Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-04-12April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 12, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg, and Clerk, Ella W. Carey. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Martin. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Jason Halbert commented that he lives at 208 Little Graves Street in the City. He pointed out the green packets which were presented to the Board members, and indicated that they were the reason he was present. He said there is a window of opportunity at the Federal level to protect 50 to 60 million acres of public lands in the United States, and the issue is whether or not to protect roadless areas in the national forests. The two Senators from the State of Virginia, John Warner and Chuck Robb have already signed a letter which is enclosed in the green packets endorsing the idea of protecting the remaining roadless areas in the national forests. The importance of this issue is immense in light of the increased stress put on watersheds, community water supplies and the costs of paying for new municipal water cleaning facilities, etc. He explained that 80 percent of the clean drinking water in the United States originates on public lands, and of those areas, wilderness areas and roadless areas represent the best sources for clean drinking water. The water here in the County and City comes from Shenandoah National Park, and water in most of the major cities in the western half of the state comes from national forests, including Washington D.C. He hopes the individual Supervisors, or the Board as a whole, will endorse this opportunity to support an administrative protection of the 400,000 acres of these roadless areas in Virginia. There is a letter included in the packets addressed to the U.S. Forest Service Chief, Mike Dombeck. He also pointed out that President Clinton came to the George Washington/Jefferson National Forest and announced this policy last fall. He is a member of the community, and he will be willing to answer questions outside of this forum. He also noted that Lyndy Worsham is working from the Southern Environmental Law Center as a resource person. ____________ Mr. John Martin, a resident of Free Union, said he wanted to address an issue raised by the Rivanna Board of Directors as to whether or not the governing body of Albemarle County will be one of the decision makers with respect to the new water supply. The issue was raised by a draft statement of the decision making process released to some members of the public last Thursday, April 6, by the Chairman of the Rivanna Board apparently at the legal review of Rivanna and the Service Authority Legal Counsel, but not by the City Attorney nor the County Attorney. He has provided the Board of Supervisors with a copy of the Rivanna document, and according to this document, one sentence contained in the 1973 Four Party Agreement excludes the Board of Supervisors as a participant in the final decision making. He added that the sentence contained in Section 4.1, captioned “New Facilities” reads, “Rivanna shall also undertake the provision of such additional facilities as may be agreed upon from time to time by the City, the Service Authority and Rivanna.” Based upon this singular sentence in a 19 page document excluding attachments, the Rivanna draft concludes, “The final decision about which alternatives to recommend for approval to the regulating agencies will be made as agreed upon by the City, the ACSA and the RWSA Board of Directors.” He said following a discussion of this matter, at the League’s Natural Resources Meeting last Thursday attended by himself and the Chairman of Rivanna, his impression was and remains that it is unfathomable to think that the 1973 Board of Supervisors intended to cede decision making responsibilities and power to the City Council. The language contained in the singular sentence issue is basically troubling when read outside of the entire context of the Four Party Agreement. On Sunday, April 9, 2000, he sent an e-mail to the Rivanna Chairman who asked for comments on the draft. Mr. Martin said he has provided the Supervisors with a copy of his comments which include an imposing interpretation of the singular sentence issue and the suggestion that it was neither the intention nor the purpose of the Four Party Agreement to exclude the County in future decision making. He also suggested that this is a matter that deserves intense legal scrutiny. He added that before deciding to raise the issue this evening, he considered whether it might be premature to raise it during the Board session, because it will undoubtedly receive further study outside of this chamber. However, he said time is of the absolute essence in getting this dispute resolved. According to this evening’s agenda, this Board session will be adjourned to the April 18 meeting on water supply alternatives. As a member of the public, it is somewhat disconcerting that at this important meeting the question of who is responsible for final decision making will be extant. Furthermore, Rivanna will have an important meeting next Friday in which the public is not allowed. He said an existence of an issue outlined by Rivanna indicating that the community is confused as to whom will make the final decisions is somewhat an embarrassment. He reiterated that time is of the essence. If Rivanna’s interpretation is without legal merit it should be swiftly rejected. On the other hand, if Rivanna’s interpretation is correct, then this Board may wish to take corrective action by joining with the City to amend the concurrent resolution entered with the City on June 7, 1972 establishing Rivanna. He April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) is sorry to raise this issue on such an extraordinarily important evening, but he thought he should. The decision making process is as important as the final water supply decisions themselves, and if the decision making process is uncertain or flawed, the public can have no faith that the final decisions made are the best decisions by and for the community. Mr. Tucker commented that Mr. Davis is going to respond to this issue from the County’s legal point of view. Mr. Tucker went on to say he has indicated to Rivanna when this was discussed in a general nature at an earlier meeting, that with any of the water supplies within the County, there will still be land use review and perspective over any of the facilities whether it is a rezoning, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan or review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Four Party Agreement does not stipulate this, and if the Supervisors want to amend the agreement so it specifically states that the County has some involvement in the decision making process, it can be addressed. He added, though, that any decision Rivanna makes cannot take away from the decision this Board will ultimately have to make from a land use perspective. Mr. Bowerman recalled that this Board had a role in the decision for Rivanna to go forward with the Buck Mountain project. He asked how this project took place. Mr. Tucker answered that the same sort of decision was made because of the land use involvement. The Planning Commission reviewed it from a Comprehensive Plan amendment perspective, and this Board had involvement because it was a matter of buying the property, agreeing to the purchase and working out connection fees with the Albemarle County Service Authority. He emphasized that this Board will have direct involvement if a facility is required in the County. Mr. Bowerman inquired if it was the intent of the Four Party Agreement to purposely exclude Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said he does not know why Albemarle County was excluded. Mr. Martin suggested that the staff examine both of these issues and bring information back to the Supervisors next week, whether it is an information item or an action item on the Consent Agenda. Mr. Tucker replied that this can be done. The County Attorney is going to submit some additional language to the draft decision making process. Mr. Martin asked if this information will come back to the Supervisors. Mr. Tucker answered that it will not necessarily come back to the Supervisors, although if they want to see it, it can be given to them. The matter might be addressed at the Rivanna meeting next Tuesday, and this is before the Board of Supervisors meets again on Wednesday. He added, though, that he does not see an urgency in adopting any type of decision making process. Ms. Humphris noted that since the Board of Supervisors appoints the members of the Albemarle County Service Authority, each Supervisor will be talking with each magisterial district appointee. She said the Supervisors will know what the Service Authority appointees are thinking as the process moves forward with Mr. Davis’ investigation. She said even outside of the way the Agreement is written, there are some methods to influence decisions. Mr. Tucker concurred. Ms. Thomas stated that she remembers it was a very contentious issue as far as paying for the Buck Mountain potential water area. She recalled that a lot of citizens were involved, and it got to be very difficult. She said she hates to add another layer of difficulty by uncertainty, so it would be better to get the matter settled. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Board of Supervisors was very involved in the Buck Mountain matter. He appreciates Mr. John Martin bringing this to the Board’s attention, and he agrees with the Chairman that this issue needs staff input. Mr. Davis indicated that he has already communicated to the Rivanna officials the fact that the law requires the Board of Supervisors to find that any public facility constructed in the County is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas remarked that this is quite different than being involved in the decision of which alternatives will be considered and how future needs will be met. She said for the Supervisors to be told that a certain plot of ground is going to be needed, and then they have to deal with the project, is quite different than being involved with the decision as to whether the reservoir will be dredged or whether something else will be done. Mr. Davis stated that he is trying to make the point to Rivanna that it is not whether the County Board and Planning Commission will have a part in making decisions, it will be how and when. He agreed with Ms. Thomas that it does not make much sense for the body which ultimately approves or disapproves the decision to not be involved throughout. He added that Ms. Humphris’ point is also well taken that there is ample representation on the bodies that make the decision even under their own scenarios. The Board of Supervisors needs to be comfortable with the process from the beginning, and it is ultimately this Board’s decision. Mr. Martin commented that this will be a good informational item to bring back to the Supervisors next week. _______________ Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ____________ Item No. 5.1. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 28, 2000, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-99-16. Glenmore Associates Limited Partnership (Signs # 60&61). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to rezone 37.96 acs from RA to PRD to allow 38 add’l single-family units in Glenmore PRD. TM79,Ps28,34,35&35A & TM 93,P62. Loc on Ashton Rd approx. 0.7 mls from intersec of Glenmore Way & Rt 250E. (The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density Residential 3-6 du/ac in the Village of Rivanna.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 27 and April 3, 2000.) Mr. Bowerman apologized to the Board, the public and the applicant because he did not look at his packet until today, and he has a potential conflict of interest with this matter. He has not sought an opinion from the Commonwealth’s Attorney, so he is going to withdraw from the discussion of this issue. However, he asked that the matter be deferred until next week so he will have an opportunity to get an opinion, if it is apparent that a sixth vote is necessary to make a decision. If the matter reaches a point where his participation is not necessary, then his request is moot. (Mr. Bowerman then left the meeting at 7:18 p.m.) Mr. Martin inquired if there is consensus among Board members to comply with Mr. Bowerman’s request. Board members were in agreement. Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report for ZMA-99-28. Glenmore Associates is proposing to rezone 37.96 acres of property from RA to PRD in order to add adjoining land into the Glenmore PRD and increase the maximum number of single family units to 813. The proposal will also remove construction of a public road from an existing proffer and provide $70,000 for design, construction and other planning of another public road for the Village of Rivanna. The plan is to extend the time period for the installation of a signal at the intersection of Route 250 East and Glenmore Way as well as to replace a proffer made in 1990 to provide up to $500,000 for traffic improvements on Route 250 East. This project had a sunset date of November 2005 with a proffer of $1,300 per lot for the remaining unsold properties in Glenmore for other traffic improvements valued at approximately $273,000. The proposal further calls for removing a General Condition requiring common open space links to be 30 feet wide, and it removes a General Condition to make front yards in the cottage sections a minimum of 10 feet rather than 20 feet. He added that in all but one way the proposal is in keeping with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Rivanna, but the proposal would not increase density to the recommended minimum of three dwelling units per acre. The density and character of development is consistent with the original density established for the Village of Rivanna, but staff requested that the applicant consider increasing density in the proposed development to make better use of the land designated for development in the Village of Rivanna. The applicant believes that Glenmore provides an attractive alternative to large lot rural development and that the niche Glenmore fills decreases pressure on the rural areas. The applicant does not want to provide for a second gated entrance into the development, and additional lots could put pressure on the need for a second legitimate point of ingress and egress. The applicant indicates that the type of development proposed retains many of the natural features in a way that could not be achieved with higher density development. He said staff believes that unless better use is made of the Development Areas, pressure to expand Development Area boundaries will accelerate. Mr. Cilimberg added that previous requests for additions to Glenmore have been approved with the understanding that after the adoption of the DISC recommendations, higher density should strongly be considered. He pointed out that staff can support this development because it is an extension of a previously approved plan for Glenmore and the previously approved plan’s purposes and characteristics. Future development in the Rivanna Village, including expansions to Glenmore, should be in keeping with a Master Plan for the Village that emanates from a process recommended by DISC and is consistent with the form of development recommended by the County through the DISC process. He remarked that staff can support the developer’s request to amend the development with additional acreage. He said in ways other than providing for efficient use of Development Areas land, the proposal meets the requirements for Planned Residential Developments. He stated that proffers in the amount of approximately $480,000 are made to offset public costs to the County. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff recommends approval of the rezoning with proffers and changes to the General Conditions, as well as changes to the Application Plan. The signed proffers were lost in transit over the weekend, but they were found this evening in the cycle of UPS delivery. It is his understanding from Mr. Davis that because the Supervisors do not have signed proffers, they will not be able to act on the rezoning tonight. He said, though, the public hearing can be held. There were no questions for Mr. Cilimberg at this time. Mr. Martin inquired if the applicant would like to speak. Mr. Frank Kessler, General Partner of Glenmore Associates, remarked that he wanted to talk about two things. His staff members have worked on many different parts of the proposal, and they are available to answer questions. He first discussed the change in the proffer for traffic improvements on Route 250 April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) East, since it appears that Glenmore Associates reneged on this agreement. When this proposal was first brought to the County, Ron Keeler, of the Planning staff, told Glenmore representatives that they were going to be increasing traffic on Route 250 East, and he asked if they would consider a contribution because of this situation. The Glenmore representatives asked if this was really important, and they were told that it was important, so they agreed. He stated, though, that it was to be done within a time frame, so they agreed that by 2005, which was 15 years away, the Highway Department would do something to benefit Glenmore and use its money. He also noted that the proffer stipulated the amount to be up to $500,000, which was a percentage of the road improvements from the Shadwell Store to Glenmore. When the rezoning came back, they were asked to extend this agreement for another ten years. He said VDoT officials were asked if there was any way the project could be done sooner, and they replied that it was not even in the Six year Plan. He does not want his children to be responsible for this project 20 years from now, so he is proffering $1,300 per lot for every lot that closes at the exact time it closes. He pointed out that this situation is exactly like the initial $1,000 proffered for every lot that closed, and this amount is now over $500,000 plus interest. Glenmore Associates’ attorneys will send in the money from this current proffer, and it can be used for planning of the road or anything else. In this way, he is finished with the matter at the time the lots close and the County has the money no matter what happens. He is unsure now what is going to be done with the road, because there is some sentiment against four laning it because of historic preservation pressures. He reiterated that Glenmore Associates did not renege on the agreement. This proposal is what he thinks is right and fair, and the money can be used in any way. He just wants to get this situation