Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-07-14A July 14, 2004 (Adjourned - Afternoon Meeting) ) (Page 1 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 14, 2004, at 4:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Ken C. Boyd, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Substitute Clerk, Sharon C. Taylor, and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Stormwater Financing, Work Session. Mr. David Hirschman, Watershed Official, said this was the third work session concerning the Stormwater Master Plan and funding options for the stormwater program. At the April 7 work session, staff talked about the stormwater plan which consists of existing programs (e.g., plan review, inspections and maintenance), newly mandated programs (e.g., storm sewer permit), and expected programs (e.g., responding to citizen complaints, new regional facilities). Also, staff explained current decision-making about the stormwater program and noted that it involves deciding on a level of service for stormwater management. For instance, how frequently should the County inspect stormwater facilities and conduct preventative maintenance? How responsive should the County be to citizen complaints? Then at the May 5 work session, CHM2Hill, the consultants, explained financing options. Mr. Hirschman said the main issue to be decided is the level of service to be provided for stormwater, drainage issues, drainage complaints, maintenance, fixing stuff, dealing with things in the development areas and the rural areas. The executive summary for this meeting breaks down three program options. One is called “baseline”. That is doing the same work staff does now, plus the mandates for the storm sewer permit. There are certain characteristics for that program. If these were likened to a report card, staff would probably get a poor score on maintenance and inspections after construction. Staff would get a pretty poor grade on drainage complaints. Mr. Mark Graham said staff receives a fairly significant number of complaints and from the perspective of the property owner they do not get a satisfactory answer. Mr. Bowerman asked if this is because the County cannot do anything about the complaint. Mr. Graham said it is because the County can either not do anything, or has no program funded to deal with the problem. Mr. Wyant said from his experience, staff does a good job of responding. He thinks the County does not have the funds to do certain things. Also, some problems fall between VDOT and the County. Mr. Hirschman said the complaints keep increasing, but the number of staff members, its organization, and the way it responds is not adequate to keep up with the workload. Mr. Graham said VDOT’s response to a drainage complaint is basically to get the water off the road. But, in VDOT’s defense, their funding is not keeping up with their costs. If you are an engineer and look around, you see the cracks in infrastructure because VDOT is not able to maintain it as they have in the past. From his perspective, it will get worse, not better. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Butch Davies said on Monday that $22.0 million has been taken out of the Culpeper District’s budget. Mr. Rooker said the planned secondary road funding for the area for the next six years is less in each of those six years. By 2010, the County will get about $900,000 or 30 percent less than in the current year. This year there is 30 percent less than there was four years ago. That is without any adjustments for inflation. Mr. Boyd said he wanted to get back to talking about complaints from the public about stormwater drainage. Last week the Board talked about the Code sections concerning stormwater management and how the County tries to control it before things are built. Given the lack of any requirements like that, and the fact that the County does inspections on stormwater plans before people are allowed to build subdivisions, what responsibility does the County have to come along behind them and fix contractor’s design problems? He does not think the County is obligated to do that, although the public thinks it is. Mr. Graham said the County has some liability, but most of what staff is dealing with is not a legal obligation of the County. Mr. Davis said in old subdivisions where easements were not dedicated to the County, the County probably has no legal liability to go in and make any improvements or repairs. However, in the subdivisions the County has been accepting since 2000 when the Board decided it wanted easements dedicated to the County, once the County accepted those improvements for maintenance there is potential liability if those systems fail and as a result of that failure property damage is done to other July 14, 2004 (Adjourned - Afternoon Meeting) ) (Page 2 people’s property. When the systems are built, staff is obligated to make sure they are built according to plans. For new drainage systems, the maintenance responsibility is the County’s. In the short-term there is not a lot of work involved. In the long-term there could be problems which the County would need to take care of, and if it does not do so there could potentially be liability. Mr. Wyant asked if the County is taking on maintenance of