Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-04-04April 4, 1~79 (Adjourned Meeting) Adjourned from March 21, 1979) An adjourned meeting of the Albemarle County Board of ~upervisors was held on April 4, 1979 at 3:30 P..M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from March 21, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Officers present: County Attorney. Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 3:35 P.M. by the Chairman. Mr. Fisher announced that the Board had received responses from several persons in Washington about the Board's request to reconsider the discontinuance of AMTRAEservice through Charlottesville. The Board received a form letter from Secretary Brock Adams thankin~ the B~d~o~hi~S~in$ere~ The matter is before Congress and unless Congress acts before the end of April, the plan will go into effect in November. The Board has also received a letter from Congressman Kenneth Robinson about the letter sent him expressing concern about the escalation of costs brought about by, the Federal Court continuing to occupy the old Post Office Building while same is being renovated for a regional library. Mr. Robinson has taken some actions and it appears that GSA is moving forward to find other space. SenatOr Harry Byrd also wrote to GSA and asked for theTr reaction to the County's claim about the additional cost involved in keeping the court in the Post Office Building. Mr. Fisher also reported to the Board that he had attended the Virginia Association of Counties Executive Board meeting. Concern about annexation is growing. Counties are having an opportunity to read the new-annexation bills and assimilate the impact. Fredericksburg City Council, by a vote of 8/1, has already decided to hire a consultant to study the feasibili of annexing portions of Stafford and Spotsylvania Counties. In response .to this concern, the VACO Board has approved reconstituting the Task Force on Annexation. A meeting will be scheduled in the next few weeks to see what more can be done to protect the 87 counties who did not gain immunity under the new law. Some counties may join together to contest the constitutionality of this legislation. Mr. Lindstrom said a group of citizens who are concerned both about the nuclear plants in Louisa and the proposal for.a plant in Nelson County-caught him in ~the hall of the County Building and presented him with petitions signed by 200 persons expressing this concern. Mr. Fisher read ,the following petition: "It is our feeling that the people who are responsible for the nuclear power industry have forsaken the public good, in that wastes produced and released into the environment are harmful to the well- being of the people of the nation. In light of the fact that the people of Pennsylvania are restricted to their houses for the duration of this disaster, (Three Mile Island) and knowing that the North Anna plant has inoperable steam generating equipment, we respectfully ask that you make formal petition to the County of Louisa to close down the VEPC0 plant there. We have warned the government of this nation, this state and county of the inherent danger posed to the population of this area because of this plant, and formally request its closure. There is also, at this time, planned for Nelson County, a nuclear power generating plant that would put Charlottesville directly in the middle of these two plants. We respectfully ask that the County of Albemarle oppose that plant's construction now, and at every opportunity in the future. Any information required to prove the fallibility of these plants can be made available to you at your request." Mr. Lindstrom stated that he inadvertently got involved in this matter and although he does share the concern of these citizens, he does not feel that the Board can legally become involved in the affairs of other counties. Mr. Dorrier felt that the Board did not have enough information to deal with it one way or another. Mr. Roudabush did not feel the Board could take any action on the basis of the petitions presented and with no other information on which to go. He suggested that this be discussed at some other date. Mr. Lindstrom reported that he has received in the mail a survey and read the following.: "Dear Voter: Registered voter in Albemarle County. You have been randomly selected to participate in a very important research study. The purpose of this research is to provide guidance to public officials of our County. Your cooperation in this study may help in planning the future of Albemarle County." Mr. Lindstrom said that the questionnnaire had a considerable number of questions about the rates of growth the County should experience, the types of growth in terms of industry, and so on. It is marked to be returned to Market Research. Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Agnor to check into this matter and make a report back to the Board with his findings. Mr. Agnor reported that Dr. Ian L. McHarg, Chairman, Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning at the University of Pennsylvania, will be here on Thursday, April 25 ,! to address the subject of zoning and land-use planning. His topic will be La'nd-Use Planning: The State of the Art." His talk will begin at 8:00 P.M. in the auditorium (Room lq2~ ~ t~ 222 ~y April 4, 1979 Adjourned Meeting (Adjourned fr_om March 21~ ~ ._ ~- ~ Agenda Item No. 2. Continuation of work session on Industrial Development Policy. Mr. Fisher announced that since the March 21, 1979 meeting, the Board has received a written copy of the statement Mr. Charles Smith of the Chamber of Commerce presented to the Board on that date. This statement includes the specific language amendments that Mr. Smith suggested at that time. Also, since that discussion, he had come across a copy of the Virginia Economic Outlook for 1979 prepared by the Tayloe Murphy Institute, in which they report on a survey conducted of some 300 business leaders and others associated with businesses, governments and academic institutions throughout Virginia. The survey dealt with things that affect business