behind him. He asked if there were any questions. There were no questions. Next, Mr. Kessler addressed the plan referring to the three units per acre, and he noted that the green section is a non-buildable area. He pointed out that Glenmore has some lots with 100 feet of frontage, but he emphasized that nobody supports DISC any more than he and his associates do. He showed a picture of the Cottage Homes with 100 feet of frontage which run from $400,000 to $700,000. He emphasized that if the four to five percent of the people in the upper price range do not come to a place like Glenmore, they will go to the rural areas. He said that is why three units cannot be put on an acre, even with the nonusable land that is over 25 percent slopes, which hasn’t been considered. He and his associates have done the best they can with this situation. He then showed the Supervisors a streetscape of the Scottish homes proposed to be built. They are single family homes of all sizes, and many of them have courtyards and garages, which make the lots seem even narrower. The reason he is going after this market is because he feels there is a need for single family homes with total maintenance, since both people work in a lot of situations. He noted that all of the units will be similar, and they will have a rock accent to tie them together. He emphasized that no one believes in trying to preserve the rural areas any more than he and his associates do, and that is why they feel they have done the best they can do. He said he would be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Thomas mentioned the pictures Mr. Kessler showed the Board, and she noted that Monticello representatives are very concerned about the color of white in Monticello’s viewshed. She said Mr. Kessler’s pictures are in black and white so it is hard to see the actual color, but they look as though there are a lot of white accents used. Mr. Kessler responded that Kat Imhoff invited him to lunch, and they looked at a couple of houses that are recognizable from Monticello. He said Glenmore’s Architecture Review Board will meet with Ms. Imhoff, because that is where there is the real control. Monticello is pointed out in Glenmore’s marketing news, so he feels Glenmore owes it to Monticello to be compatible. He appreciates Ms. Imhoff’s call to him, because it is the first time anyone has contacted him about Monticello’s viewshed. There is one house that is very obvious from Monticello, so a tree will be planted on the side, with the owner’s permission. He reiterated that Glenmore’s ARB is going to Monticello to see exactly the effect such things have on Monticello. He pointed out that the Scottish homes area will not be visible from Monticello. They will all have black roofs, they will be colored in cream or beige with rock accents, and they are proposed for a very heavily wooded area. He noted that he and his associates preserve trees wherever it is possible in all of their developments. He added, though, that there are some areas of concern about the houses along the golf course. He emphasized that Monticello representatives’ and the County officials’ concerns are his concerns. There were no further questions for Mr. Kessler, so Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for ZMA-99-16. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. Ms. Thomas mentioned that traffic is a concern, and she commented that people used to think traffic was handled by widening roads. She asked staff if any other methods of using the money proposed per lot have been considered, such as subsidizing JAUNT. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the proffer is much more open now, and it can be used for a variety of types of improvements to serve transportation needs. He added that whether the money is used for the internal road that does not yet exist for the overall planning of the Rivanna Village or for some other transportation needs, is a discretion the County can exercise. The money is proffered to do this, and in that planning, there will be identification of public improvements. The needs will certainly be identified before 2010. Ms. Thomas stated that she has learned through staff reports that there will be no density or form requirements such as the DISC recommendations this time. She asked, though, if there will be a Master Plan required for rezoning additional property. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it is hoped master planning can be done before other significant development is planned for Rivanna Village. The applicant has other acreage, and this was indicated at the Planning Commission meeting. However, it would likely not be part of Glenmore, but instead it would be developed separately. The staff hopes to be able to consider this development in the scheme of a Master Plan for the Village. He also asked the Board members to keep in mind that this is really not a Village even under the current Comprehensive Plan. He explained that it was recommended in 1990 that the Village April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) have commercial use, but it was publicly opposed, so it wasn’t included. Under the spirit of the DISC recommendations, the Master Plan for this village needs to consider the overall mixed use concept which may not go over well in the general area of Eastern Albemarle because it was vigorously opposed the last time it was mentioned. When density is considered, there is the need for supporting services and infrastructure. He emphasized that it is not there, and it is not in the plans. He said even the water system was restricted in terms of how many potential units could be brought on line in Rivanna Village, so this issue is also a possible limitation. He remarked that density has to be considered in the scheme of overall possibilities for the Village, as well as the support for it to take place, so the Master Plan is going to be very important. Mr. Dorrier inquired if this proposal means there will be more open space or a better transportation system. Mr. Cilimberg answered that this is all within the gated community of Glenmore, and there are no immediate transportation improvements occurring. However, monies are being proffered that can be used toward transportation improvements. In terms of open space, the areas that are not easily developable and deserve to be retained outside of development are shown as part of this plan, so it is an additional area of open space. He then pointed out the plan showing the open space area. Ms. Thomas stated that she recognizes the importance of not having the more expensive houses sprawling across the countryside. Although, she thinks it would have been better if master planning had been required before this plan, so it would be part of the proposal. Mr. Cilimberg referred to the staff report where it indicated that it was assumed master planning would take place to try to guide new development in Rivanna. The DISC recommendations need to be considered. Mr. Martin concurred. The only thing that has happened regarding the DISC recommendations is that they have been presented to the Board and accepted. Mr. Martin mentioned the remark by Mr. Kessler about the previous $1,000 per lot proffer. Mr. Martin said this money was supposed to be used for Stone-Robinson or some other school, and he wondered if any of this money has been used. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. Some of the money was used for the Stone-Robinson improvements. Mr. Kessler stated that the original proffer was that the money was to be used for Stone-Robinson School, but the staff made it possible to use the money anywhere. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that money from this source is still being collected. Mr. Martin pointed out that he did not give Mr. Kessler time for rebuttal before closing the public hearing. Mr. Kessler remarked that no rebuttal was necessary. Mr. Martin asked if anyone wanted to make a motion about this proposal. Mr. Davis explained that the signed proffers are not in the Board’s possession, and there are some technical amendments that need to be made to the signature portion of the proffers. He suggested that, if it is the sense of the Board that there are no unresolved issues, the matter be deferred until next Wednesday. In this way, the item can be added to the Consent Agenda for approval. However, if there is the feeling that there is a need for further discussion, it can still be deferred until the next meeting. Mr. Dorrier commented that he thinks it is significant that there has been no real opposition to this matter, and he noted also that it has been approved by the Planning Commission and staff. He then made a motion that ZMA-99-16 be deferred and placed on the Consent Agenda for the next Board of Supervisors meeting to be held on April 19, 2000. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bowerman. ________________ Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-00-003. Transmission Lines. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Sec 3.0, Definitions, of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning) by adding a definition of "oil or gas transmission line". (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 27 and April 3, 2000.) Mr. Martin noted that ZTA-00-003 is scheduled for a public hearing, but it is an item that he would like to defer until next week. He suggested that Mr. Cilimberg give the staff report and the public hearing can also be held. If the other Board members concur, a motion will be needed to defer the matter. Mr. Cilimberg reported to the Board that there is an amendment to define the terms of “gas or oil transmission line,” and it codifies terms consistent with the long-standing meaning given it by the Zoning Administrator. This meaning was sustained by members of the Board of Zoning Appeals in a ruling they made. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this amended language, and it will be consistent with this long-standing interpretation. At this time, since there were no questions from the Board for Mr. Cilimberg, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for ZTA-00-003. No one came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. Ms. Humphris made a motion, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to defer ZTA-00-003, Transmission April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Lines, until the March 19, 2000 meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Martin indicated that his reason for asking for deferral of this item is because he was asked by a member of City Council whether or not it was on the agenda. He had read his packet of materials, but he did not recognize the item as being included, and he told the City Council member that it was not on the agenda. He even asked Mr. Tucker about it, and neither one of them thought the item was included. He commented that rather than it appearing that he was lying, he would like to tell the Councilor that it will be on the next agenda. Ms. Thomas asked if the public hearing should be kept open for the next meeting. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 7:40 p.m. ) Mr. Davis stated that the public hearing is closed, but people could be given the opportunity to speak at the next meeting, if they wish. However, he reminded the Board that the County is in litigation with the City of Charlottesville on this issue. He does not know what the City’s motivation would be between now and next Wednesday, but the County will be in a better legal position as soon as this is adopted. Mr. Bowerman asked about the litigation issue. Mr. Davis responded that the City has appealed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) which upheld the long-standing interpretation. Mr. Bowerman recalled seeing a letter from a former lawyer for the City that refers to the lines as transmission lines. Mr. Davis said this fact was considered by the BZA in its decision-making, but the City has appealed the decision. Mr. Martin indicated that the reason he is asking for deferral has nothing to do with giving more opportunity to anyone as far as the appeal is concerned. It simply has to do with him answering a question incorrectly. Mr. Perkins pointed out that there has been a recent decision that gas has been deregulated as has electricity, etc. He wondered if this would have any impact on this issue. Mr. Davis answered, “no.” Mr. Perkins stated that it seems to him it would have an impact because other gas companies would be able to come into a monopoly situation and offer gas service. He wondered whose gas will be put through this line. He stated that customers will be taking the gas out of the line, and if they have been supplied with gas from a different gas company, it will create a different situation. He thinks this will fortify that it is a transmission line. Mr. Davis commented that from a land use position, the County does not care whose gas it is. The issue is how it is being taken from one place to another and whether or not it is a distribution or transmission line. He stated that deregulation is an important development, and it helps support the position of this particular line as far as being a transmission line because it certainly serves that function. This decision has been a long-standing decision of the County and was supported by the BZA. Ms. Thomas asked if anything of significance is expected to happen between now and next Wednesday to make it important for this decision to be made tonight. She emphasized that the relationship with the City officials relies on the Chairman’s interaction with them. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is ready to defer to the Chairman’s mistake, if it does not affect the situation. Mr. Davis stated that the City Attorney’s Office contacted his office last week, and they were specifically advised that this was on the agenda. Mr. Martin reiterated that he was asked a question, and he erroneously answered it. He consulted with Mr. Tucker, and they both erroneously answered the question. He said no one is trying to change anything that has been discussed in executive session or elsewhere. He is simply trying to defer this matter as a courtesy. Ms. Thomas concurred that Mr. Martin’s request should be overriding. She said, though, that she did not actually get an answer to her question. Mr. Martin said City Council members may have another week to try to convince the Supervisors to do things their way, but he doesn’t think anybody on this Board will be changing his or her mind because of a week’s delay. Ms. Thomas indicated that this was not her assumption. She did not know the steps of the lawsuit, and she was unsure whether anything might happen within the next week that could cause a problem. Mr. Davis stated that he doesn’t think anything will happen regarding the lawsuit next week. However, there is the possibility the City may try to take some steps within the next week to improve its position. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ________________ Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-00-004 and ZMA-00-003. Entrance Corridor Roads. PUBLIC HEARING on an ordinance to amend Sec 30.6, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning) by adding to Sec 30.6.2, Applicability, Virginia Route 631 from U.S Route 29 North to Virginia Route 743, Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 676, and Virginia Route 649 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 606, and to amend the official zoning map to April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) designate to the full depth of each parcel in existence on October 3, 1990 contiguous to the rights-of-way of such routes, or to a depth of five hundred (500) feet from such rights-of-way, whichever is greater, as being subject to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. . (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 27 and April 3, 2000.) Mr. Bowerman pointed out that he is an adjacent property owner, but he is not affected by this issue, any more than anyone else along the road. He does not believe he is in conflict. He then filed with the Clerk a Transactional Disclosure Statement which indicated that he is a property owner with property which would be included in the proposed expansion of the Overlay District, and that he is able to participate in this transaction fairly, objectively, and in the public interest. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the request regarding ZTA-00-004 and ZMA-00-003 came from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) with the recommendation that certain segments of roads receive entrance corridor designation. They are Rio Road from Route 29 to Hydraulic Road, Hydraulic Road from Route 29 to Route 676 and the Airport Road from Route 29 to Route 606. He explained that all of these roads have been re-categorized as arterial roadways, since criteria for local entrance corridor designation requires this particular categorization for roads. The other criterion is that the roadway represents a significant tourist access route to the locality or to designated historic sites within the County or adjoining the localities. He commented that all of these routes provide such access. He added that the staff and Planning Commission have recommended that the referenced road sections be adopted into the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. At this time, Mr. Martin opened the public hearing for ZTA-00-004 and ZMA-00-003 relating to Entrance Corridor Roads. Mr. Kenneth Maupin stated that he owns property on Airport Road, and he asked the Board not to make this road an Entrance Corridor. He believes there are already enough checks and balances for the development of that property. There is already a post office on Airport Road which is past review, although it would not have been affected, anyway. The ARB does not have any control over the post office. No one else came forward to speak, so Mr. Martin closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin inquired if this request came directly to the Board of Supervisors from the ARB or if it went to the Planning Commission first. Mr. Cilimberg replied that it has already been to the Planning Commission, and approval was recommended unanimously. Mr. Martin asked if there was a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Cilimberg responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowerman wondered if notifications were sent at that time. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the notifications were not then complete. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is the third meeting date since it was advertised to those people involved who weren’t notified about the first meeting. Mr. Cilimberg stated that notification was sent out between the Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Tucker informed Mr. Bowerman that the matter was not deferred. He said corrections were done before this meeting. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he was notified by somebody else before he knew about the matter. Ms. Thomas inquired if all landowners have gotten notification. Mr. Davis indicated that there were 700 to 800 landowners notified. Mr. Cilimberg said more landowners were notified than needed to be. He added that this is not an easy thing, and when the GIS system is available for use, it will really help with these notifications. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Maupin about his opinion as to whether or not the landowners along Airport Road were given adequate notice about this issue. He also wondered what would happen if this matter was deferred so notice could be given. Mr. Maupin stated that he has not discussed the issue with any of the other landowners. He noted, though, that there is another landowner present at this meeting. Mr. Maupin said there was so much notification, it was hard for the people to understand it. He remarked that all the people on his lane were notified, and he doesn’t think deferral will have any effect either way. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the first notification did not get to everyone on Rio Road. However, everyone on Airport Road was contacted. Mr. Davis remarked that the adjacent property owners were also sent the notification, and some of them were not even close to the corridor. Mr. Cilimberg said a lot of people called his office and thought it was notification of road improvements. Mr. Bowerman stated that there is a fair rationale for this request. It is an entrance corridor for people going to the City from the Airport, and it is their first introduction to the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Ms. Thomas commented that no landowner likes to have an additional control placed on property, but when the landowners, as a whole, see the way it protects their property from something unsightly next to them, tend to support it after it has been in effect. She added that this has been shown by Route 29 North, and although it takes a long time, the landscaping on either side of the road makes it attractive. At this time, Ms. Humphris made a motion to approve ZTA-00-004, by adopting the proposed ordinance to amend the Entrance Corridor Overlay District by additional segments of Route 649, 743 and 631. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Martin. (The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:) ORDINANCE NO. 00-18(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended as follows: By Amending: Sec. 30.6.2Application. Chapter 18. Zoning Article III. District Regulations 30.6.2 APPLICATION The entrance corridor overlay district (hereafter referred to as EC) is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect corridors: -Along arterial streets or highways (as designated pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Code, including section 33.1-41.1 of that title) found by the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access to the county; or -To historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by section 15.2-2201 of the Code of Virginia; or -To designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality. EC overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning district and/or other overlay district. EC overlay districts are hereby established: (Added 11-14-90; Amended 9-9-92) a.To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the adoption date of section 30.6 of this ordinance which are contiguous to the rights-of-way of the following EC streets in Albemarle County; or b.To a depth of five hundred (500) feet from the rights-of- way, whichever shall be greater, along the following EC streets in Albemarle County: 1.U.S. Route 250 East. 2.U.S. Route 29 North. 3.U.S. Route 29 South. 4.Virginia Route 20 South. 5.Virginia Route 631, South from Charlottesville City limits to Route 708, and from U.S. Route 29 North to Route 743. (Amended 11-14-90) 6.U.S. Route 250 West. 7.Virginia Route 6. 8.Virginia Route 151. 9.Interstate Route 64. 10.Virginia Route 20 North. 11.Virginia Route 22. 12.Virginia Route 53. 13.Virginia Route 231. 14.Virginia Route 240. 15.U.S. Route 29 Business. April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 16.U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass. 17.Virginia Route 654. (Added 11-14-90) 18.Virginia Route 742. (Added 11-14-90) 19. Virginia Route 649 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 606. 20. Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29 North to Virginia Route 676. Next, Ms. Humphris moved approval of ZMA-00-003 to amend the official Zoning Map to designate to the full depth of each parcel (subject to ZTA-00-004) in existence on October 3, 1990 contiguous to the rights-of-way of such routes, or to a depth of 500 feet from such rights-of-way, whichever is greater, as being subject to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin has a reason for abstaining that would affect the other Supervisors’ view in any way. Mr. Martin replied, “no.” Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Martin. ________________ Agenda Item No. 10. Adopt FY 2000 Tax Rates. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Board deal with the tax rate before approving the County Operating Budget, and then based on the tax rate, the budget can be developed. He noted that on April 5, 2000, a public hearing was held on the proposed operating budget for FY 2001, and a separate public hearing was held on the 2000 tax rates. He said an attached resolution to the Executive Summary sets the tax levy for the calendar year 2000, and the proposed rates as shown reflect the budget hearing held last week at $0.76/$100 assessed valuation for real estate taxes which is a $0.04 increase over the current rate of $0.72/$100. He noted that the $4.28/$100 assessed value for personal property is the same tax rate as the current year. With regard to the budget, Mr. Tucker said the attached resolution to the Executive Summary, which is Attachment B, formerly sets out the proposed expenditures for FY 01 which total $161,839,457. This budget represents an increase of $247,937 over the amount discussed on April 5, and the increase comes basically from two primary areas. The County has been notified of some additional revenue from the State Compensation Board, which has to be matched by the County, and totals just under $78,000. He explained that the school system also received some additional federal revenues of about $170,000. He pointed out that the Attachment B resolution represents the budget that would implement a four cents tax rate increase. However, if the Board chooses to adopt something less than that, the staff can rework some of the figures in a few minutes, so there will be a proper resolution for the Board to approve. Mr. Dorrier asked if the financial position of the County has improved since December, as far as the $1.9 million shortfall. Mr. Tucker answered that the $1.9 million was the school system’s shortfall, but the additional federal revenues must be used for specific federal programs that are mandated. The school officials cannot spend the $170,000 on salaries or anything else that is unrelated to the federal programs. He explained, though, that it improved the school system’s overall budget from the amount reported at the last public hearing. Mr. Martin commented that he has had a difficult time making a decision on the tax increase. He has changed his mind many times, and he would like to hear some conversation from Board members. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Martin to tell the other Board members his views on the issue. Mr. Martin stated that Mr. Maupin has not said a word to him about the budget, and he was at the public hearing and didn’t say anything at that time, but he knows what is on his mind. Mr. Maupin is someone he has known for a long time, and when he looks at him sitting in this meeting, he knows what he wants him to do. However, he will then have a conversation with someone else, and he will listen to some good strong points, and it makes him think something else is in the best interest of Albemarle County. He wonders if the Supervisors will hurt or help themselves if they raise the tax rate to prepare for future capital needs in terms of being able to go to the voters and ask them to support these capital needs. He also wondered if the four cents tax rate increase is approved, will it put the County in a situation where a referendum will not be necessary. Ms. Humphris stated that a lot of the talk around the area is that if the Supervisors vote for a tax increase, they will be ending their political careers. She said if the Supervisors truly believe a tax increase is necessary, then it would show the citizens how much they believe in it if they vote for it, rather than to have the citizens think they were afraid to increase taxes. She truly believes a tax increase is needed, but she thinks it is a very hard thing to do. She does not think any one Board member has a better understanding of people’s problems in the community than the other Board members, and if the Supervisors really believe April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) this extra money is necessary, then she thinks they should show it by voting