facilities where there are BMP measures, or does that maintenance lie with the property owner. Mr. Davis said the County is not acquiring the typical stormwater retention/detention ponds. They remain in private ownership. The County enters into a recorded document which says the property owner is to maintain those stormwater basins. The County has the ability to go in and inspect and repair and then charge those costs to the owner. But, the County has no obligation to do that, and probably has no liability for those basins. The problem with those agreements is that they are generally transferred from the developer to a homeowners’ association. Unless the association undertakes a progressive maintenance schedule, by the time maintenance is necessary it is an expensive project. The homeowners are not aware of their responsibility or the expense is too much and they feel they should not pay that much. They then come to the County and ask the Board to solve their problem. At that point, the County’s Water Protection Ordinance says that if the homeowners petition the Board, the County may accept those systems for County ownership with the proviso that they are brought up to County Code at the time. Then, there can be negotiation as to whether the County will bring them up to Code in order to accept them. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Davis is referring to systems put into place the last few years, or systems which are much older. Mr. Davis said nothing has changed concerning the drainage basins. In subdivisions, the basins are probably on public easements with a maintenance agreement. If they are not regional basins, the County does not own them. Mr. Bowerman said the County has taken over some basins and taken payments from developers to be used against the original cost of those basins, for example, for the basin behind the Daily Progress. Mr. Davis said there are series of those basins which the County now owns. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County accepted a basin in a subdivision today, is it owned by the homeowners or the County. Mr. Davis said if the basin is in a public easement, it belongs to the County. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County has legal access to the basin, but the maintenance of it still lies with the homeowners. Mr. Davis said that is true with the basins on which there are agreements with the County. Ultimately, if the County owns the easements, it has some potential responsibility. Mr. Bowerman said that goes back to the mid-80s when the County started requiring detention basins. Mr. Davis said those basins are not in County ownership; only those basins built since 2000 are in County easements and are deemed to be in County ownership. Mr. Rooker asked if all basins in subdivisions built since 2000 have been done on public easements. Mr. Hirschman said every stormwater facility has been on a public easement. Mr. Rooker asked why the County does not just let them be in the open space of the development. Mr. Davis said that idea was presented to the Board with a mixed recommendation from staff. Ms. Thomas said it makes it surer that the basins will be maintained. The agreement says they will contribute to and continue to participate in the maintenance. Mr. Graham said there is one complicating factor. If the County inspects the facility and the homeowners do not feel they can take care of the maintenance, by existing policy they can petition the Board to take over that facility. Ms. Thomas said that in the meantime, the facility will have been maintained. Mr. Graham said the problem is that when the homeowners want to turn over the facility is when there is a fairly significant maintenance expense involved. Ms. Thomas said if the County owns the facility from the beginning, it can be sure the facility is maintained all along. Mr. Dorrier said it sounds like there is a design defect problem. The Board only hears about them when the wheel squeaks. Mr. Graham said that goes to the inspection question. If these facilities are regularly inspected and the defects brought to the attention of the property owner with whom there is the stormwater management agreement, hopefully they could maintain the basin. Mr. Bowerman said that is part of the current County direction of encouraging urbanization and denser infill. There is an obligation from a principle point of view when trying to get more density in the urban area. It is not something the County wants to discourage. Mr. Wyant said this is infrastructure. Without the sidewalks, storm sewer pipes and curb and gutter, the County may be creating a big monster. He asked why the County could not use a professional engineer to certify the inspection. Why does the County have to make an inspection? Mr. Graham said if the Board elected to do so, a professional engineer could be hired to inspect those facilities. Mr. Dorrier said if these facilities are designed properly, the County will not hear about them. July 14, 2004 (Adjourned - Afternoon Meeting) ) (Page 3 Mr. Wyant said he and Mr. Bowerman know about a couple of these basins that have had difficulties that would have been picked up during an annual inspection. Mr. Bowerman said by the time the homeowners know about the