Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-09-22ANSeptember 1~, 1976 (Adjourned from September 15) September 22, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 16) and indicate their willingness to put this question on the ballot next election. Mr. Fisher thought a certain procedure should be followed in this matter, first being to make a reasonal offer for purchase~of the building. Mrs. O'Brien said in fairness to the Library Board, it is time to make a realistic decision. Mr. Fife said it cannot be ignored that the Library Board has already gone out an~ acquired private funds for this use which may not be available in the future. Mr. Dorrier said he is not convinced that a referendum is needed. The prior Board endorsed the idea of building a new library and he is willing to vote on this question after getting total cost figures. Mr. Dorrier said he felt Revenue Sharing Funds could be used. Mr. Smith said if a referendum cannot be held until June, 1977, even if successful, the Library Board will probably lose those funds which are pledged. Mr. Fisher asked the other Board members if they supported the idea of a referendum, or would prefer to use Revenue Sharing Funds, or take the monies from the General Fund and raise the tax rate accordingly. Mr. Dorrier said based on the cost analysis before the Board, he would prefer to do thi without a referendum and use Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. Roudabush said he did not know, since the cost figures are not available. He feels committed to the citizens of the county to provide a facility for the least amount of money. This might possibly be done without a referendum, but he can make no decision until an answe: is received from GSA. Mrs. David said it would be helpful to have a figure to work with. This question has been discussed and postponed long enough. She indicated her willingness to make a decision without going to a referendum. Dr. Iachetta said the whole question of what should be done will have to be reexamined after the total cost is known. He indicated ~hat he has an obligation to reexamine the commitments of'the predecessor Board in light of present needs. He said if the expenditure County funds is large, then the whole concept of the regional library must be reexamined relative to how much money would be spent if there were not a regional library. There are lots of needs and he does not put a library on the top of the list. Dr. Iachetta said he i not willing to spend this amount of money without a referendum. Mr. Henley said he feels a regional library is the right way to provide library service: but did not agree that a referendum ±s necessary before the Board can make a decision. Mr. Fisher suggested that a committee be appointed to arrive at an offer for pUrchase of the building as a first step. The~following were appointed: Mrs. O'Brien and Mr. Hendrix from the City; Mr. Fisher and Mr. Agnor from the County; Mrs. Katherine Hallock and Mr. Smitl from the Library Board, with Mr. Agnor coordinating the committee's efforts. Agenda Item No. 3. Executive Session: Litigation. At 9:15 P.M., motion was offered b Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mrs. David, to adjourn into executive session with City Council members and the Airport Board to discuss litigation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 9:38 P.M. at which time City Council members left the meeting. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn into executive session with members of the School Board,. the Superintendent of Schools and the Commonwealth Attorney, Mr. John A. Dezio, to discuss personnel matters. The motion carried by the follow~ recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 11:00 P.M. and motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by M~ Roudabush, to adjourn this meeting until September 22, 1976, at 3:00 P.M% in the Board Room the County OffiCe Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ~6~a-irman September 22,1976 (Afternoon - Adjourned from September 16, 1976) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 22, 1976, in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from SePtember 16,.~9~ PresenT: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: ~County Attorney. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. A~enda Item No. 2. Discussion: Eeualization Board. Present were Mr. Mobe~t~Ke!ler. 382 September 22, 1976 (Afternoon) ~Adjourned from September 16, 1976) Mr. Fisher noted that at the August 11, 1976, meeting, Mr. Robert Keller, Chairman of the Equalization Board, had presented~a memorandum containing a list of suggestions for improving the County's appraisal procedures. The Board has also received a memorandum from Mr. William Bradshaw, Chief Assessing Officer, making comments on Mr. Keller's memorandum Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board discuss the recommendations contained in Mr. Keller's memorandum, one at a time, to see if theseyrecommendations can be implemented. Mr. Keller has suggested that.the Equalization Board be budgeted so they can hire the necessary clerical and technical assistance to assure that an adequate assessment and sales ratio study will be made. Mr. Fisher asked the cost of staff, space, equipment, Yehicles, etc. to carry out'this recommendation. Mr. Keller said there is already $3,000 in the Real Estate Department's budget for the Equalization Board. Most of this money is spent in travelling around the County looking at individual properties. This work load of ~the Equalization Board could be reduced down to a supervisory level. Information could be supplied by Real Estate Department 'records. The major portion of the $3,000 would be used~ to make a ratio study of the new assessments in time for equalization considerations to be~ made. Mr. Fisher asked if this would require the hiring of a new staff person or be done ~y contract to an independent firm. Mr. Keller said the Equalization Board made a ratio study this year. They spent about 150 hours on this; all volunteer work. Mr. Fisher asked if $3,000 is an adequate amount. Mr. Keller said making such a study is simply a matter of copying figures from the files, part-time, and possibly could be done by reassignmer of a present County employee. Mr. Agnor said he understood the Equalization Board wanted to separate from the Assessor's Office and was not aware they were willing to take clerical help from that office. Mr. Fisher asked if the Equalization Board is primarily interested in making a sales ratio study. Mr. Keller said yes. Mr. Agnor said the Real Estate Assessor' Office makes such a stmdy. Mr. Keller said that was part of what he wanted to discuss today. A question has been raised as to why that sales ratio study does not serve the purposes of the Equalization Board. Mr. Roudabush said he did not understand how the Equalization Board could eliminate spending the $3,000 already budgeted. He asked if they would stop making visual inspections when appeals are received. Mr. Keller said it is his belief that if a ratio study is available before the assessment is made and the appraisals are properly equalized, this would reduoe the work load of the Equalization Board. The public hearings held by the Equalization Board should be no more than 12 applications on unique situations. Mr. Agnor said the Real Estate Assessor's Office does make a sales assessment ratio study which is utilized in the appraisal process, but M~.Keller does not think ii-is the type of study the Equalization Board should utilize. Mr. Keller asked if this meeting and.the one held in August were held originaliy at the request of a group of taxpayers who petitioned the Board to look into inequities which they feel exist in assessments. Mr. Dorrier said he had attended a citizens meeting in the Scotts. ville District, by invitation, and the Equalization Board was also present. There was discus as to whether the Equalization.Board would meet with the Board of Supervisors. At a meeting the next day, he told the Board that the Equalization Board would like to meet with them. Thc members were polled and it was the consensus that if such a meeting were requested, it would be held. Mr. Fisher said that was correct. After that Board meeting, he had called Mr. Keller and asked if the Equalization Board wanted to appear before this Board. Mr. Keller ha~ replied yes and the request was included on the August 11 agenda. Mr. Keller asked if a~grou~ of taxpayers present could make comments. Mr. Fisher said if the Board ever arrived at something to discuss, the public would be allowed to co~ent. The Board of Supervisors does not make any appraisals. If