for the increase. Mr. Perkins remarked that he has not changed his mind. He added that when the Board got the proposed budget, he was pleased that it looked as though the same level of service could be provided without a tax increase. He said maybe the level of service will be better with a tax increase, but the number of increases over the past several years need to be considered. He mentioned an e-mail message which showed that after inflation and growth there has been an average increase of 4.4 percent per year for the last ten years. He wishes he had gotten the same average salary increase over that period of time. He is the only member of this Board who works for a private company that is a national corporation, and for the last five years, salary increases have averaged about two percent. He recalled that the airline stewardesses who went on strike had not had an increase in salary for four years. It looks as though the County could operate without a tax increase at the same level to provide for superior schools and all the other services General Government provides. This is the basis on which he has to consider the tax increase, and he thinks the other Board members should look at the situation in the same manner. He said expenditures and increases for last year and the year before have to be considered. He recalled a meeting he and Ken Boyd had with the school officials on Friday. They asked questions and he thinks something good came out of this meeting. He said school officials need to be reminded about some of the things they are asking for, and he feels the schools in many cases have taken on chores that are not their responsibilities. There has to come a time when school officials tell parents that they don’t do certain things in public schools. He stated that school representatives have been trying to provide services to every group and every child. He does not know if a bond referendum will be necessary, but he feels as though preparation for a lot of things in the future has to be done. He said perhaps this involves a bond referendum, but it will have an impact on taxpayers. He reminded the Board that he has proposed in past years that money be set aside to be spent for capital projects, and he pointed out the almost $9.0 million of interest the County spends each year. He thinks a better job could have been done, and a lot of this money could be saved for services rather than being spent for interest. Mr. Bowerman remarked that Mr. Perkins has been consistent throughout his length of service with him on this Board in pointing out that County officials need to be as frugal as possible, and they need to try to save money wherever possible and not do those things the private sector and families should be doing. Philosophically, Mr. Bowerman said he is not that much different in his thinking, but he is coming at the situation from a different angle. He stated, though, he respects Mr. Perkins’ opinion, and there are many people in the community who share his opinion exactly. Mr. Bowerman said most of the increases in costs have been directed toward the school system, and most of that, except for salaries, has been for Debt Service. He commented that $100.0 million was borrowed and spent to build facilities over the last decade. There were some nice revenue increases at the beginning of this decade because the national economy was followed in terms of depreciation of real estate taxes. He commented that Albemarle County had the ability to go to VPSA and borrow money to build school facilities which is the proper way, and it is the same way people buy homes. The interest paid gives people equity in their houses and gets them into their houses while they are paying for them, and the same thing happens with capital projects that benefit the public. He noted that people who are not even in the community today will be paying Debt Service on the school facilities their children are using, and he thinks that is equitable. He added that the “pay as you go” plan is a good concept on many items, but he is not sure it is a good way to go on long term capital items such as schools which are 50 and 100 year term propositions. The nature of the County’s growth has caught up with it, and the fact that a new fire facility has not been added in 20 years is also an issue. The amount of equipment has increased, as well as coverage with paid firefighters during the day. This is supplemented with a volunteer staff which allowed the County to meet the needs of the public, and he emphasized that the volunteers really work. He pointed out that communities used to surround the volunteer fire stations, and when the fire alarm sounded, people would leave their jobs and go to the firehouse. Today this is not possible in many cases, which has led to the need for paid firefighters during the day and equipment which is essential for the urban area. He mentioned the DISC recommendations and the current technology. He also referred to advertisements in the publication relating Business Week to protection of the environment, and he said these advertisements would not have happened three or four years ago. He said protection of the environment is good business, but it costs money for the public sector as well as the private sector. He also referred to the Purchase of Development Rights program. He stated that in order to have a first rate community and to maintain it, investments in infrastructure will have to be made that have not been made in the past. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Bowerman is saying that if the tax rate is increased by four cents, County officials would not have to have a referendum in terms of the ACE program. Mr. Bowerman answered that he cannot predict what is going to happen. However, there will be more flexibility in looking at the County’s options if there is a reserve fund in the beginning in terms of lease purchase, as well as some “pay as you go” plans. He said long term projects that need to go to the public in referendum will need to be identified. He thinks this should be done with the larger projects, and he does not think the tax increase nor the lack of it is going to make any difference in terms of a referendum. If taxes are not raised, there will still be the same problem. He said proposals will have to be articulated clearly and succinctly, as to why they are needed as well as the benefits. If this cannot be done, referendums will be defeated. He stated that County officials have this obligation under any scenario but it is obvious at this point that the County has not kept up with its needs. He agreed with Mr. Perkins that funds should have been saved, but there have not been funds to put away because of the needs that out paced the available revenues. He said a lot of people disagree with this statement, which has been proven with his e-mails and phone calls. He remarked that he does not like the tax structure, or the aggressive nature of it. He does not like the way it affects people with less money in the same way it affects wealthy people, but this is due to decisions made by the legislature. He pointed out that the County has the maximum tax exempt status for the handicapped and elderly in terms of their ability to pay a lesser amount to the extent April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) the State allows this exemption. This should always continue to be in place, but the County does not have a lot of different ways to raise money. He remarked that when the meals tax referendum was taken to the public, the County officials never said it would benefit real estate taxes. They told the public the revenue generated could produce revenue that may not require an addition to the tax rate, but they were very clear in stipulating that the two were not related. The meals tax stands on its own merit, and it represents four or five cents in the tax rate currently. The tax increase would have been considered before now if the meals tax had not passed. He is convinced County officials need to start planning for a capital wise future as well as the operating costs that go with it, a lot more than has been done in the past. He said delaying it will give the County less flexibility in the future than if they go forward now and try to start dealing with the long term capital needs and the operating needs associated with them with a four cents increase in the tax rate. He stated that it is difficult to look at his constituents and say these things, but when the needs of the community are considered, everybody will win together or they will all sink together. He added that everybody benefits from a well planned proper public policy determined by the public at the polls. Mr. Dorrier disagreed that there is such a crisis that there is a current need to raise taxes. His disagreement stems from the fact that he just went through a campaign where he met some people in the southern part of the County who favored a tax rate increase, but he met a large majority who did not favor it. He did not run on the tax rate increase platform, but it doesn’t mean that he is not willing to consider the possibilities after a referendum. He indicated that he thought this is the way the Board was going when discussions were held last December. He noticed where Nelson County is raising its tax rate five cents, and there was no opposition. He thinks this is due to the fact that Nelson County had a bond referendum