and th~ types of unemployment rates that can be expected. It was the general conclusion that Virginia's economy should be somewhat better than that of the nation as a whole. Although the outlook for the economy of Virginia is more pessimistic than in the past two years, business leaders responding to the survey appeared to remain optimistic about their own businesses. One whole chapter deals with the problems facing Virginia businesses. Res were asked to identify problems they thought would be most significant to businesses in 1979. A list of 35 possible problems were divided into seven broad categories and respondents were asked~to specify not only the particular problems they anticipated, but also the broad cate they considered to be the most significant. There is a statistical analysis of the types of businesses and type~ of responses, but the general categories are: General Economy, Federal Government Influence, Operating Problems, Competition, Financial Problems, State Government Influence and Other, Farm Prices, and Housing Markets~ It does not list local government as a problem or an influence. Mr. Fisher said his first thought was whether local government has any influence either way. Mr. Roudabush said at the most recent meeting of the City/County Economic Development Commission, this draft of an Industrial Development Policy was discussed. As a result of the discussion, a committee was appointed to draft a statement from the Commission expressing the Commission's philosophy. Mr. Roudabush said the statement was given to him and it contains all the provisions which the Board has considered in the County draft. (He presented copies to the Board, along with a draft prepared by Mrs. Marjorie Jordon, a County representati e on the Economic Development Commission. .~FROM THE CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (SUGGESTED WORDING FOR AN ALBEMARLE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY) March 30, 1979 The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors feels that it is its solemn duty to protect and preserve the unique and historic Character of Albemarle County and to encourage economic expansion in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan and the interests of the residents of the County so as to provide "needed" jobs for its residents, maintain a balanced employment mix and provide opportunities for advances in employment status for its citizens. This should be done without stimu- lating too rapid a growth in population or the dependence of any large segment of its citizenry upon any one industry or type of employment. Realizing that the rate of business and industrial expansion and the location of industrial sites will significantly affect both the rate and the patterns of population growth, and that the Comprehensive Plan calls for the controlled phasing of industrial rezoning and the preliminary identification of suitable industrial sites throughout the County in accordance with es- tablished criteria, the Board's policy shall be to facilitate the appropriate economic (including~industrial) development of land consistent with the objectives of the Plan for industrial and business use. Speculative re- zoning to industrial use shall be discouraged. Areas identified as potential industrial and business sites as well as immediately surrounding areas should be protected from development which is inconsistent with that potential. The Board and those responsible to it shall not encourage uses which are in- consistent with zoning objectives. The Board and those responsible to it shall, within these limitations, make available such information about Albemarle County as is thought to be helpful to industrial and business prospects seeking such information. Additionally, they shall "actively solicit" the location of desirable business and industry in appropriate areas of Albemarle County when necessary to meet employment requirements which have been identified, for the maintenance of an adequate tax base and for the general welfare of the community. April 4-., 1979 Adjourned Meeting (Adjourned from March 21, 1979) o~.~...~.~FR~M~MARgORIE JORDAN (SUGGESTED WORDING FOR AN ALBEMARLE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY) April 3, 1979 The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors feels its duty is to preserve the unique and historic character of Albemarle County, and at the same time encourage economic expansion in a manner consistent with the objectives of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. It must bear in mind encouraging the provision of jobs and opportunities for advancement. The rate of business and industrial expansion and the location of indus- trial sites will significantly affect both the rate and the patterns of population growth; thus the Comprehensive Plan calls for the controlled phasing of industrial rezoning, and identification of suitable industrial sites throughout the County. Consequently, the Board's policy shall be to facilitate the appropriate economic development of land consistent with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan for industrial and business use. Speculative rezoning to industrial use should be discouraged. Areas identified as potential industrial and business sites as well as immediately surrounding areas should be protected from other development which is inconsistent. The Board and those responsible to it shall, within these limitations, make available such information about Albemarle County as is thought to be helpful to industrial and business prospects. Also, they shall actively solicit the location of desirable business and industry in appropriate areas of Albemarle County. The location and nature of such industrial additions should be evaluated in relation to the environmental impact; e.g., pollution, water supply, sewage disposal, and the relation betw~een new taxes generated, and additional governmental benefits required; e.g., schools, roads, police and fire protection, etc. Mr. Lindstrom noted that in both of these drafts, the policy had been expanded to cover