problem, it is past the point where it is economical for them to make the repair. Mr. Graham said the primary problem for the homeowners is when the basin has to be dredged. If the basin is properly functioning, it catches sediment as it runs through, and eventually that sediment has to be removed. Mr. Dorrier asked if the County has a maintenance crew on staff. Mr. Graham said until now this work has been performed under contract. General Services is now managing that responsibility, and they are looking at going from maintenance contracts to the option of having staff maintain those facilities where they are the County’s responsibility. Mr. Wyant said he has looked at some in Mill Creek where there are riprap ditches and paved ditches. There are problems that are very visible to most people, but there will be a major expense connected to the storm sewers which are under paving and sidewalks. Mr. Boyd said he remembers the pictures of Fontana Subdivision which were shown at last week’s Board meeting. He asked if this program will be for that level of drainage situation where someone put a riprap ditch between two lots and that is not acceptable, or needs to be repaired. Mr. Graham said the County would have to do that maintenance if it was a public drainage easement. Water running off of a public road is a public drainage easement. The County is assuming that responsibility now. The County is responsible for the drainage running between those two lots. Mr. Boyd said he had talked with Mr. Graham about a couple of cases in Fontana and was told there was nothing the County could do. Mr. Graham said if the water does not come off of a public road it is considered a private easement, and that is how it would be shown on the subdivision plat. Mr. Rooker said he remembers that some of the pictures showed riprap running between lots to carry water to the road. Mr. Davis said it is not a private responsibility to maintain those facilities. As for the public’s responsibility, the level of maintenance is the Board’s decision. In some instances, if the County chooses not to maintain them, there could be some liability if property were damaged. The level of maintenance is a policy decision that is part of the discussion today. At what level should these facilities be maintained? How does the Board want to address complaints? What is the policy basis for approaching that? Mr. Rooker noted a sentence in the staff’s report which said an increase in funding would be needed to fund the newly mandated programs; the annual cost increase would likely range from $100,000 to $240,000. He asked what newly mandated programs are referred to in this sentence. Mr. Graham said it is the County’s NPDES permit which basically treats the County’s municipal storm system like a factory or a wastewater treatment plant. The County has a permit through the State Department of Environmental Quality. That permit requires six stormwater program elements that include things like public education and a program to detect illicit discharges with an accompanying ordinance. Mr. Boyd asked if the $240,000 noted above is to pay personnel to monitor these things. Mr. Graham said there is staff expense involved. There is actual testing involved of the discharges. When the staff presented a funding analysis at an earlier meeting, the items related to the VPDES permit were shown on a spreadsheet. Mr. Rooker said the County is funding part of the requirement now. That cost will increase even if the County does only the minimum required. Mr. Hirschman said the County was already doing three of the six required program elements. Mr. Bowerman noted a sentence in the staff’s report which says “The current funding level for the stormwater program is approximately $750,000 (approximately $500,000 for administrative expenses and $250,000 in the CIP).” He asked what the $500,000 covers. Mr. Hirschman said under the Erosion Control Program there are salaries for reviewers and inspectors and expenses of administration of the existing stormwater program. Mr. Bowerman asked how many people are involved in that program. Mr. Hirschman said there are seven. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks that is a fairly large expense and he does not understand how that money is being used. Mr. Hirschman said that number came from the CHM2Hill Report. He thinks they came up with that number by making estimates based on administration and office space for the whole Department of Engineering and Public Works. Mr. Davis said some of those expenses are offset by erosion control fees. Mr. Dorrier asked if the Board members wanted to discuss the various options. Mr. Boyd said he wants to clarify “level of service.” He thought the Board discussed providing a level of service in the urban area as an independent area itself. It also discussed whether service would be provided countywide getting into the rural areas. July 14, 2004 (Adjourned - Afternoon Meeting) ) (Page 4 Mr. Graham said the baseline service is status quo adding in Federal mandates. Option A would provide services for existing and mandated programs as well as most expected programs, with a strong focus of providing “urban-type” services to the Development Areas with regard to inspecting, maintaining