the Equalization Board is requesting the Board of Supervisors to provide help that will let the Equalization Board do a better job, that is a matter between the two boards. The Equalization Board does not need to solicit help from citizens to make any request of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Keller said at the August 11 meeting, the Equalization Board gave a list of recommend for improving the assessment/equalization process. The Assessor's Office commented publicly on only the ratio study requested. The ratio study made this year by the Equalization Board was critized as being based on raw, undigested data, yet the same study was used to claim that the County had a good assessment. To discuss this contradiction, it is necessary to define a C.D. (coefficient of dispersion). When a C.D. is applied to assessments, it is called an index of inequality. The sales ratio is made by taking sample appraisals, placing these on a chart and arbitrarily drawing a line through the middle of all the samples. This line is called the median, with one-half of all the samples falling on one side of the median and one- half of the samples falling on the other side of the median. Each one-half is then divided into quarters, in a locality having 20,000 samples, such as Albemarle, this puts 5,000 taxpayers into each of the four sections. If the County has a C.D. of 10, this means that 5,000 taxpayers are paying up to 10% over the median and 5,000 are paying 10% less. This ignores the 20,000 people who are paying above or below the 10% C.D. Mr. Keller said the Assessor's Office uses a quote which says that an' appraisal within 10-15% of the market value is accePtable. He disagrees with that statement while recognizing that mass appraisals are not completely accurate. The law says that appraisal of property is not an exact science and provides for an equalization process. In Albemarle County, that responsibility is vested in the Equalization Board which is charged with the duty of increasing as well as decreasing assessments so the burden of taxation rests equally on all citizens. The Board can act on its own motion and does not have:to wait for appeals. Mr. Fisher asked if the Equalization Board has accomplished this task. Mr. Keller said no. W~en ~hey~t~i~o~roCeed~with equalization Program~they ~a~into~resi~tance and opposition. Mr. FiSher asked if anybody had kept the Board of Equalization from meeting. Mr. Keller said no, but they had wasted five~months arguing about it. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone had kept the Equalization Board from look~hg~t the files. Mr. Keller said~not on an individual basis, but the Equalization Board was not given the help requested in order to do a proper ratio study. Mr. Fisher asked why the Equalziation Board had not done its job. Mr. Keller said they were challenged as to their authority to hold public hearings or to issue public notice. They were told that if they equalized all property in Albemarle County, the tax rate would be invalidated. Mr. Fisher said the Board of Supervisors had appointed the Equalization Board to do a jo] set out by State law. To now come back and say the job has not been done and to not give any specifics is confusing. Mr. Keller said one of the reasons the Equalization Board was present today is because they were asked by a group of taxpayers to make a list of recommendations for improving their job because the Equalization Board had to tell these taxpayers they could not equalize their property assessments. Mr. Fisher said he. did not understand the problem. There have been many boards of equalziation over the years and it is a demanding job. Often .on ~tions ~e~tember 22, 1976 (AfternQon) ~ ~A~j.ourned from September 16, 1976) 38,3 and responsibilities of the Equalization Board. The question seems to be whether or not the Equalization Board has the duty to do a complete equalization of every parcel of land in the County or whether they were appointed to hear complaints, and investigate and achieve a reso!u of those complaints. Mr. St. John said'when~the Equalization Board first organized this year, he was invited t advise them on their powers and duties. He advised them that they are a citizen body appointe by the Board of Supervisors and once appointed are completely independent of the County govern. merit hierarchy. ~-They~¢~n~ob~ain~adVise~from the Attorney General and the State Tax Commission Mr. St. John quoted from a~1931 Supreme Court case, "City of Lynchburg against Turner": "...w. the several sections of the tax code are read together, it is plainly the intent of these statutes that the general reassessment of real estate is to be made by the land assessors, not by the local board of equalization, that the function of the local board of equalization is to primarily equalize, as among themselwes the several items of the assessment made by the land. assessors. Its other powers and duties are incidental to this primary function and power." Mr. St. John said he was also asked if this should be done only in response to petitions from individual taxpayers. The answer to that is no. The Equalization Board has the duty to equalize the tax burden, whether or not petitions are filed or hearings requested by individua taxpayers. Mr. St. John noted a graph which Mr. Keller had used to explain a C.D. He said, o: the graph in question, the median appears to be at about 105% of market value. The Supreme Court, in this decision, is saying that the Equalization Board does not have the power to say the median is 105% of market value and to reduce every appraisal 5% to bring the median down. The Supreme Court is saying that it is the duty of the Equalization Board to take identifiable parcels of land and Put them at the median, not at market value. Mr. Fisher said even if an appraisal is perfect, there is no way to control sales prices. Mr. Keller said no, but by law the assessment is based, on the previous year's sales prices. W-henever an assessment is done, there will be sales prices available from the previous year an these should be used to equalize the assessment. Dr. Iachetta said the establishment of ratio require, s that somebody make a value judgment on whether a particular price is really the fair market value of a particular parcel. If someone decides to sell a parcel of land, under no apparent duress, for less than it would bring if he waited, that biases the median. If there were a number of such sales, the median would not be fair market value as defined under the law. Mr. Keller referred to the charts he had brought and noted that the Equalization Board is concerned with all of those property owners outside of the median range and feel the appraisal~ on these properties should be investigated. Mr. Agnor said the parcels on Mr. Keller's chart do not comprise one-half of all the parcels in Albemarle County, as Mr. Keller has indicated, but 25% of all sales that occurred during the time studied. Mr. Agnor said he is not convince~ that one-half of all parcels in Albemarle County are erroneously assessed simply because a quartile was done on the sales that occurred. The sales are a lesser number of parcels and th .sample taken is even less than that in comparison to the total assessment. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Equalization Board rejected any sales when taking the random sample used in their sales ratio~study. Mr. Keller said the State Department of Taxation furnishes a whole list of sales which should be disqualified. When there is a turn-over of land in the County of eight percent to ten percent a year, there is no trouble finding a marke value within ten percent, but not ten percent C.D. The C.D. gives only what is accepted on a mass appraisal. That is why there is an equalization process. Mr. Keller said the County quits at this point, therefore his criticism. The job is not finished at this point. Mr. Fisher asked if it is not the duty of the Equalization Board to finish the job. Mr. E~!ler said if it is not done, it becomes the job of the Equalization Board. He recommends that a ratio study be done on the appraisals before they are turned into assessments on the land book. Corrections can then be made by the Real Estate Ddepartment with the Equalization Board concurring in those corrections. This year there was a disagreement because the Equaliz; Board wanted to look into apparent discrepancies and they were blocked in their job. Dr. Iachetta asked if the people in the Real Estate Department had prevented the Equaliza. tion Board from doing their job. Mr. Keller said speaking personally, yes. Dr. Iachetta aske( how many members of the Equalization