both industrial and business development. He feels that the identification and protection of industrial, as opposed to business land, is different. Also, the question of whether there is enough commercially zoned land in the County might be answered differently. To that extent, combining these two categories should be done with caution. Mr. Roudabush said when the criteria for development of jobs to suit local needs is added, business, as well as industrial uses, must be considered. Mr. Lindstrom said the County already had an overabundanc of commercially zoned land. Since a lot of what the Board has authority to do concerns when, where and how much land will be rezoned for economic expansion, this is a category in which zoning necessary to accommodate future economic growth is already in place. However, the Board can try to identify needs and encourage people who are looking for sites for new business and industries to meet those needs. Mr. Lindstrom felt that if zoning is already there, there is not much the Board can do in a meaningful way. Since the Board's ability to implement this policy is through its ability to zone land, he felt the Board could not do much except through industrial zoning. Mr. Roudabush stated that it has been mentioned that what the Board is considering is the overall economic development of the community rather than industrial or business developmen The Economic Development Commission was called the Industrial Development Commission but the name was changed because of that reason. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not know what the Board could do to inclUde business in the policy except by amending the Comprehensive Plan to include a map that would show areas identified for future use. Then, take this into considerat as part of future planning and zoning decisions. Mr. Roudabush agreed that there is a substant~ difference in how one assesses land for business purposes as compared to industrial purposes. He felt the policy should speak to business as~well as industrial purposes. He said th~ City of Charlottesville now focuses its attention more on business uses than on industrial~uses. That is why the-City set up its own Economic Development Group to deal with the subject. Dr. Iachetta said the County's problem is different. The City does not have any large tracts of land that can be used for industrial operations. The County Zoning map is available, ~o a prospective business or. industry is not guessing about those sites'which are already defined. For lands that are already defined, this policy statement does not do anything for or against them. The problem is, how are the sites identified which may be available and are not now zoned. Dr. Iachetta expressed his concern about the question of how to make it clear that there will Be~sites in the County for clean industrial uses. This is the heart of the matter since there are a lot of business locations already zoned. Mr. Roudabush said he felt the Economic'Development Commission's statement included ~usiness only wit~ respect to the economic development of the community. When it comes down to specifics, the statement refers only to location of industrial sites. Mr. Fisher felt that both of the statements presented today are much less specific than the Board had hoped. He noted that numbered paragraph (1) of Mr. Lindstrom's proposal states: "The Board shall direct its appointees, agents and employees to determine actual levels of mnemployment among County residents and to identify the types of employment that would meet the needs of those unemployed." He feels it is important to try to select prospective employer S on April 4, 1979 Adjourned Meeting (Adjourned from March 21 197 ) for the area and that is not contained in the other statements. Mr. Roudabush said it is in the first part of the Commission's statement: ". . . so as to provide needed jobs for its residents, maintain a balanced employment mix and provide opportunities for advances in the employment status for its citizens." Mr. Lindstrom felt the policy statement from the Economic Development Commission is the kind of general statement that is adopted, put in to a file and not followed. Mr. Lindstrom said his statement sets out specific purposes to follow. The Board would be committed to specifics. That is the dif'ference. One is a policy statement and the other is a statement of objectives. Mr. Fisher said he would like the statement to contain a provision to identify types of unemployment. This is important, and something the community has never done. The' Chamber of Commerce does not do it and the Virginia Employment Commission tries to do it, but their data is old by the time it is published. He feels this wouldbe the way to solicit industrial~development. Mr. Lindstrom agreed but said that meeting this goal would be difficult. In striving for upward mobility of employees, a vacuum is always created on the lower end. That .in itself may 'create a population expansion beyond what is contemplated, although, the Comprehensive Plan contemplate that the population of the County will be doubled in ten or fifteen years. In order to meet the needs of that expanded population, plenty of new employment opportunities will be needed. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels uncomfortable setting specific goals that approach theoretical impossibilities. Mr. Fisher remarked about the vagueness of the statements presented today. Especially in language such as '"needed jobs." Who is to determine what are "needed" jobs? What kind of standards will be used? What does "balanced employment mix" really mean? Mr. Fisher said he was not comfortable with the phrase in the Economic Development Commission's report ". . .they shall actively solicit the location of desirable business and industry", the "they" referring to the Board and those responsible to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said the specific differences between what Mr. Roudabush has been talking about and the inclusion of business as well as industrial is that there are a lot of levels in his draft that Would not apply in terms of identification, protection and rezoning. Also, in paragraphs No. 2 and 3 of h'is proposal, he struggled with a way to accomplish the policy and he' feels it can only be accomplished by making an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.'