and improving the drainage system. Option B would provide services for existing and mandated programs as well as most expected programs, with a countywide approach. This countywide coverage would allow the program to address “urban-type” services noted with Option A in addition to natural resource protection programs such as: sediment reduction, stream protection and an expanded easement program. Mr. Rooker said the staff’s report sets out the following options: In Option A it says “Based on our consultant’s analysis, the Development Area program could be funded by a stormwater utility with a rate of $24/year/ERU (equivalent residential unit = 2000 square feet of impervious cover) in combination with plan review fees and pro-rata share contributions.” In Option B it says “The countywide program could be funded by a stormwater utility with a rate of $18 to $19/year/ERU in combination with plan review fees and prorate share contributions.” Since “B” provides a higher level of service, why would the rate be lower? Mr. Tucker said Option B covers the entire County so more people are involved. Mr. Hirschman said there is another element involved. It is not just a matter of increasing maintenance and inspections, but a stormwater master plan was drafted to define where regional basins should be built and where stream corrections are needed in order to get ahead of development. There is a list of needed projects in the master plan. It was assumed they would be implemented, albeit at a slow rate. Ms. Thomas said doing projects earlier would save money and problems later. The problem is that the money needed to take care of the problems later is not the same money that will take care of the problem if it is viewed as a preventive program. Would the taxpayer’s money be saved by attacking problems now rather than later? Mr. Hirschman said a regional basin is very expensive, and how many future problems would be avoided would be hard to quantify. Ms. Thomas said the Lickinghole Creek Basin is an example of saving the reservoir from a lot of pollution being carried by streams from Crozet. Mr. Tom Foley said this subject has been discussed by staff for a long time. Staff was in a reactive mode in regard to all of the individual stormwater systems, and decided that money should be invested to get ahead of the problem. If regional basins are not put into place so there is a place for stormwater from the many subdivisions, every subdivision would have its own drainage basin. That would create the need for additional inspection staff and that is why this whole study was begun. There is a need to identify where regional basins should be located so there would not be so many individual basins driving up the cost of staff. That is a component of Option A which focused just on the development areas. The big issue under “A” and “B” is whether to establish regional basins. If regional basins are established, the County has the ability to charge pro-rata shares to developers to help pay for them. Whatever is spent now on program development, will save the County money in the long run. Mr. Boyd asked if the funding plan proposed has capital improvement money in it. Mr. Graham said staff is going to start implementing the projects in the master plan. Staff will undertake the projects it feels can be done within a reasonable time period. Mr. Rooker asked how many regional basins the master plans calls for construction of over the next ten years. Mr. Hirschman said there are 11 projects; some of those projects are retrofits, like Hollymead Lake. The Lake is there but it does not achieve any stormwater standard. That happens in all of the development areas including Crozet. That includes three projects to expand the development area of Crozet to the north. Mr. Rooker asked if there are already easements for those basins. Mr. Hirschman said “no”, they are only identified in the master plan. The master plan also identified streams which are eroding that need to be fixed. The plan goes beyond just building basins. Mr. Bowerman said a few years ago the County purchased the property needed for the Birnam Basin. There was some extra acreage available which the Board elected to get, so there is fee simple ownership from Townwood all the way to Greenbrier Drive and it is being used as access to that basin. It is also an amenity because it is a pathway between communities. Mr. Boyd said he wants to be sure these funding plans are intended to be self-sustaining in that the funds will take care of all the needs of the program including the building of the basins, the purchase of the easements, the maintenance, etc. Mr. Graham said there is one thing that has not been talked about. The County will maintain the fees currently charged for erosion, sediment control and stormwater maintenance, and the pro-rata shares. Mr. Dorrier asked if a stormwater utility is similar to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Hirschman said it is a fee for service and that is why it is called a utility. Mr. Davis said it is not a separate political entity and is operated by the County; it is not an authority. Mr. Dorrier asked if the County would bill the taxpayers for this service. Mr. Davis said it would be similar to how the City operates