Board agreed with Mr. Keller. Mr. Yost agreed. Mr. Sinclair said from his study and review of the laws governing the Equalization Board, there ha~ been a difference in philosophy among the members. He understands it is the duty of the ~eal Estate ~epartment to make the appraisals. The Equalization Board can visit properties, talk t¢ taxpayers, and if they find comparable properties are out of line, then the Equalization Board will equalize the property based on'the appraisal of the Real Estate Department. He does not feel it is the duty of the Equalization Board to get involved in the internal workings of the Real Estat~D~partment. The sales ratio study brings up other problems and while cognizant of Mr. Keller's viewpoint, he is hesitant to take on 10,000+ parcels of property in the County. Mrs. Edmundson said there has obviously been a difference in philosophy among the members of the Equalization Board. Mr. Keller has raised many questions and some of them are valid. Mrs. Edmundson said she has found the personnel in the Real E~at~D~partment to be extremely cooperative. Some of the members thought the way duties of the Equalization Board were handle~ in the past were equitable. This caused a split among the members and this is the reason for this meeting today. Mr. Fisher said the Real Estate Department should be allowed to respond to the charges made. Mr. Keller apparently feels they have not done their job in the proper way and is requesting a way to parallel the operation so it can be done in a different way. Mr. Agnor said when dealing with mass appraisals, you must deal with averages (or statist~ which can be made to say whatever you want them to say. There is no way to deal with each parcel in Albemarle County on a case by case basis. This is done on the appraisal, but the assessment is always after the fact because market value is established as of a given date. When the appraisals are completed, a sales assessment ratio analysis is made and then looked from..the standpoint of averages. Mr. Bradshaw said the staff of the ~eal Estate.Department had given the Equalization all the time they could. They could not go back and reappraise every piece of property that had been appraised the previous year because there is another reassessment in progress this year. He did not feel 384 September 22, 1976 (Afternoon) (Adjourned from September 16, 1976) Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Harold Wingate, Wingate Appraisal Service, working under contr~ to Albemarle County on the current appraisal of County property, was present. He asked if Mr Wingate had experience with boards of-equalization in other counties. Mr. Wingate said they become more involved with boards of assessors who are required to holding public hearings to receive complaints, etc. Mr. Wingate said when talking about a ten percent C.D. and whether not this is acceptable, there are only three localities in the State of Virginia with a C.D. below ten percent; all others are over that figure. Mr. Dorrier said~.there were a lot of complaints from the Scottsville District concerning the appraisal of farm lands. He asked if a specific method is used for appraising farm or agricultural lands. Mr. Wingate said they ut all available sales on farm lands. These sales are then~ analyzed to see what is motivating t! buyer and seller. After this is done, the topography is checked. Adjustments are made for location; off the road, state-road frontage, etc. Mr. Dorrier asked if the potential for development is considered when appraising farm land. Mr. Wingate said the appraiser must always think about the highest and best use or the most profitable use a property can be put to, but this has to be within a reasonable foreseeable future. Dr. Iachetta said it seems Mr. Keller has taken issue with the whole State approved assessment-procedure, not necessarily that of the County. The State says that if you get within ten percent C.D., that is good, Mr. Keller said it is good only on the one-half of th County to which it applies. Dr. Iachetta asked how, without establishing another bureauracy, and assuming that there is a problem, is the problem to be solved. Mr. Keller said the only way is through the equalization process. Mr. Fisher said he felt-that some of Mr. Keller's points are correct. There should be something'~done to correct inequities on the one-half who fall outside of the so-called coeffi~ of dispersion because the Board does want to have appraisals which are fair and equitable. There seems to be a great many personality conflicts and differences in philosophy which appa] are getting in the way of deciding what should be done. Mr. Fisher asked how the staff tries ~to improve the appraisals on properties through the sales ratio study and how they deal with the properties which are far outside of the C.D. Mr. Bradshaw said the staff does not make a sales ratio~Stu~y until after a reasses.sment'. Mr'. Fisher said that is one difference. Mr. Keller is asking that the sales ratio study be made before the assessments are put~on the lan~ book so that corrections could be made at that point. Mr. Fisher asked if this is possible. Mr. Bradshaw said his office usually finishes the appraisals in November. Then the land book must be printed and it is December or January before the reassessment book is printed. Mr. Fisher asked if the process could be speede~_~up and the appraisals finished in July so there would be time. to carry out Mr. Keller's suggestion. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said when doing a biennial assessment, the law specifically says no sales that take place after th~ start of the field work can be used. The ratio study must be made prior to starting field wo~ and used all the way'through that period in which appraisals are being made. Also, once the total assessment becomes a matter of record, the assessor has no authority to make changes. Only the Board of Equalization has that authority. Mr. Dorrier said he did not understand w~ the Equalization Board did not equalize the parcels, on the outer edge of Mr. Keller's chart, this year. He asked it it was mu~h Work in too short a period of time. Mr. Keller said it becomes a question of identifying the parcels which are out of line. Then, the identified parcels cannot be equalized until they are qualified. Mrs. David said that is the reason she does not understand how this work can be done sitting in an office playing with statistics. Mr. Keller said there are plently of mistakes just on the records. One question this year turned up 14 assessments which the Real Estate Department agreed to change. The Equalization Board did go out and look at them, but did not have to, since it could have been decided in the office. There was~fl~t any argument at that point. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr, Keller was saying the Equalziation Board had not done the job for which it was appointed under State Code. Mr. Keller said that was right. Mr. Fisher sai he was astounded. Mr. Dorrier said he thought Mr. Keller had said he had not done his job because he could not and Mr. Dorrier did not understand exactly why. Mr. Drury Blake, a member of N.A.I., said Mr. Keller had called him and asked if he woul~ come to this meeting today and listen. Mr. Blake said there is a difference in an assessor doing an appraisal for assessments (tax purposes) and doing an appraisal for market values. confuse the two and expect every sales price to fall on the chart at C.D. is not possible. Mr. Roudabush said he did not think the Board should tell the assessors how to do their job or the Equalization Board how to do their job. Mr. Fisher said he has_heard nothing today except the fact that the Equalization Board not done its job. Mr. Henley said that was the opinion of Mr. Keller and he did not know if that opinion is shared by other members of the Equalization Board. Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Kell~ had said the Equalization Board did not do the job of equalizing all of the properties. Mr. Keller said the law gives as the primary job ~E~th~EqUa~Iza2ion Board the power to increase and decrease assessments on its own volition. That is their primary function and other duties are secondary. That is the one-half of the job the Equalization Board was not given the freedom to do. Mr. Fisher said it seems the conversation has come back to the same point were it was two hours ago; does the Equalization Board want staff time? Mr. Keller sai~ yes, if it is not provided or if data cannot be obtained from the Real Estate Department. Mrs. David said she did not think the Supervisors can expect to have a citizen board appointed which would have the statistical expertise that Mr. Keller has. The point that nee( to be resolved is whether or not the assessment~sales~ratio that is prepared by the Real Estate Department is wrong. She said Mr. Keller had not convinced her that it is wrong. Mr. Sinclair agreed with Mrs. David. He said that on all cases presented to the Board of Equaliz~ tion, they had done their job. Mr. Fisher said on that part of the question he thinks the Equalization Board has done their job, but Mr. Keller has said he feels there is more that should be done and nobody is doing it. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks Mr. Keller wants to minimize the error factor; as all do. Mr Keller has recommended a continuing annual reassessment. He asked why this is necessary. Mr Keller said it would reduce the time element between the available sales. Mr. Fisher said th: would require a larger expenditure of funds to complete the appraisals each year. Mr. Keller said it should not. If the County were on a continuing annual appraisal, there would be no need to visually inspect every piece of property each year. Mr. Fisher said he has heard fro~ man~ an~r~ taxpayers who feel their ~ro~ert~ has been a~raised b~ somebod~ who was not on th~ ct r e e lent ently S r September 22, 1976 (Afternoon-Adjourned from September 16, 1976) 385 Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Wingate about more modern assessment methods used by other _ Iocalities in the State. Mr. Wingate said there are some computer options available to Albemarle County when making the sales ratio studies. Computerizing some of the data collec to give the ability to make a property card complete with a sketch and that card then used i the field when making future assessments would be a help. There are other things which can done without going full'scale computerization or without going to multiple regression. Mr. Wingate said he would be happy to discuss these methods with the Board at some future time. Mr. Fisher said that for the three months this Equalization Board is still in office, they should continue with their work and the staff~be requested to give them the informatio~ and cooperation needed to do their job. This does not mean the Eeal~Estate or any other County department is to completely drop their work just to work on the problem of equalizing last year's appraisals. Some balance must be kept. He asked that Mr. Agnor be responsible for making that decision and seeing that adequate help is given. Mr. Fisher said that is a different question from providing the Equalization Board~with a staff to do an independent sales ratio study in the last three months of this year. He did not think that is a reasonable request since a ratio study is made by the State and the County's staff. However, the question of how the staff's study is done and whether or not it is adequate needs to be resolved. Mr. Fisher said he thought the Board could ask the State Department of Taxation for help to see if they think the staff's study is misleading or whether various types of sales should have been thrown out, etc. This seems like the first step the Board should take. Mr. Henley said he would like to point out' that it is easier to move a big pile of dirt a little bit at a time than to try and move the whole thing. He feels Mr. Keller has been trying to move the whole pile at one time. Mr. Dorrier said he knows this problem did not originate in the Scottsville District, but last year the Scottsville District felt the brunt of the problem. There were many public meetings with hundreds in attendance who never appealed to the Equalization Board even though they were encouraged to do so. There are many people in the County who are unsure of the system and afraid to come forward and fight the tax office. Mr. Dorrier said he commends this Equalization Board for bringing the problem to the Board and trying to correct it this year. At this point, motion.was offered by Dr. Iachetta~to ask the State Department of Taxation if they will specifically look at the procedures presently being used by the Albemarle County Real Estate Assessor's Office in the assessment of real property, and then to meet with the Equalization Board to discuss the results of that study; with a report to the Board~ of Supervisors. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David. Dr. Iachetta said this a way of trying to resolve the questions raised today. This is not intended to reflect that the staff is not diligently doing their job. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and~Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said Dr. Charles W. Beegle had asked if he could present petitions to the Board. Dr. Beegle said the meeting mentioned earlier was at his house. Mr. Dorrier was present at that time. Because only a few people applied to the Board of Equalization does not mean that people are not concerned about taxation in this County. These petitions were signed by a group of people last year who were donating toward an organization to hire an attorney. It was ~felt that with the change in boards, they would back off and see what happened during the year. Dr. Iachetta noted that the petition asked for an executive session of the Board of Supervisors and the Equalizations. Board to discuss tax problems. Dr. Iachetta said that under no circumstances would he ever discuss such matters in executive session, even if allowed to under State Code, or even if personalities become involved. Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Parks Department Questionnaire. Mr. Robert Sampson, Director of Parks and Recreation, said the survey was patterned after one from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. It has been tested in several communities. Over a year ago, the Board of Supervisors asked the Parks Committee for long-range plans on parks and recreation. This is one means of reaching people who use the parks, people who do not use the parks, advocates of expansion and those who ar~ opponents. With budget work sessions coming up soon, this will be a means by which to validate any requests for funding. The survey will be conducted by a team of five people, by telephone. One-third will be called Monday and Friday during working hours. One-third will be called in the evening after dinner and one- third will be called on week-ends. There has been a random sampling of 1200 telephone numbers choosen, with the help of the telephone company, and they expect to complete 300 interviews. The results will be compiled on a computer with the'print-out distributed to the Parks Committee members for use in doing a much larger study of the whole for providing recreational services and parks. The survey is lengthy and is expected to take about ten minutes to complete by telephone. Sherri Kimes, a summer intern in the parks office, put this package together. Several Board members expressed concern about the length of the survey, and the questions on race and income. It was the concensus that the survey should be conducted in the name of the Parks Con~r~ittee and not that of Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 4. At 6:05 P.M., Dr. Iachetta offered motion to recess for supper. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. 386 September 22, 1976 (Night - Adjourned from September 16, 1976) The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse for a continuation of items on the agenda. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: 1977 Legislative Proposals. (Notice of this item was published in the Daily Progress on September 11 and September 18, 1976.) Mr. Fisher, welcomed Delegates Thomas Michie and James Murray to the meeting. He then called on the public for comments. Mr. Roy Barksdale felt the Building Code creates numerous problems, particularly with outbuildings costing less than $500.00. The State allows a waiver of the building Anspection wh~re construction costs are less than $1,000 and hea~requested that something be done by the Board. Another item which receives a lot of complaints is when hunting lodges are built on the top of a mountain and required by the Code to have an approved septic system. He felt this was an unfortunate requirement. Delegate Murray thought there had been a regulation changed on vacation homes. No action was taken for a legislative change. Mr. Agnor presented a request from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of F~nance, for a change in Code of Virginia 58-1142. Mr. Jones felt the section should allow for correction of erroneous assessments certified by the Director of Finance to the County, City or Commonwealth Attorney either by exoneration or refund. Now it allows for correction by exoneration if the taxes are not paid without approval of the governing body. Mr. Jones suggested this be made optional for the governing body to delegate by resolution the authority to the Director of Finance to make refunds approved by the County, City or Commonwealth Attorney. He felt the current procedure cumbersome and time consuming. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution. The mo~ion .was seconded by Mrs~ David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the General Assembly of Virginia~be, and it hereby is, memorialized that the Board~of Supervisors recmmmends that Section 58-1142 of the Code of Virginia (1950) be amended to read as follows: ~f ~,?~:??~.~]~,~.~on 58-1142. Correction by Commissioner or other official .~- duties. - If such commissioner of'the revenue, or other 6fficial performing the duties imposed on commissioners of revenue under this Title, be satisfied that he has erroneously assessed such applicant with any such levy, as aforesaid, the commissioner or other official shall correct such assessment-. If the assessment exceeds the proper amount, the commissioner or such other official shall exonerate the applicant from the payment of so much as is erroneously charged if not paid into the Treasury of the county or city; and if paid, the governing body of the county or city shall, upon the certificate of the commissioner or such other official with consent of the town,_ city or Commonwealth's attorney that such assessment was erroneous,'direct the Treasurer of the county or city to ~refund the excess to the taxpayer, with interest, if authorized pursuant to Section 58-1152.2, provided such time be within three years from the thirty-first day of December of the year in which such assessment was made. The governing body of the county or city may, by resotution~ authorize the Treasurer of the county or city to refund such excess to the taxpayer upon receipt of the certificate aforesaid without further action of the governing body. If the assessment be less than the proper amount, the commissioner or such other official shall assess such applicant with the proper amount; provided, further, that if any assessment be erroneous, because of a mere clerical error or calculation, the same may be corrected as herein provided and with or without petition from the taxpayer involved, and without any limitation as to time. A copy of any correction made under this section shall be certified by the commissioner or such other official to the treasurer of his county or the treasurer or city collector of his city; provided, however, that when an unpaid erroneous assessment of real estate is corrected under this section and such real estate has been sold at a delinquent tax sale, the commissioner or such other official making such correction shall certify a copy of such correction to the clerk of the Circuit Court of his county or to the Clerk of the Court in whose office deeds are admitted to record in his city, as the case may be; and such clerk shall note such correction in the Delinquent Land Book opposite the entry of the tract or lot for the year or years for which such correction is made. No refund of a State capitation tax shall be made under this section. Mr. Agnor then presented a second: ~ request from Mr. Jones for a change in Code of Virginia Section 58-983. He felt this section should make it optional for the governing body to advertise delinquent lists of real estate and personal property taxes. He felt there were adequate means in the code to collection without advertising and felt advertising was very costly and embarrassing to taxpayers. He felt more could be aomomplished by placing liens on the taxpayer's estate, bank accounts or salary. Motion was offered by~r. ROud~bU~-~o approve the 'following resolution. seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vo~e: AYES: Mrs. David and. Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mrs. David BE IT RESOLVED by .the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the General Assembly of Virginia be, and it hereby is, memorialized that the Board of Supervisors recommends that Section 58-983 of the Code of September 22, 1976 (Night - Adjourned from September 16, 1976) 387 Se~2~on 58-983.~ Delinquent lists involving local levies submitted to local governing bodies; publication of lists; lands improperly placed on book, or not ascertainable; recordation of lien. - (a) a copy of each of the three lists mentioned in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) in Section 58-978 shall be submitted by the treasurer to the governing body of his county or city. Such lists shall be submitted at the first mee6ing of the governing body held after the treasurer shall have completed the lists. The governing body may direct the treasurer to certify to the appropriate commissioner of the revenue a copy of the list of real estate on the commissioner's land book improperly placed thereon or not ascertainable and the commissioner of the revenue shall correct his land book accordingly; and the treasurer shall be given credit for the entire amount of the taxes and levies included in the list and may destroy the tax tickets made out by him for such taxes and levies. The governing body e~a~& may cause the lists mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Section 58-978, or such parts thereof as deemed advisable, to be published once in a newspaper in the county or city, but if there be no newspaper published in the county or city then in some newspaper having general circulation therein or in handbills to be posted generally throughout the county or city, and at the front door of the courthouse thereof for a period of thirty days. (b) If the taxes and levies on any real estate appearing in the list mentioned in paragraph (2) of Section 58-978 are not paid by the third anniversary of the original due date thereof, a lien shall be recorded by the treasurer in the appropriate clerk's office or other office in which such liens are customarily recorded. Mr. Jones also requested a change in Code of Virginia 58-990. He felt there should be permissive legislation to forego collection of local taxes in amounts of less than $2.00. He felt time. and postage amounted~ to more than~amounts collected. He felt an amendment to Code of Virginia 58-990 could incorporate this feature or permissive legislation similar to Section 58-996 (which allows the State Tax Commission to "charge-off" state taxes) allowing local tax officers to "charge-off" uncollected taxes. Motion was th~n offered by Mrs. David to approve the following resolution. seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Dr. Iachetta AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the General Assembly of Virginia be, and it hereby is, memorialized that the Board of Supervisors recommends that Section 58-990 of the Code of Virginia.(1950) be amended as follows: Section 58-990. Subsequent collection of delinquent local levies by treasurer. At the expiration of one year following June thirtieth of the year as of which such delinquent lists speak, the treasurer shall again submit a copy of each of the lists mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Section 58-978 to the board of supervisors or other governing body of his county or the council of his city, such sUbmission to be made at the first meeting of such board or council or other governing body held after such date. Such lists so resubmitted shall show the changes which have occurred since June thirtieth of the preceding year and the treasurer shall continue his efforts to collect the then unpaid local levies upon the real estate included in the list mentioned in paragraph (2) of Section 58-978 until a lien has been recorded in the appropriate clerk's office or other office in which such liens are customarily recorded.; provided, however~ that the governing body may, by resolution~ authorize the treasurer to charge off unpaid local levies of less than $2.00. Such board, council or other governing body may require the treasurer to continue to collect such delinquent local levies included in the list mentioned in paragraph (3) of Section 58-978 for an additional period of two years, at the end of which time he shall return to the board, council or other governing body, a list of such of the levies as may then remain unpaid, together with any tax tickets representing the same and shall be given credit for the aggregate amount thereof and shall not thereafter be required to make any further collections thereon; provided, however, that: (1) In any county in this State which adjoins three