-~Also, whether the Board can successfully deal with underemployment as well as unemployment in the policy is a question which he feels needs ~to be addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Roudabush's suggested language under paragraph No. l, "will provide for the training of people that need jobs" is important. He felt the first question to be answered is whether to have a general statement such as that proposed by the Economic Development Commission or a specific policy statement. Mr. Dottier said a general statement gives the Economic Development Commission a lot of leeway. If the Board is more specific in its directives, the Economic Development Commission has less room to make their own decisions. Mr. Roudabush said when the statement is more specific in certain areas, it is open-ended on where to stop being specific. Mr. Dorrier asked' if the Economic Development Commission objected to the policy statement as being too narrow in scope. Mr. Roudabush said he did not think there was any real objection to the scope, and objectives-of the CoUnty's proposed statement. Mr. Fisher said the Economic Development Commission has asked the Board for some direction and asked if the Commission was now complaining that the policy statement is too specific. Mr. Roy Patterson, a County representative on the Commission, said there was a committee of three persons who worked on the policy. This committee had the drafts proposed by Charles Smith and the Board to work with. The Commissio. n, as a body, has' not met since the committee drew up the economic development policy presented today. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the purpose of this policy statement is for new businesses and industries, and not for existing companies. This policy will give an idea of what types of businesses and industries the County will allow to come into the County. He favors something more specific, but in a condensed form so that no one will have to go through an entire book to find out if they are welcome here. He suggested that the first seven paragraphs of Mr. Lindstrom's draft not be changed, but that numbered paragraphs i through 6 cOntain more detailed criteria For example, he recommended adding to paragraph No. l, . . . or underemplo In additiOn, the potential use of Piedmont Virginia Ccommunity College and Vocational Technical Center relative to the retraining of citizens would be determined." Dr. Iachetta said some of the unemployed are not employable in modern society. He did not think any industry will come to Albemarle County and hire the unskilled and unemployed in any great numbers. He feels that it should be made known that Albemarle County does have facilities geared to training the underemployed or the unemployed. Mr. Dottier said he agrees that the County does not use these facilities as much as they could be used. The Board has never integrated them into a policy statement about employment. Mr. Fisher suggested adding the words "and other educationa[ institutions" since there are many agencies trying to provide some training for specific jobs. Dr. Iachetta was asked to read his suggested revision again He suggested adding the following words to paragraph 1: " . or underemployed. In addition, the potential use of Piedmont Virginia Community College, Vocational Technical Center and other educational institutions in the community relative to the retraining of citizens would be determined." Mr. Lindstrom stated that his whole thought behind a policy statement is that it provides t~e Board with a tool for deciding what is desirable industry and_what is undesirable. The policy should give information to the Board, ~as well as Outside businesses and industry, to show what the Board wants, where the Board wants them to be located, and after they come, to ~ive the Board some basis for evaluating whether or not a ~ezoning~will be granted. Mr. Roudabush said that in place of the language suggested by Dr. Iachetta, he would suggest the ~ords: "In addition, all public agencies and institutions shall be encouraged to provide sducational opportunities to improve this goal" instead of mentioning Piedmont Virginia ~ommunity College and the Vocational Technical Center. Mr. Fisher suggested saying "to improve the employment opportunities" rather than "to achieve this goal" because the goal is o identify types of unemployment. April 4, 1979 Adjourned Meeting (Adjourned from March 21, 1979) Dr. Iachetta said that he thought paragraph No. 2 should have the words: "such sites should have reasonable access to public water and sewer", added. Mr. Lindstrom said that is one of the criteria set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Iachetta felt it should be spelled out in this policy. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive Plan identifies highways, railways, air transportation, water and sewer availability, terrain, -- which are site characteristics. Since the policy already refers to the criteria set forth in the Comprehensive Plan, he suggested that the Board not go into further detail. Mr. Lindstrom suggested inserting in paragraph No. 2 "in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan, which map shall identify those areas". Although he did not feel the policy should state specifically that the Board should act to consider an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, he did feel that the best way the Board can accomplish No. 2 and 3, is through an actual amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Dorrier did not see why a clause could not be added after the last sentence in paragraph No. 2 stating that the Comprehensive Plan would be amended to include this map. Mr. Roudabush said he would suggest that paragraph No. 2 be changed to read: "A map contained in the Comprehensive Plan identif±es those areas which currently meet the criteria and recommendation~ set forth in the Plan both in terms of characteristics and aggregate acreage for potential industrial sites." With that language, the Comprehensive Plan could be amended from time to time, and this policy would not have to be amended nor would the map. Dr. Iachetta asked why paragraph No. 3 was needed. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the Comprehensive Plan was the only tool the Board had to protect certain areas from rezoning. Dr. Iachetta said the lan suggested by Mr. Roudabush for paragraph No. 2 does the same thing. It was the consensus that paragraph No. 3 would be deleted. Mr. Lindstrom noted that Mr. Smith was concerned about the language "to emphasize only" in paragraph 4. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not agree with Mr. Smith. If the Board is going to emphasize sites, they must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board wanted to address in any way, other than through the zoning map, land that is now zoned industrial that may or may not be appropriate for industrial use. Mr. Fisher said that he did not think the Board should get into that particular issue now. Mr. Dorrier suggested the words "in the Comprehensive Plan" be added to paragraph No. 4. There were no changes or recommendations for paragraph No. 5. Mr. Roudabush suggested changing the word "direct" to "through" and stri'king the word "to" in the first sentence of Jparagraph No. 6. He felt this change makes it specific as to how information is made available. Mr. Dorrier said he felt it should be added that the appointees, agents and employees shall report to the Board periodically on their work, Dr. Iachetta suggested adding a paragraph No. 7 in conjunction with Mr. Smith's suggest±ox "To cooperate with the City of Charlottesville, where such cooperation appears to fulfill the basic objectives of both communities." Mr. Lindstrom suggested using the words "common objectives." Mr. Roudabush said he felt that the importance of maintaining an adequate tax base was left out of the policy. He suggested changing the wording of the last paragraph of th~ policy to read: "Finally, it is the desire and intent of the Board to provide for such industrial growth as is necessary to provide meaningful and rewarding jobs for the residents of the County, to maintain an adequate tax base and to do so in a manner that will maintain the quality of life that is unique to Albemarle County." There being no further changes suggested, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to defer final action on this policy statement to April 18, 1979; all suggested changes being typed and returned for the Board's review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~?~ ¥.~ NAYS: None. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said a letter had been received from the Governor dealing with snergy conservation by public employees. A series of recommendations is made to State employee: ~egarding temperature settings for heating and air conditioning, lights being minimized, the luse of Iow energy lamps, and employees are being reminded about the 55 mile per hour speed limit. The Governor is also asking local governments to take similar actions in order to ~void future fuel and gasoline problems. Mr. Fisher suggested that the County staff be sncouraged to take whatever steps are needed to carry out these policies. Also, that the ~oard's concern about these specific measures be conveyed to the School Board. Mr. Agnor said this subject was recently discussed at a staff meeting. April 4, 19.~9 Adjourned Meeting (Adjour.ned from March 21~_19~_~J___ Mr. Fisher said one of the consultants working on the energy survey of the schools has suggested as a way of motivating the principals, teachers and students to conserve energy, that each school receive a portion of the dollars from energy conservad~rfuze~on school trips, equipment, and so forth. It would give the entire student body a tangible motivation for trying to do something about energy conservation. Mr. Fisher thought this was such an excellent idea that it should be passed on to the School Board to see if such a plan could be implemented. Dr. Iachetta suggested that time clocks be installed on electric hot water heaters. This would conserve some energy and would be at a minimal expense. Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to encourage the County staff and the School Board to consider these directives from the Governor and to implement those that can be done immediately to provide some conservation. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to this effect. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~ ~a- NAYS: No. ne. Agenda Item No. 3. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented a request from St. Anne's/ Belfield School for a raffle on May 5, 1979 on the local school campus. The proceeds will be used ~or refurbishing the lower school auditorium and in the purchase of educational equipment for lower and upper schools. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to grant a lottery permit to St. Anne's/Belfield School in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. AYES: NAYS: Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher announced that he had received a letter from the Charlottesvill~ Jaycees extending an invitation to participate in a Festival of Light Fair. Agenda Item No. 4. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 P.M. ~Albemarle 238 April 4, 1979-(Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on April 4, 1979 at 7:30 P.M4 in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Officer Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing on the 1979-80 County Budget. the Daily Progress, March 24, 1979). (Advertised in Mr. Fisher announced that this is the eighth year that he has worked on the budget and this is the first time that the Board has been able to look at the possibility of reducing the tax rate. This is the largest budget in Albemarle County's history, for the largest population and with the highest inflation problems. He said that he feels good about the budget and feels that the many persons who worked on it did an outstanding job. He especially appreciated the efforts and help of Mr. Agnor. He then called on Mr. Agnor to summarize the budget. Mr. Agnor announced that this was the annual public hearing on the County budget conducted in accordance with State code requirements. He emphasized that the work on tha-~b~get spans a period from late summer or early fall with the staff and involves a number of boards, commissions and agencies, including those that are county-funded, those that are county/city funded, and some that are regionally funded. It is one of the most detailed analyses of any work that iS done in the administration of the county. A target date of April 15, 1979, was set for approval of the budget. This target date is important to the School Board in terms of contracts that are offered annually to the teaching staff. Mr. Agnor said the Board had requested the staff to examine local resources and set objectives in preparing this year's budget. After examining these local resources, a number of objectives were set: The first objective was to roll back the personal property tax rate from $5.90/hundred. Upon examination of other communities in the state, it was discovered that $5.90 was the highest rate in the state. Albemarle County was not the only county with such a rate, there was one other in Northern Virginia. For the purposes of planning, the rate was set at $5.00 and this was accomplished. The second objective was to adjust the real estate rate, an amGunt equivalent'm, or near the real estate assessment increase as of January 1, 1979. This was difficult because the assessment varies with the types of property and the type_of locality in which the property is located. The net assessment increase came to about 6.7%. Some assessments were higher and some were lower, but this is an average. 6.7% on the current year's rate of 725 calculate~ to be 4.85, so it was proposed to roll the real estate tax rate back by 55, a rounded figure, to the rate of 67S/hundred. The third objective was to limit the expansion of all programs and to consider only expansion for new ones determined to be essential to the operation of the County, or that were already approved by prior procedures or that had been mandated by Federal and state regulatory requirements. The staff has been reasonably successful with this objective. The fourth objective was to meet inflationary costs within existing sources of revenue without seeking any additional sources, but, Simultaneously, to examine a source of revenue available to local governments in Virginia; that source being a service charge on tax exempt properties. This source was examined and it is recommended that this service charge be considered to be added on July 1, 1980. The fifth objective was to follow as nearly as possible the voluntary guidelines that were established by President Carter to keep wage and price increases to an upper limit of 7%. The last objective was to begin allocating this year funds from current revenues to the capital improvements program. The capital improvement program will then be funded entirely from the carry-over balance of the General Fund instead of from Revenue-Sharing monies. Mr. Agnor said the budget that was recommended to the Board at the beginning of work sessions totalled $23.5 million. That was an increase of $1.4 million over the current budget or .6.5%. There were some needs that had not been met and as a result of the Board's work and review of the budget, it was changed to a $23.6 million a $1.5 million increase or 6.9%. The budget presented tonight shows a total of $27.9 million because of the addition of the Self-Sustaining Funds and Grant Projects ($2.6 miZlion), Land Use tax deferral ($1.2 million) and the use of $500,000 in Revenue Sharing funds for school energy costs. Mr. Agnor noted that revenues from local sources is expected to increase 8 1/2%. Local Sources pay the costs of about 62% of the total County budget. Other sources, of funds in the General Fund increase by 16.6%. The biggest increase in this category being the use of $100,000 in carry-over money allocated as revenue for next year's budget. School funds increase by 2.'4%, so the General Fund and School Fund together will increase by 7.6% over the current year's revenues. Mr. Agnor said the financial condition of Albemarle County is sound and is expected to remain sound. The Auditor's report, which is available to anyone who may wish to review it, supports this position and reflects the fiscal health of the County. At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Ms. Barbara Spoerl, President. Friends mf .T~f~~-~o~o^~ ~~ .......... 23,9 April 4, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) "The Library Board of Trustees submitted a budget request to its funding -authorities with a 11.9% increase for fiscal year 1979-80. Charlottesville and Albemarle County recommended that the total increase be limited to 7%, a reduction of $33,259.00 in operating funds. In order to operate within this budget, the Library Board proposed a number of reductions, among them: Deferred maintenance at the Gordon Ave. Branch Reduction in book budget of 5% Reduction in substitute budget of 50% Elimination of the conference travel funds Elimination of copier service in smaller branches Reduction in professional services budget Discontinued mowing of Vinegar Hill site Closing of the Children's Room at McIntire Library at 6 P.M. nightly I wish to speak to the last item, which was proposed reluctantly, and~ which directly affects a public service. For the last five years, the Children's Room of the McIntire Library has been open four nights a week, providing a variety of vital services to a broad segment of the community . . . -an opportunity for regular family trips to the library -for children with working parents who can get a ride only at night -a similar ~i-tu~tion for handicapped children -the opportunity for students to work on