow the money or raise real or personal property
taxes. It seems to him this is an alternativa that should be looked at and he
will support the referendum.
Mr. Bain said his reason for supporting the meals tax is for alternative
funding of the CIP. He will not support it f~r the operating budget. He
thinks this tax is more fair than continually adding to the real or personal
property taxes. He will support the meals tau referendum.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a formal motion is necessary to put this on the
ballot for referendum in November. ii
Mr. St. 3ohn said to put this to referendum, the Board needs to direct
him to draft a petition for writ of election, i He would take the petition to
the judge for review, approval of wording and!signature. The Secretary to the
State Board of Elections has looked into this-matter. It is that office that
recommended that this be done in November on the same date as the general
election. He has some language recommended by the Secretary which states an
amount not to exceed four percent. If the referendum passes, then the tax
can be levied only after adoption of an ordinance. He would like to amphasis
that if the Board requests a specific percentage on the referendum, that is
the amount that must then be levied.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the wording on ~he referendum should state "not
to exceed four percent". Mr. Way said his feeling is that the Board should
state exactly what it wants and not leave it ~pen. Everything should be make
very clear before holding the referendum. Mr~'~ Bowie said the balancing figure
is four percent which still leaves a shortfal~ in the CIP budget. Mr. Bowie
again said he will support a motion that the tax not exceed four percent, with
the exact figure to be set later if the referendum passes.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with Mr. Bo~ie. He does not have any
problam with setting the amount as "up to fou~ percent". He does not see a
reason to tie the Board's hands to less than ~our percent. For all of the
reasons he supports the referendum on the taxii he thinks the Board should take
498
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 21)
full advantage of what is allowed by law. If there is something funny about
the extra percentage, he would not vote for the first three percent. The law
is there and it allows the County to tax that is not nearly as regressive as
other forms of taxation. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not clear on the exact form
of the motion. Mr. St. John then stated some language for a resolution
provided by the Secretary to the State Board of Elections.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
that the County Attorney is directed to petition theCircuit Court
of Albemarle County to order a referendum in which the following
question will be put to the qualified voters of Albemarle County:
"Shall Albemarle County be authorized to levy a tax, in
addition to the sales tax currently imposed, on food and
beverages consumed on the premises where sold, such tax
not to exceed four percent of the amount charged for such
food and beverages?"
Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins.
Mr. Way (Mr. Way said his vote of no was not in opposition to the meals
tax. He felt the tax should be no more than three percent.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Appointments.
No names were offered.
Agenda Item No. 8. Approval of Minutes: July 17 (A)!, 1985, June 4,
1986; and March 25, 1988.
Mr. Bain said he read the minutes of March 25, 1988, Mages 1 through 5,
and found them to be correct.
Mr. Lindstrom said he read all of the minutes of July: 17 (Afternoon),
1985 and found some typos and the following minute book correction: Page 8,
Paragraph 7, Third sentence should read "Nobody has ever applied for a
low/moderate cost housing bonus." Delete the remaining words "and the people
who did have not asked for it." He noted the incorrect spelling of the word
"subsidy" throughout the minutes.
Mr. Perkins read the minutes of March 25, 1988, Pages.6 to the end, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the
minutes as read. 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.
Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board
and Public.
Mr. Bowie said he has received several complaints from citizens concern-
ing abandoned cars along Route 616 from Route 22/231 to the Interstate and
asked that the Zoning Department review the complaints.
July 27, 1988 (Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 22)
499
At 10:47 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to
adjourn into executive session for legal matters concerning the flea market on
Route 250 East. 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.
Agenda Item No. 10. Adjourn. At 11:05 P.M., the Board reconvened into
open session and immediately adjourned.
500