cities, one of which cities has a population of one hundred seventy thousand or more, the board of supervisors of such county may, in its discretion, evidenced by resolution, require the treasurer to continue to collect such delinquent local levies for such period, longer than two years, as may be prescribed by the board and may rescind such requirement and may reimpose the same from time to time; and the treasurer of any such county shall monthly make report to such board of such collections and the board may require the treasurer, from time to time, to report to it all uncollected delinquent local levies, such report to be in a form prescribed by the board; (2) In any county containing more than five hundred inhabitants per square mile, the board of supervisors or other governing body may, in its discretion, evidenced by resolution recorded in its minutes, require the treasurer to continue to collect such delinquent local levies included in the lists mentioned in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Section 58-978 for such period, longer than two years, as may be prescribed by the board or other governing body and may rescind such requirement and may reimpose the same from time to time; and the 388 September 22, 1976 (Night - Adjourned from September 16, 1976) such collections; and the board or other governing body may require the treasurer, from time to time, to report to it all uncollected delinquent local levies, such report to be in a form prescribed bY the board or other governing body; and (3) In any city adjoining a county having a density of population equal to five hundred or more to the square mile, if the city council shall so provide, by order or orders entered on the minute book of the council, the city treasurer shall continue to collect the delinquent local taxes and levies, including capitation taxes, if any, until such time as the Department of Taxation shall appoint a collector in such city to collect the delinquent State taxes under the provisions of Section 58'997, and thereafter the person so appointed to collect the delinquent State taxes, and no other person~ shall collect the delinquent local taxes and levies, including capitations, if any, upon such terms as may be agreed upon; provided, however, that the person so appointed shall have all power and authority for the collection of such delinquent local taxes~and levies, by levy, distress, or otherwise, as treasurers of cities have under the general laws and shall account for collections made by him, as provided by general law. Mr. Agnor said the next resolution~pertained to Code Section 29-184, Dog Tag Fees~ He said it Is~ recommended that the State Code be amended so that local governments can establish their own fees if they provide a dog warden. Mr. Jones felt the current dog license fees are inadequate for the cost of providing two dog wardens, dog claims, vaccinatio~ clinics, and the cost of the S~P~C.A. for strays. He thought an alternative to the higher license fees could be legislation exempting the County from payment of livestock and fowl claims. Mr. Henley felt that those having kennel license keep their dogs in the kennel and present no problem. Mr. Fisher did not feel there were enough 20 and 50 dog kennels in the County to make a difference in the amount of revenue collected. Mr. Agnor thought it was more of setting a limit. Delegate Michie suggested that this item be directed to the State Commission that is currently working on the matter. Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Ray Jones to direct his concern to the Chairman of that Commission. The next request was to amend Section 58-26.1 to allow charging a $~0.00 penalty to compensate the County for the costs involved in the collection of bad checks for state taxes. Delegate Michie thought some action had been taken on this matter. Mr. Fisher suggested investigating this matter and if action has not ~'taken, to do so. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve a~.resa~U~n pertaining to this section. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. (Letter was received from Delegate Michie stating that Section 15.1-29.4 ~f/the Code has been enacted on this matter.) Delegate Michie inquired about a previous request for legislation concerning a fee to be paid to the Circuit Court Clerk for applications filed under the land use tax. Mr~ Fisher felt it should.be proposed again. Motion was offered by Mr. He~ley to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, Code Section 58-769.10 provides in part that the local governing body shall compensate the Clerk at the rate of $1.00 per land use tax application filed and indexed, notwithstanding any limitation provided in Section 14.1-1~3 or any other section of the Code of Virginia; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County, pursuant to Code Section 58-769.10 also requires the local assessing officer to prepare and transmit to the Clerk a list of all land use tax applications filed and approved, and the Clerk shall index the names in a book entitled "Land Use Tax Assessment Book" and file said application in the Clerk's office; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Department of Finance will present to the Clerk land use tax assessment information in a book entitled "Land Use Tax Assessment Book" in its final form such that it seems unnecessary to pay a fee of $1.00 for each parcel to cover the cost of preparing such a listing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth hereby is memorialized to amend Code Section 58-769.10 to provide that the local governing body does not have to compensate the Clerk at the rate of $1.00 per application filed and indexed when the local governing body presents the required land use tax information to the Clerk in final form. In this regard, Albemarle County recommends changing Code Section 58-769.10 to read as follows: . . .the local assessing officer shall prepare and transmit to the Clerk a list of all applications filed and approved hereunder and the Clerk shall index the names in a book entitled "Land Use Tax Assessment Book" and file said application in the Clerk's Office. The local governing body beginning on July 1, 1973, compensate the Clerk at the rate of $1.00 per application filed and indexed notwithstanding any limitation provided in Section 14.1-143 o~ any Other section Of the Code of Virginia. However, at his option, the local assessing officer shall prepare a list of all applications filed and approved here~nd'Sr and index-6~e nameS~in a bb'ok entitled "Land Use Tax ~e~S~ment Book~' and file said book in said Clerk's Office, no compensation September 22, 1976 (Night - Adjourned from September 16, 1976) the land use tax assessment book by the local assessing officer in final form. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor presented a request from the School Administration for consideration to be given to life insurance under the Supplemental Retirement System being made optional instead of mandatory. Mr. Fisher noted that this. issue has been controversial for a number of ~ears. ~LIachetta agreed that this program should be optional. Mr. Agnor said at the .9'76 session of the General Assembly some features of the VSRS program were changed. It was the consensus of the Board to pursue this matter further. Mr. Agnor thought this was mandatory for all on the VSRS program. Mr. Fisher suggested investigating the matter to see where the responsibility lies. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher asked the status of the local option income tax bill. Delegate Michie said the revenue resource committee is studying this matter. Mr. Fisher was concerned with the attitude in Richmond restricting the-ability of localities to find tax sources other than the property tax. If the legislators do not'want to increase state taxes, he feels local government should be allowed to levy an income ~a~r~ther than raise property°taxes. Mr. Dorrier felt some alternative was needed for relief to property taxes. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve the following resolution: WHEREAS, Albemarle County favors giving local governments of the Commonwealth of Virginia the option to tax the income of their citizens; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County believes that the local option income tax would lead to a more equitable system of taxation; NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia be, and hereby is, memorialized to pass enabling legislation granting local governments in Virginia the option to tax the income of their citizens. Mrs. David seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: .YES: ~AYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta (supporting with reservations) and Roudabush. _~'.