first. Ms. Thomas said Nelson County did not have a bond referendum, but the people there know the County is growing at a fast rate. Mr. Dorrier mentioned that Orange County had such a referendum, and it appears to him that a bond referendum is the best way to go. The community will support something that is salable, just as the meals tax was supported. It is the County officials’ obligation to sell such things to the community. He then referred to the revenue projections in December, where there was $12.0 million in new revenue this year, which is an 8.8 percent increase over FY99/00. This is almost a nine percent increase just because these are good times. He mentioned that next year there will be a reassessment, and he has done some research on his own house. He added that his property increased from $180,000 in 1989 to $299,000 in 1999, which is a 66 percent increase. He stated that next year there will be a reassessment increase ranging from seven percent to ten percent so the citizens are going to have an increase whether or not the tax rate increase is approved. The question is whether to make it more than seven percent. He remarked that his philosophy is that there should not be a tax rate increase unless it is absolutely necessary, and he cannot see any point in stockpiling the money. He said, though, he can see some point in trying to meet all of the County’s needs particularly as far as education is concerned. He stated that as this process has moved forward, things have gotten better. The budget began with a $1.9 million deficit after the School Board passed its budget, and $1.2 million has been eliminated. He added that County officials are chipping away at the General Fund deficit, so they are getting closer to their goal with each day. He thinks as long as they are getting closer and not moving away from it, there becomes a lesser need for a tax rate increase. He cannot see any compelling public policy reason for a tax rate increase at this time, and he feels this way especially because of the degree of opposition that has come forward relating to the tax rate increase. He realizes most of the education community is in favor of the increase, but the average rate of 4.7 percent increase in teachers’ salaries this year, is a good increase. The question then becomes whether or not the additional funds would go to future teacher salaries. He is not sure, if the increased tax rate occurs, that the teachers would benefit from the new revenue. He emphasized that this is his position at this time, although he respects his colleagues and their concerns. He added that he shares many of the same concerns. He hates to see the County lose teachers or for them to have low morals and be dissatisfied, and he hopes the School Board will be able to work on these problems. He noted that Mr. Tucker’s recommendations have been met, and the Board has gone beyond them. He added that Mr. Tucker presented a good budget, as well as a fair one, and that is the budget he is going to support. Ms. Thomas stated that someone e-mailed her about how cowardly it was to raise taxes and she wondered why, if it is so cowardly, it is so hard to do. She has gotten a lot of contact during the last few weeks from people seriously trying to help County officials out of a dilemma. She added that people have given her ideas for alternatives, and she usually replies by asking them to send their message directly to their representatives in the General Assembly. She said almost always the ideas the people have are things the General Assembly has capped, taken away or never given. The County is caught in the need to put burdens on people through the land use tax, which she has always thought was a bad tax, and this has certainly been made quite evident during the last few weeks. She noted that this tax doesn’t have any connection to what a family’s present finances are, but it has a lot to do with the amount of the sale of a neighbor’s house, which is not a very good basis for taxing anybody. She has some suggestions of other things that can be done on land use tax and retention methods, although they don’t need to be discussed today. She stated that she has an even greater determination now to work with VACo and the High Growth Coalition to try to find ways to fund the County’s growth because this is not a good way to do it. She remarked that she has particularly been impressed with the young people who have come out to praise their teachers. She said it was an amazing number of people, and they made good presentations. She believes they were present out of serious concerns about the kind of education their younger sisters and brothers were going to get. She indicated that there is also a young man in her neighborhood who is very opposed to the tax increase, so she has had some good discussions with young people that she would not otherwise have had. As far as whether or not a tax increase will help or hinder a referendum, Ms. Thomas commented that the Board just went through three months of work sessions showing the capital improvements needs. The question is not whether to raise taxes now or have a referendum. She stated that even with a referendum, there are $25.0 million of unmet needs, and this doesn’t even include the DISC recommendations or other needs being created because of the height of development suggested by April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) DISC. She emphasized that two cents going to capital improvements needs can lessen the impact of the referendum, and it increases the County’s options for doing some things more intelligently. She said lease purchase may be the most intelligent way to get some things done, but some are best done through a bond referendum. However, for some it would be best to use the “pay as you go” plan that Virginians have been so proud of for many years. She remarked that the County is going to have to get a bond rating, and bond raters pay attention to whether officials have the intelligence to increase taxes when necessary in order to meet needs. She stated that when they are assessing whether the jurisdiction has what it takes to make sure funding will always be there to pay back the bonds, the bond raters will need to show that taxes have been raised when necessary. She commented that she thinks the County is at a crisis. This came out very clearly in the Supervisors’ meeting with the School Board and the comments about where this County is in its support for education and also in its keeping to its own fiscal policy of putting three percent into the CIP each year. She noted that this has not been done for two or three years. She said it was cut short in order to help the School Board meet its budget two years ago, and the CIP has not gotten back to where it should be. The budget proposed to the Board of Supervisors did not get it back to the proper point, and it takes the two cents increase in order to meet the County’s own policies. She cannot predict what the public will say about whether the County officials have been foolish or intelligent but she knows it is the right thing to do to keep up with the County’s capital needs and not let the infrastructure suffer. She said that would be a very cheap and easy thing to do, and people should not let their County officials get away with doing it. She thinks the bond raters will reward the County by giving a lower interest rate on the bond if the referendum passes. She said if there is justice, the two cents increase should make it easier to have a successful bond referendum. Mr. Bowerman inquired if Ms. Thomas is supporting a two cents increase in the tax rate or a four cents tax rate increase. Ms. Thomas answered that she was referring to a two cents tax increase for capital improvements and two cents for the school system, making a total tax increase of four cents. Mr. Perkins referred to the bus routes. He believes the merchants should be willing to participate in the cost of these routes, since they are the ones who benefit. However, he is unsure if they have been approached. He noted that if 10,000 customers go into a store and spend $10.00 a piece, it amounts to $100,000, so surely merchants could supply some help with the cost of these routes. He also mentioned the increase in demands of people in the urban area. He stated that if people continue to make more demands, County officials will need to take a very hard and serious look at service districts so the people who use these services are the people who pay for them, and the people who don’t use them don’t pay for them. These are two things that need to be examined. Mr. Martin commented that service districts are mentioned a lot, but they never materialize. Ms. Thomas said it is close to happening with the stormwater situation. Mr. Perkins pointed out that there is a service district relating to water and sewer users. Mr. Martin said he is referring to other services for the urban area. Ms. Humphris explained that some of the things thought to be logical for a service district are not allowed, such as police and fire protection, etc. Mr. Perkins said fire protection is allowed for service districts. He noted that education and police protection are the only two things that are not allowed. Mr. Bowerman stated that there is value to having a distinction between the rural area and the urban area which is not easy to quantify. Mr. Martin stated that he appreciates all the comments, and he knows some of the comments were made to help him make up his mind. He then suggested that someone make a motion. Mr. Bowerman offered a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt a resolution indicating that Albemarle County’s real estate property tax rate will be increased four cents from $0.72 /$100 assessed valuation to $0.76/$100 of assessed valuation and that the personal property tax rate remain unchanged at $4.28 per $100 assessed value. Mr. Martin said he would support this motion. He added that, concerning the ACE Program, agreement was reached to fund it until it can stand on its own merit for the people to either support continuation of funding for it or not support it. The Board members may change their minds, but he wanted to make it clear that he is not seeing this item as part of any decision being made tonight. