Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-01-06 adjJanuary 6, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 462 An afternoon meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 6, 1988, at 3:15 P.M., Meeting Room 11, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This meeting was adjourned from December 17, 1987. PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Way. The meeting was called to order at 3:15 P.M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session: Personnel. At 3:15 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to move into executive session to discuss personnel. 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. 4:00 P.M., move to Rooms 5/6, Second Floor. At 4:08 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session:in Meeting Room 5/6, Second Floor of the Albemarle County Office Building. Agenda Item No. 4. Meeting with Area Legislators. Delegates Mitchell Van Yahres and George F. Allen were present. Agenda Item No. 4c. Scenic River Designation, request for legislation on. Mr. Agnor said the Board has designated as State Scenic Rivers the Moormans River and the Rivanna River from the Woolen Mills Dam to the Fluvanna County Line. In both of these designations, the Board was listed as the administering agent, so the Board could delegate the responsibility to any one of a number of County departments and agencies. When the designation of the Rivanna River reached the General Assembly, Mr. Agnor said, it was not approved because Fluvanna County had already designated part of the river a State Scenic River and chosen an agency to look after the river. Mr. Agnor said the General Assembly did not want two separate agencies responsible for the same river. Mr. Agnor said the General Assembly suggested that the Boards of Albemarle and Fluvanna Counties appoint the State Department of Conserva- tion and Historic Resources as the State administering agency for the Rivanna River. Nothing needs to be changed for the Moormans River designation, he said. Mr. Agnor said proposed State legislation, sponsored by either Mr. Van Yahres or Mr. Allen, calls for a board of citizens appointed by the Governor to serve as an advisory group to the administering agency. Mr. Agnor said the Board is asked to state how many citizens should be on this Board, preferably an~odd number. Mr. Allen said he has sent both bills to!Legislative Services to be drafted. He said the proposal for the bill called for five members to be on the citizen advisory board, but if the Board wished to have more or less members, that was fine. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~econded by Mrs. Cooke to have five members on the advisory board appointed by the State Department of Conversation and Historic Resources to be the. administering agent for the Rivanna River. 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. 463 January 6, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) Agenda Item No. 4b. JLARC Report on School Financing, discussion of. Mr. Agnor said the JLARC Committee conducted a briefing and was unable to address many of the questions raised by representatives of various localities due to the demands of a tight schedule. He said the seven options offered the County would all negatively affect the funding of County schools. Mr. Agnor said that this matter required more study and he would suggest that the General Assembly wait and consider it for the nexn biennium. If there is to be a change, Mr. Agnor said, he asks that the County be notified in advance so that the budget may be adjusted accordingly. Mr. Bain who, with Mr. Bowie, attended the briefings presented by the JLARC Committee, said it seemed that JLARC was in such a hurry to forward its recommendations to the General Assembly, it did not have time to consider what the representatives from the various localities thought about the recommenda- tions. He said JLARC did not compare any of the seven options with what the Counties currently received for education, but claimed these seven options were better for the localities. On the contrary, Mr. Bain said, many locali- ties, including the County, stood to lose money no matter which option was used. He said he would like the chance to discuss these .recommendations before the General Assembly acted upon them. Mr. Van Yahres said the Governor has already used the old formula in the budget he will present to the General Assembly for 1988. He said there was concern all over the State about the proposed formulas; many localities would be negatively affected if any of the options were to go into effect. He said there was also concern that the JLARC Committee met only once. He said he does not expect any of the recommendations to go into effect for two years, so there is time for discussion and investigation. Mr. Agnor said he had asked what would happen if thelformula were left alone and the projected revenues were distributed as they were received. He said the JLARC Committee called this "Option 8". Mr. Allen said the options that most affect the County are the ones in which income is factored. These options are also causing consternation to the localities of Fairfax, Arlington and Alexandria. One must consider the number of legislators from these areas