~ -i None. Mrs. David asked about local support which had been requested by the School Board concerning the enactment of enabling legislation to allow the governing body and the School Board the right to accept land, or money in lieu of land, as payment for the impact created ~n the school division. Delegate Murray said this has been directed to a study commission. ~r. Fisher thought that was supported several years ago and was unsure of what the outcome ~as. Mr. St. John thought this was to allow developers to voluntarily give funds where they can already contribute land. No action was taken on this matter. Mrs. David said she did not feel it necessary for the Board to approve claims against ;he Dog Fund and would like to have these .claims approved administratively. After a brief liscussion between the Board members on this matter, it was the consensus of the Board ;o request amendment of Section 29-202. Motion was offered by Mrs. David to approve the ~o!lowing resolution. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following ~ecorded vote: ~YES: ~AYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the General Assembly of Virginia be, and it hereby is, memorialized that the Board of Supervisors recommends that Section 29-202 of the Code of Virginia (1950) be amended as follows: Section 29-202. Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs.--Any person who has any livestock or poultry killed or injured by any dog not his own shall be entitled to receive as compensation therefor a reasonable value of such livestock or poultry; provided that in the counties of Bland, Fauquier, Giles, Smyth, Wythe, Halifax, Pittsylvania, Washington, Russell, Tazewell, Patrick, Rockbridge, Fairfax, Carroll, Floyd and Grayson, the governing body may compensate the claimant upon the basis of the assessed value of such livestock and the fair value of unassessed lambs and poultry, but in no event to exceed the reasonable value thereof. Nothing herein shall be construed as limiting the common-law of an owner of a dog for 390 10 (Night - Adjournec September 22, 1976 from September 16~ lg76) . isilPaid to the right of action~to the owner of such livestock or Poultry against the owner of the dog and may enforce the same in an appropriate action at law. Claimants for damages shall furnish evidence under oath of quantity and value to the governing body of the county or of any city within ninety days after sustaining such damage. The governing body of the city or county~ may~ by reso!ution~ authorize the chief administrative officer of such city or county to approve and pay claims for compensation authorized by this section. Provided, however, that if the governing body of the counties of Surry, Caroline, Stafford, Roanoke, Carroll, Grayson, King George, Smyth, Wythe, Sussex and Floyd so prescribe by ordinance, no payment by the county shall be made under this section unless and until the claimant shall have exhausted his legal remedies against the owner of the dog doing the damage for which compensation under this section is sought; such governing body of such county may require the submission of evidencathat the claimant has exhausted his legal remedies against the owner of the dog, if known; and provided further that the governing body of the counties of Wythe, Sussex, and Greene may prescribe by ordinance that no payment shall be made by the county under the provisions of this section unless the owner of such livestock or poultry shall have notified the dog warden for such county of his intention to make a claim~hereunderand shall have afforded such dog warden an opportuntiy to view such livestock or poultry within forty-eight hours after the death thereof; provided further, however, that, in addition to any other requirement, in the counties of King George, Stafford and Caroline, no such claim shall be allowed by the governing body thereof unless the owner or custodian of such livestock notifies the sheriff of such county, his deputy or ~the dog warden, of the alleged loss or damage to such livestock within twenty-four hours of the time of the death of or injury to such livestock; and such officer certifies in writi~ng to the governing body that he found physical evidence upon the animal or animals showing that a dog or dogs caused such injury or death. Mr. Dorrier felt the transient lodging tax should be readopted for an increase that should be charged and offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Mr. Henley secondSd the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ~Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: NOne. (Delegate Michie was in agreement for the rate to be increased.) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the General Assembly of Virginia be, and it hereby is, memorialized that the Board of Supervisors recommends that Section 58-76.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950) be amended as follows: Section 58-76.1. Albemarle, Mecklenberg, Loundon, Prince William, Fairfax, and Arlington Counties are authorized to levy a transient occupancy tax on hotels, motels, boarding houses, and travel campgrounds. Such tax shall be in such amount and on such terms as the governing body may, by ordinance, prescribe; provided that, such tax shall not exceed ~we four per centum of the amount of charge for the occupancy of any room or space occupied. The tax imposed hereunder shall not apply to rooms or spaces rented for continuous occupancy by the same individual or group for 30 or more days in hotels, motels, boarding houses, and travel campgrounds. Nothing herein contained shall affect any authority heretofore granted to any local government to levy such a transient occupancy tax. Mrs. Martha Selden, member of the Citizens for Albemari~, Scenic Roads Committee, oresented the following request: "We would like to ask you to recommend an amendment to the Code of Virginia 33.1-371. The provision about which~we are concerned is part of an amendment to the Code of Virginia adopted by the legislature during the last session to put Virginia in compliance with the Federal Highway Beautification Act's latest amendments. The provision establishes an advisory committee to the Governor. The committee has ten members who represent the following organizations: The Virginia Travel Council, the Virginia Hotel & Motel Association, the Virginia Motel Association, the Virginia Restaurant Association, the outdoOr advertising industry,b~he operators of camp-grounds, the Virginia Truck- stop Operators Association, the operators of attractions, the petroleum indmstry, and the Garden Club of Virginia. This committee will have an important role in the next few months as the Highway Commission decides'how to conform to this year~s amendment to the Highway Beautification Act. This amendment is confusing but it at minimum seems to require a new agreement with th~ Federal Department of Transportation on a travel oriented directimnal system, one that will last a long time. September 22, 1976 (Night - Adjourned from September 16, 1976) We would recommend that you ask that the committee be evenly divided between those representing the travel-oriented businesses of Virginia and those whose first concern is the protection of Virginia's lovely environment. We would recommend too that local governments might be ~.z~f~:~r~d ~:- notified of an opportunity to nominate members of this part of the committee membership. We would hope that the Conservation Council might play a part in the final selection." Motion was offered by Mrs. David to approve the ~.fo~t:m~ing~:~ resolution. seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Dr. Iachetta AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the General Assembly of Virginia be., and it hereby is, memorialized that the Board of Supervisors recommends that Section 33.1-371 of the Code of Virginia (1950) be amended as follows: Section 33.1-371. Regulations and agreements with United States implementing Section 33.1-370; advisory committee. - The State Highway and Transportation Commission may issue regulations, and is authorized to enter into agreements with the United States as provided in 23 United States Code Section 131, with respect to the regulation and control of signs, advertisements and advertising structures in conformity with Section 33.1-370; provided that such agreements shall not prevent the General Assembly of Virginia from amending or repealing Section 33.1-370 at any time, provided further, that in the event the federal law is amended to lessen the special restrictions applicable