class projects -a chance for teacher requests to be filled Forty percent of the use of the Children's Room at night is by Albemarle County residents. For many persons - children, teachers, adults - the evening hours are the only time they have available to go to the library, Darticularly if they need something immediately. The McIntire Library -houses the central collection of children's material for the entire system. Until the Post Office building is in use, two librarians must be on duty.in the children's room when it is open because of its location in the library building. Charlottesville has been asked to provide $3,395 over and above the amount recommended by their staff for the Library in order to keep this room open in the evenings. The Board of Trustees has asked Albemarle County to provide an additional $2,263 for its share of this same benefit. The Friends of the Library representing people from both Charlottesville and Albemarle County is endorsing this request and we urge the additional appropriation from each jurisdiction for the children's room evening opening. We feel no community can afford~ to cut library service for its children, who are, after all, its 'future'." Ms. Spoerl then stated that she was sure the Board would be hearing from parents and teachers concerning this matter. She noted that other members of the Library Board of Trustee: were also present. A citizen asked for an explanation of the land use deferral item since same amount is shown in both the revenue and expenditure sides of the budget. Mr. Agnor stated that this is the first year this item has been included. The tax is not actually collected, it is deferred. The revenues that are projected annually in the County budget are the net revenues that can be collected. For accounting purposes, which are formulas that are used for entitlement of Federal monies to localities, it is more beneficial to put the gross amount of tax in the budget, and then show it on the expenditure side as a refund to the County treasury. It is an accounting procedure, but does provide information in the budget as to how many dollars the land use program involves as well as tax relief for the elderly and handicapped. Mr. Lindstrom expressed a concern about code 18A.3, Chamber of Commerce-Dues. He said that while this is not a significant amount of money, ($1200.00), he does not feel the Chamber benefits all citizens and, therefore, public funds should not be used to pay dues to any organization which does not represent all of the people. Mr. Fisher stated that he would like to continue the public hearing and receive Board comments at that time. Margaret Melche~'~ speaking for the League of Women Voters, read the following statement: "A's we did last year, the League of Women Voters again wishes to commend the Board of Supervisors and the County Executive for the clarity and detail of the proposed budget and for the open and thorough review process which facilitates Citizen study of how our tax dollars are allocated. The League also appreciates the progress that has been made in the past year in coordination between the Board of Supervisors and the Various county boards and commissions, most notably the School Board. The exchanges of philosophy and concerns that have taken place in the past year have resulted in greater understanding, which was reflected in a smoother budget process this year, with less confusion regarding policy, programs and fiscal manage- ment. We urge that special attention be given to keeping these lines of communication open. The League has communicated to the School Board our approval of the emphasis April 4, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) We endorse county support of the following: The Thomas Jefferson Planning District for programs of a regional nature Offender Aid and Restoration Low income housing Community use of the schools In conclusion, we find this a responsible budget, one which is designed to meet the needs of this community and one which recognizes that supporting a quality system of education is one of the most important functions of local government. (Signed) Susie Sherwood President" A citizen asked if the "Property Tax" category of revenues includes both real estate and personal property taxes. Mr. Fisher answered "yes". The citizen wanted to know if, with the reduction of the tax rate to $5.00 on personal property, there would be a reduction in revenue Mr. Ray Jones,~ Director of Finance, said the County will only lose about $60,000 going from the $5.90 rate to the $5.00 rate on personal property since the projected collection on the new real property assessment is expected to increase from 5.8 to 6.2 million; the increase being primarily in new construction. There being no further comments, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing at 8:36 P.M. Mr. Fisher read a portion of a letter of April 2, 1979 which he had received from Mr. .Charles Smith, Jr., President of the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce: "The Board voted at its last meeting to take into consideration during its budget proceedings for next year (1980), the membership of the governing bodies, however, our budget for 1979 included the anticipated income from the city and county and therefore, we request the continuance of your funding for this fiscal year. The only alternative suggested by the Board, which you may wish to consider, was that the County of Albemarle withdraw as a member of the Chamber per se and pay a like amount as a service fee for the services provided to the public by the Chamber." Mr. Lindstrom again stated his strong feelings about using public money to support a special interest organization which often takes a position directly opposite the feelings of his constituents. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to delete line item 18A.3 in the amount of $1200.00 for Chamber of Commerce dues from the budget. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and said it is simply a question of whether the Board is fundinE a lobby or funding special programs. He was in favor of funding specific programs but not being a dues-paying, member of a lobby group. Mr. Fisherfrecognized that the County has a business and professional license tax, but he also stated that there are other special interest groups in Albemarle County which the Board does not pay dues to although they do support some specific program that may benefit the public. Mr. Dorrier stated that the Chamber does serve the tourist trade and prints brochures. If the $1200 were spent for the printing of the brochures, it would be worth the cost. Mr. Henley stated that it might be good for the Chamber and the Board if the Board withdrew their membership. Then the Chamber would feel free to criticize the Board and the Board would feel free to criticize the way the Chamber operates. Mr. Dorrier said he feels the two bodies tell each other what they think all the time. Roll was called at this time, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Lindstrom. Messrs. Dottier and Roudabush. Mr. Fisher noted the request from the Library Board for an additional $2,263 from the County in order to retain night hours for the children's room. He asked the hours of operatio Mr. Christopher Devan stated that the McIntire Library~is open four nights a week. The Gordon Avenue branch is open 9-9 Monday through Friday; 9-5:30 Saturday; and 1-5 Sunday. Ail the other branches are open 24 hours a week. Mr. Fisher said that he would like to see the branches in the County stay open longer hours rather than the McIntire Library. Mr. Dottier said he had talked with the librarian at the Scottsville branch and the hours of operation have not changed since the library opened in 1956, but that the circulation had picked up tremendously. He said that the librarian wan askin~ for an 24O Mr. Dorrier felt that with no adverse comments on the budget, it should be approved as presented. Mr. Fisher noted that with the comments about the Library appropriation and the Chamber of Commerce he felt the Board should discuss those categories. Mr. Lindstrom said he had nothing to add to what he had already said in reference to the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Dorrier said that while the Chamber is a special interest group, he feels the County does derive benefits from the Chamber and he thinks they do serve a public purpose. He would hate to see the County withdraw from the Chamber, particularly when the Board is trying to establis~ better communications with the business community. Mr. Roudabush agreed with Mr. Dorrier and added that he felt the amount for dues was small compared to the tax revenues generated by business and professional people. ~pri~ 1 ~lReg~lar--D~l Meeting) Dr. Iachetta replied that because the children are in school a good part of the 9-6 operation time, that maybe the library should adjust their hours to match the needs of the community. He also feels that the library should go to the people instead of the other way around. He is in favor of supporting more branches in the county, especially with the high cost of gasoline. He feels that McIntire should reconsider what hours they are open rather than staying open more hours. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any other items in the budget that called for discussion tonight. Mr. Agnor said there was a slight $300.00 adjustment in the Juvenile Detention Home budget that should be made before presentation of the Appropriation Ordinance next week. Mr. Fisher again thanked everyone for the work that was done on the budget. At 9:03 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. ..... ~/Chairman A regular meeting of the Board of SuperTisors of Albemarle County, ~irginia, was held on April 11, 1979, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes¥il] Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 9:15 A.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John, County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who requested a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of MinuteS: January 10 and January 15, 1979. Dr. Iachetta requested the minutes of January 10, 1979 be deferred to April 18, 1979. Mr. Henley had read the.minutes of January 15 and found'no errors. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve the minutes of January 15, 1979. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta,'Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Resolution: Route 29 North~ Mr..Fisher said a resolution is needed for presentation at the Annual Highway Pre- Allocation Hearing for the Culpeper District this afternoon. Mr. Dorrier felt some language should be included to request funding necessary to complete the improvements to Route 20~ Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution on April 5, 1978, requesting the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to consider extensive improvements to Route 29 North of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, since that time, meetings have been held with officials of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and the County Planning Staff concerning problems encountered on Route 29 Northland the need for improvements to solve such problems; and WHEREAS, a study has now been completed by the Department of Highways and Transportation with recommended i~provements to Route 29 North, which study has been adopted by this Board; and WHEREAS, improvements to Route 20 in Albemarle County have been undertaken i'n phases over recent years, lea~ing a large portion still in need of impro~ements; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby respectfully urged to assign highest priority and to commence the funding allocation in fiscal year' 1980 for improvements to Route 29 North as recommended in the recent study by said Department; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Highways and Transportation is also requested to provide funding necessary to complete improvements to Route 20 in Albemarle County in the near future. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be presented'at the annual - -- ~+~* ~ a~l 11. 1979.