and that legislators are likely to vote for th~3interests of their district, Mr. Allen continued. He. said he does not think income should be part of the formula unless the locality has a local income tax. Mr. Bowie said this opinion was expressed at,the briefing, and JLARC representatives admitted that localities could not touch the income but thought income should be part of the formula, anyway. Another question posed to the JLARC Committee, Mr. Agnor said, was whether the impact of land use taxation programs was analyzed in Virginia, since the property tax base is a factor in the formula. Representatives of JLARC said "no". Mr. Agnor said the County did not collect $2.0 million a year due to the land use taxation. Mr. Allen said land use taxation was not considered in the current formula either. Mr. Bain said the Board and the School Board are concerned that the State is mandating new educational programs without funding them. Mr. Van Yahres said he serves on the Education Committee, and some members are beginning to believe that the State has gone far enough, that the Stat~ has mandated too many programs it is not willing to fund. On the other ha~d, he said, the State has increased its share of funding for schools during the last two administrations, mostly to increase the salaries of teach,rs by ten percent. The State will not fund this ten percent increase for all ~localities, he said, including the County and the City, which will be forced td use local funds to meet this State-mandated requirement, i Mr. Way asked if there were any other comments concerning education. There being none, he said he opposes the election of SchoOl Board members without any corresponding power to tax. Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees: in States that have an elected School Board with taxing power, nobody knows Who is accountable for the localities' money. ~ Mr. Van Yahres said he agreed with Mr. Way and Mr. Lihdstrom. January 6, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) 464 (Page 3) Mr. Way said he also believed that minorities were represented better under the current system than they would be if School Board members were elected. Mr. Allen said he plans to co-sponsor a bill allowing localities to elect School Board members. He said Virginia is the only State in the nation without the option of electing School Board members. He said he thinks if residents of Prince William or Bedford Counties want to elect School Board members, they should be able to. He said he thinks it should be up to the locality to decide. As to whether the present system of appointing School Board members insures better representation for minorities, Mr. Allen said, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples and the Ameri- can Civil Liberties Union both support elected School Boards. If this bill passes, Mr. Agnor said, how will the localities go about changing to an elected School Board. Mr. Allen said this would be done through a referendum. Mr. Bain asked if County voters could initiate the referendum, without going through the Board. Mr. Allen said "yes" Mr. Allen asked if Board members wished to address the bill which would delay the opening of schools until after Labor Day. Mr. Bowie said he sup- ported this bill as long as the decision was.left up to the local School Boards as to when a locality's schools would open. To return to the issue of elected School Boards, Mrs. Cooke said, is there a limit placed on the taxes a School Board may set? Mr. Allen said none of the bills proposing that the School Boards be elected called for giving the School Boards taxing authority. Mr. Lindstrom said this may be the case now, but in two years, the elected School Boards would return to the General Assembly and ask for the authority to tax, because they are now an elected body. Mr. Bain said he is concerned that electing School Board members would further divide the Board of Supervisors and the School Board. Mr. Van Yahres said he was concerned that such a measure would politicize the school system, perhaps to the detriment of education.. Mr. Allen asked if any Board member cared to opine upon the Family Life program in the schools and the State's decision to fully fund localities that instituted the program and halve the funding of those that developed their own programs. Mr. Way said he thinks the State should match the funding for programs of this sort on a fifty-fifty basis,~ as it has in the past, rather than try to strongarm the localities into using its own program. Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters, discussion of. Mr. Agnor said representatives from loca~lities across the State were disappointed with the Phase II Final Report from the Commission on Transporta- tion in the Twenty-First Century (COT-21), which was to deal with state and local relations in terms of funding and local~option financing for road systems. He summarized the recommendations of the subcommittee on state and local relations. The first recommendation is that localities be allowed to freeze rezonings for three years after designating a,road project. If the County had a road project in the Comprehensive Plan and {he Capital Improvements Program, the County would have three years to buy the right-of-way; no one could build on the property or request that it be rezoned during this time. Mr. Agnor said this recommendation can occur only as a result of legislation from the General Assembly. He said he did not think this recommendation was of any real advantage to the County: it might grantthe time necessary to avoid a taking charge, but that was all. The Commission also recommended in its final report that all localities be allowed to receive voluntary proffers from developers for off-site road improvements as a condition of rezoning. This measure is available now only in the urban county executive form of government, Mr. Agnor said. The final recommendation of the subcommittee on state and local relations is that there be a state-wide study to examin& the transportation needs of Z165 January 6, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) human service agencies and the possibility of requiring developers to proffer road improvements as a condition of subdivision approval. Mr. Agnor said the needs of human service agencies in this area will be studied by the joint City/County/University transportation committee. Perhaps this study will complement the one recommended by the subcommittee, Mr. Agnor said. As for the second area to be studied, Mr. Agnor said, he does not know why this must be studied further and cannot be recommended for legislative action during this session. Mr. Agnor said localities were more disappointed with the findings of the subcommittee dealing with local financing options for road improvements. Mr. Agnor said the subcommittee examined 22 of these options ,and came up with two recommendations. The first recommendation stated that each locality should examine its individual needs and request authority on an individual basis. Each locality was encouraged "to utilize new and expande~ revenue sources", without any explanation of these sources. ~ The subcommittee also recommended that each localitM be given increased flexibility in borrowing through a Transportation district, as is done in Northern Virginia. The subcommittee concluded that property and recordation taxes were the most attractive options for local financing of roads improve- ments. Mr. Agnor said this means the property owner in the rural areas subsidizes growth and services in the urban areas. Mr. Agnor said counties still faced two limitations to its ability to improve roads. Seventy-five percent of the property owners along the road must agree to be assessed for improvements. Mr. Agnor said property owners generally refused to pay. Cities and towns are allowed to assess property owners for improvements after a majority vote in city and town councils. The second limitation counties face is that the VirginiaDepartment of Transportation (VDoT) requires new roads to be built to ultimate design standards, standards that will serve the future needs of ~he community based on zoning and land use plans for the area. If a road doe~ not meet these standards, even thought it may meet the present needs of ~he community, the State will not accept it into the Secondary System. Mr. Agnor said the problem is the County cannot use secondary road fund allodations to build roads to ultimate design standards. The VDoT states thatisecondary road funds mn~t be used to replace either an existing road or the improvements to an existing road. He said it would be easier for the Countylif the State would allow the County in its comprehensive planning process and in the State transportation planning process to relax their policy andiallow counties to put secondary road allocations on Comprehensive Plan road~, which are also part of the State transportation plan. He said the County needed taxing and borrowing authority similar to cities and towns, particularly the ability to assess property owners for public improvements. He said he does not understand why ~he General Assembly places more limitations on the power of Counties to raise itaxes than on cities andtowns. ~ He said it would help if the County could make the r~zoning requests of developers conditional upon their proffering road improVements. He said the Virginia Association of Counties informed him that this B~ard would be more likely to receive this power if it asked for legislation tO amend Section 15.1-491 of the State Code, to grant this power to the County Executive form of government, rather than asking that this power be granted to all locali- ties. .:~ Mr. Van Yahres Said the Board might wish to seek a sponsor for its own bill. Mr. Agnor said he would prefer being part of a united front and have this request presented as part of a VACo legislative package and the COT-21 legislation. He said the Board would be working with the Planning Commission for the next few months on amendments to the Comprehensive~Plan. In particu- lar, the Board and the Commission would be studying the problems with County roads and the impact upon the County of building new roadsl While the Board and Commission work on these problems,. Mr. Agnor said, the~request to amend Section 15.1-491 of the State Code could stand as part of ~he VACo legislative package; if it did not pass this way, next year the Board ~ould find a sponsor for its own bill. ~ January 6, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned MHeting) Z166 (Page 5) Mr. Lindstrom said it would be a big help if the Board could allocate the secondary road fund with complete autonomy, limited only by the stipulation that the funds cover either existing roads or roads listed in the Comprehen- sive Plan. This policy would make it much easier for the County to build roads like the Meadow Creek Parkway, roads the County needs but which do not the current State criteria for secondary road funds. Mr. Lindstrom said this was a policy, rather than a legislative, matter and may be more difficult to change. He said perhaps Messrs. Van Yahres and Allen could guide the Board to the best avenue through VDoT to accomplish this objective. He said Mr. Gerald Fisher, a former Chairman of the Board, is now the State Secondary Roads Engineer and is receptive to the needs of the County. Mr. Van Yahres said it might be best to work with VACo and present a united front to the YDoT. Mr. Allen said there was probably some middle ground between the autonomy the County wanted and the constraints placed upon the County by the VDoT. He said he would like to learn more about why the VDoT felt it necessary to place these restrictions on the allocation of secondary road funds. He said the VDoT is probably concerned that roads serving only a few people may be improved fo~ political reasons. He said there is probably an easier way to finance the Meadow Creek Parkway than asking that the VDoT remove its restrictionsiand suggested that the County add a criterion to the request for funding the Parkway based on future use of the road. Mr. Bain said the roads which need improvements are usually in the urban area and have long been recognized by the YDoT. Nevertheless, he said, because of the restrictions on secondary road allocations, these roads cannot be improved. He said the Board is not asking for the authority to create roads wherever it wants. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the VDoT will become more receptive to the County's requests now that the State has more money to allocate for road improvements. He said the Board does not create roads arbitrarily, but works with the City and surrounding localities to learn where improvements and new roads are needed and then incorporates the changes into the Comprehensive Plan. He said the State should allow the County the same freedom to build roads that it allows for sewage lines and other utilities. Mr. Van Yahres said he would like to discuss this issue with Mr. Ray Pethtel, the Highway Commissioner, but he thinks he needs more backing than just Albemarle County. He said this issue i~ a regional problem and he would have more political clout if he could speak for a coalition of localities. Mr. Bain said the revenue sharing agreement with the City makes the County unique. Other counties may count on ~heir urban areas being annexed by the cities they border, leaving the cities, With their assessing capabilities, the job of improving the roads. This is not an option open to the County. Mr. Allen said he thinks the people who ~use the roads should pay for the roads, rather than allow the funds to come f~om property taxes and recordation fees. The taxes used to fund roads should be related to road usage, such as local gasoline taxes, or axle and tire taxes. He said he would support such taxes, but not a sales tax to fund roads, because the latter is a non-user fee. Mr. Van Yahres said he would be happy to' set up a meeting between County representatives and either Mr. Pethel or State Secretary of Transportation Ms. Vivian Watts. He said Mr. Bain's point is a good one: the County is in a unique situation due to the annexation agreement. Mr. Allen said he was not sure the arrangement between the City and the County is unique and cited the agreement between the County of Spotsylvania and the City of Fredericksburg. Mr. Allen suggested that the Board and staff prepare a report outlining their suggestions for a less restrictive State poli~y on secondary road allocations and then meet with VDoT representatives. Mr. Way asked if there were other issues concerning roads that any Board member cared to address. Mr. Perkins said he was concerned that the VDoT's standards for rural roads were too high~ in the rural areas, sometimes VDoT has made superhighways leading to nowhere. He cited Route 682 in Ivy as a case where the residents wanted minimal improvements and the VDoT wanted to bring the road up to ultimate standards. If the VDoT would lower their 467 January 6, 1988 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) standards for rural roads, Mr. Perkins said, there would be more money in the secondary road allocation fund to pave the many dirt roads in the County. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There being no such matters, Mr. Way thanked Messrs. Van Yahres and Allen for appearing before the Board. Messrs. Van Yahres and Allen then left the meeting. Agenda Item No. 6. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. At 5:36 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to move into executive session to discuss the Nativity Scene suit and personnel matters. 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. 7. Adjourn. The Board emerged from executive session at 7:28 P.M. and immediately adjourned.