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Dorrier. (The adopted resolution is set out below:) RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the Calendar Year 2000 for General County purposes at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public service assessments; and April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property. ________________ Agenda Item No. 9. Approve FY 2000-01 County Operating Budget. Ms. Humphris made a motion to approve the FY 2000/01 budget resolution, shown as Attachment B, adopting the FY 2000/01 Operating Budget for Albemarle County. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Dorrier. (The adopted resolution is set out below:) BUDGET RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2000 be approved as follows: General Government Administration$6,504,818 Judicial$2,654,086 Public Safety$13,886,200 Public Works$2,719,261 Human Development$9,580,625 Parks, Recreation & Culture$4,272,399 Community Development$3,874,843 Other$411,004 City/ County Revenue Sharing$6,093,101 Refunds$34,300 Capital Improvements$2,397,000 General Government Debt Service$750,000 Debt Service/ Capital Reserve$1,290,000 Education – Operations$90,035,795 Education – Self-Sustaining Funds$8,207,047 Education – Debt Service$8,850,000 Contingency Reserve$278,978 TOTAL$161,839,457 ________________ Agenda Item No. 11. Approve FY 2000-01/2004-05 Capital Improvements Program and Adopt FY 2000-01 CIP Budget. Mr. Tucker reminded Board members of the public hearing held on February 9, 2000 on the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for FY 2000/01 through FY 2004/05 totaling $84,155,394, which consisted of several major cost centers. He said tonight the Supervisors are being asked to approve this CIP five-year plan as well as the FY 2000/01 Capital Budget totaling $3,706,510. Ms. Humphris offered a motion to approve the FY 2000-01/2004/05 Capital Improvements Program and to adopt the FY 2000/01 Capital Budget. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Dorrier. April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) (The FY 2001/01-2004/05 Capital Improvements Program is set out below:) April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) (The adopted FY 2000/01 Capital Budget is set out below:) ________________ April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: November 3 and November 18A, 1999; January 5, February 2, February 9 and February 16, 2000. No minutes were read. ________________ Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Ms. Thomas stated that she e-mailed a newspaper article from the about having Washington Post some neighborhoods designated for tougher fines for “cut-through” speeders, and she asked if Board members are interested in exploring this matter. She explained that it is a local option, and it has been a State law for some years. The article indicated that motorists caught speeding in certain Fairfax County neighborhoods could face steeper fines under an initiative approved by the Board of Supervisors. She had asked Mr. Davis if this is possible in Albemarle County, and he replied affirmatively. Board members indicated they had not received Ms. Thomas’ e-mail message about the “cut- through” speeders. Mr. Davis said it is possible, but the roads have to be designated by VdoT, and some criteria has to be met. He stated that it would require a request by this Board for designation of certain roads to the VDoT District Office. It requires signage forewarning motorists that there is an enhanced penalty for speeding. He explained that the roads have to meet some functional criteria, and he believes such roads exist in the County. Ms. Thomas remarked that it sounds as though it would be a lot of work for staff, so she does not think it should even be suggested, unless it is something in which everyone is interested. She would make copies of the article for all the Board members, and then a discussion can be held after everybody has read it. Mr. Perkins referred to the posting of speed limits on County roads. He noticed today for the first time that Route 810 between Crozet and White Hall has been posted at 45 miles per hour, and the sign used to indicate that drivers could resume speed as traffic went out of Crozet toward White Hall. It seems as though VDoT officials make changes whenever they want to, but when the Board of Supervisors brings a request to them, they have to do a study. He thinks this Board should make a resolution that the speed limit for all secondary roads in the County is 45 miles an hour unless otherwise posted. Mr. Martin commented that a public hearing would probably have to be held. Mr. Davis remarked that by State Code highways have a speed limit of 55 miles per hour unless otherwise posted. He said such a change would require a State Code change or a posting of all the secondary roads at 45 miles per hour. Mr. Bowerman agreed with Mr. Perkins that sometimes it is necessary to lower the speed on sections of certain roads such as Route 20. Mr. Perkins pointed out that Route 20 is a primary road which is probably in a different situation than secondary roads. The speed limit is not even posted on secondary roads, and it is an assumption that the speed limit is 55 miles per hour unless otherwise posted. He added that primary roads are all posted at 55 miles per hour or something less, unless it is an interstate where the speed limit is higher. Mr. Martin noted that there is a road in Greene County where there had been a sign indicating that drivers could resume a 55 miles per hour speed limit, and now the road is posted at 35 miles per hour at the same point. ____________ Next, Mr. Tucker stated that he received a fax late this afternoon from Jim Campbell at VACo, and he has asked if any of the Supervisors would be interested in a gubernatorial appointment to the Criminal Justice Service Board. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Martin if he was ever on that Board. Mr. Martin replied affirmatively. He was Chairman of the Title V Committee and would have been Chairman of the full Committee except that he was a State employee, and this eliminated him. He then got a letter from the Governor indicating that his term was over. He was appointed by Governor Allen, and he would love to serve that Board again. He mentioned that he was on the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Advisory Committee which was a subcommittee of the full group. Mr. Tucker said he would call VACo and indicate that Mr. Martin would like to serve on the Criminal Justice Service Board. ____________ Mr. Martin referred to a call he received from the last week. The was doing Washington PostPost an article on Fauquier County’s wineries, and its representative asked him to make comments on this issue. He responded that to his knowledge Albemarle County has not had any problems with wineries and for the most part County officials go out of their way to make things as convenient as possible because they protect the rural area and provide open space. Mr. Tucker indicated that he had gotten a similar call from the , and he responded Washington Post April 12, 2000 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) in the same manner. Mr. Bowerman inquired as to the reason for the call. Mr. Tucker said the was Washington Post doing an article on wineries in Northern Virginia and wanted to know Albemarle County’s experiences with its wineries. ________________ Agenda Item No. 13a. Closed Session: Legal Matters. At 9:00 p.m., Mr. Bowerman made a motion for the Board to go into closed session pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for public purposes. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ________________ Agenda Item No. 13b. Certify Closed Session. At 9:35 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Ms. Humphris, offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member’s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the closed session were heard, discussed or considered in the closed session. certify the closed session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ________________ Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn to April 18, 2000, City Council Chambers, for Future Water Supply Public Meeting. Mr. Bowerman then made a motion for the Board of Supervisors to adjourn to April 18, 2000 to the City Council Chambers for a Future Water Supply Public Meeting. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Dorrier and Ms. Humphris. NAYS: None. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date 9-20-00 Initials LAB