to signs, advertisements and advertising structures adjacent to interstate or federal-aid primary highways, the State Highway and Transportation Commission is authorized to adopt regulations to conform to such change in federal law and to amend any agreement with the United States relating to such control. The Governor shall appoint an advisory committee of e[e~e~ twelve members, composed of e~e-~e~e~e~a~&~e-eae~-~e,m-~e-~&~&~&a-~a~e~-~e~e~, ~8-~e-~eSe~&~-~&e, six representatives from each travel oriented businesses and those interested in the protection of the environment, with one member designated by the Governor as Chairman. The members shall receive no salary or reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with the performance of their duties. Prior to making any such appointment~ the Governor shall advise the governing bodies of every oity~ county and town within the Commonwealth and solicit from them nominations for such appointment. The advisory committee shall (1) review the Federal and State laws and regulations restricting the erection and maintenance of signs and advertisements adjacent to interstate and federal-aid primary highways to detarmine the convenience and safety impact on the motoring public and the economic impact such restrictions are having on businesses within the Commonwealth~ and (2) recommend to the State Highway and Transportation Commission revisions in its regulations or additional regulations, not in conflict with Federal or State law, which the committee deems necessary or desirable to improve the convenience and safety of the motoring public or to lessen the economic impact on businesses. The Committee may also make recommendations to the Governor and the General Assembly regarding the same matters. The State Highway and Transportation Department shall cooperate with and assist the advisory committee in carrying out the committee's duties. M~;~S~T John noted that no service fee is charged currently for a deputy sheriff serving civil papers. There was a brief discussion on this matter but no action was taken. Agenda Item No. 6; Proposed Ordinance for Biennial Assessment of Real Estate. Mr. Agnor read the To~low±ng/memorandum from Ray Jones: UFirst, the Board of Supervisors should pass an ordinance pursuant to Section 58-778.1 of the Code'of Virginia. The act was passed in the 1976 Session of the General Assembly. The Attorney General's Office recommended that if Albemarle County was to continue on a biennial assessment program, it should seek permissive legislation which we did this year. I noted last January 21, 1976 after a conversation with Mr. Stuart Connock of the State Department of Taxat~.on on my copy of the proposed legislation that 'Albemarle County must adopt a new ordinance' to ratify our action once the legislation was passed. As you know, the State Department of Taxation was of the opinion it could be done under the old law; however, they recommended specific legislation as did the Attorney General. The State Department of Taxation supported this legislation (58-778.1) in the General Assembly a-nd S~nator~ Michael introduced it for us. Also, it was supported by the Virginia Association of Counties. Second, the ordinance should~set forth the !00 per cent assessment to be effective January 1, 1977 with the new reassessment. This is set forth in the Code of Virginia 58-760. This is required for all ~eassessments effective on or after January 1, 1976. Even though it is required by State 392 September 22, 1976 (Night - Adjourned from ~o~ien was offered by Mr. Henley ordering the County Attorney to draft an ordinance for the biennial assessment or, real estate at 100 per cent marke~v~ue. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Ordinance for making tax refunds. Mr. Agnor said Section 58-1152.1,.~amended by the 1976 Session of the General Assembly, allows adoption of an ordinance which would allow refunds of taxes within two years from date of collection upon certification by the assessing officer. Mr. Jones feels this procedure will help reduce the time lapse which often irritated taxpayers. Dr. Iachetta offered motion ordering the County Attorney to draft sUch an ordinance. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier,-Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Authorize Chairman to Sign Renewal Agreement with Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Agnor said Bhe Board is requested annually to renew their contract with the Soil Conservation Service in+~rd~r~to continue the soil survey now in progress. Motion was offered by-Mr. Henley to authorize the Chairman to sign the renewal agreement Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion-and same carried'by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and~Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Report of the County Executive for the month of August, 1976, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation: Airport Board. The following memorandum ~as read: "To: City Manager County Executive From: Airport Manager Subject: Appropriation for FAA-04 Obstruction Removal Project It is my understanding that the County Board.of Supervisors and City Council meeting jointly on September 16, 1976 gave tentative approval for the Airport Board to commence work which would lead to a grant from the FAA to remove obstructions in the area of the Airport. As the amount needed to begin the project, $5,000.00 from each locality was so near to the amount~of the estimated appropriation share of the total project cost of $7,500 each, the localities will appropriate this amount at their next meeting. This memo requests an appropriation from each locality of $7,500~'00 which corresponds with the presently estimated appropriation share of this project. We will most certainly need one or more loans throughout this project as we are only dealing with 5% local money. We will keep each governing body apprised of the needs (which by design will be kept to a minimum) sixty days prior to needing the money." M~$!~ was offered by Mrs. David to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors. of Albemarle County, Virginia does hereby appropriate $7,500.00 from the General Fund and transferred to Code 19J for the purpose of ~A~04Obs:truc~ion~Removal. 'Mr~D~r~!er seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roud~bush. NAYS: None. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher read a letter of resignation from Mr. M. Roy Harris, a member of the Parks Committee, effective immadlate!y. Mr. Henley then offered motion to accept Mr. Harris' resignation. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the-following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David~and Mes.srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor noted a letter which had been received from the HUD office in Richmond askinE fo~ any objections to an application by the Virginia Housing Development Authority in the amount of $2,1~3,176~o be used as rent supplements for 1200 housing units in seven congressional districts. He said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission area will have 84 housing units available. It will be administered through the Welfare v September 22, 1976 (Night - Adjourned from S~ptember 16, 1976) ~'~or information', Mr. St. Zoning Appeals on the W. F. P@ Claims against the Count and certified to the Director Commonwealth of Virg General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund John described to the Board the decision of the Board of ulett & Son, incorporated case. ~ortthe month of Au~ust~were presented, examined, allowed of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds: inia--Current Credit Account School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Comp]ex Fund Town of Scottsville--l% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund 1,861.96 406,432.34 495,702.30 234,740.30 7.OO 54,~617.09 92.33 44,353.43 $1,237,806.75 Claims against the County for the month of September were presented, examined, allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the~following funds: Commonwealth of Virginia--Current Credit Account General Fund School F~nd Cafeteria FUnd School C~nstruction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook F~nd ~oint Security Complex.Fund Town of Scottsville--!% Lo~l~Sgtes Tax Fede~l Revenue Sharing F~nd $ 6Z4.20 382~990.01 1,026~.867.40 139,780.70 44,280.95 102.13 3,45O.50 $1,597,245.89 At 10:08 P.M., Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adjourn. and same carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Henley seconded the motion AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None.