their water and sewer department. That is a utility of the City; it is not a separate entity. July 14, 2004 (Adjourned - Afternoon Meeting) ) (Page 5 Ms. Thomas said she thought the level of service chosen by the Board would be tied directly to how the service would be funded. She finds the staff’s analysis of the issue logically leads to a method of funding. Mr. Dorrier asked what percentage of stormwater systems are outside of the development areas. Mr. Hirschman said it is probably 75 percent. Mr. Wyant asked if there is any kind of an annual fee today for a subdivision, or is it a one-time payment? Mr. Graham said the pro-rata shares being set up now are a one-time charge to recover capital costs for that facility. Mr. Rooker said Ms. Thomas had an idea at the last meeting of putting this together with the groundwater program so most of those components could be funded from a single plan. He said Mr. Davis had said the groundwater plan could not be funded out of the utility district, but it could be funded from a service district. He thinks that when the Board talked about other localities most of them had utility district programs. He asked if staff knows of any locality which has a service district program. Mr. Davis said he is not aware of any locality having a countywide program. Mr. Hirschman said Lake Barcroft in Fairfax County has a small watershed improvement district. Mr. Davis said Albemarle is unique in this area because it has a concentrated urban area and a vast rural area. He said cities that predominantly use this program do not have that situation. In Virginia there are not a lot of similar circumstances. Mr. Rooker said in terms of the costs of operating and maintaining the program, is the service district more or less expense than a utility district from an administrative standpoint? Mr. Davis said there are more upfront costs involved in a utility. It depends on how it is set up. A service district has minimal associated costs because it is based on assessed value, and it would be an add-on to the tax bill based on data the County already has. A utility has to determine equivalent residential units. That data has to be inputted and maintained. The other portion of that would be a regular analysis to make sure the funding level set for the equivalent residential unit was enough to fund the program. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the Board should consider a stormwater service district through which both the stormwater program and the groundwater program might be funded. The groundwater program is more beneficial to the rural areas, and the stormwater program is probably more beneficial to the urban areas. Mr. Boyd asked if the fee would be put together into one program Mr. Rooker said “yes.” There would be a single countywide fee based on assessed value. The Board would look at it each year to determine what fee was necessary to fund that program. It sounds as if it would be fairly simple to administer. Mr. Boyd said since most of the problems for stormwater management are in the urban area why would the rural area pick up part of the cost. Mr. Bowerman said the County has a Land Use Taxation program which benefits all citizens. He personally thinks it is a countywide necessity to charge everybody the same fee. Mr. Dorrier said the staff report notes that “Staff is preparing an overview of a number of urban area needs, including stormwater, to discuss with the Board in a more comprehensive way at a Board work session in September.” Mr. Tucker said the staff is preparing for a work session in September on urban infrastructure. Mr. Dorrier asked if staff is talking about a separate line item for stormwater on the tax bill; is it also talking about a separate line item for other things. Mr. Davis said that is the caveat in this recommendation. Staff does not want to make this decision until it sees what other costs and organization are involved, and whether service districts are the answer to those, and whether in the big picture service districts are the way to go for all these costs. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board said today it was favoring a stormwater service district countywide to handle Option B, if that is as far as staff wants the Board to go today. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Staff needs to develop further information to present to the Board in September. Ms. Thomas said the Board could also say that since the staff has presented a few other options, it is not sure that is what it wants to do. She would be more comfortable saying that because at this point it seems like the way to go. She has felt for a few years that there should be a penny added to the tax rate to be used for the solid waste program. The Board took two pennies off of the tax rate when the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority was formed. Now, RSWA’s tipping fees have been eliminated. She thinks truth in taxation is a good thing for the taxpayers. That is another reason a separate line item on the tax bill does not disturb her. On the other hand, if there are 15 separate items on the tax bill, it just confuses the taxpayer. She reserves the right to change her mind, but she thinks that “A” and “B” are the right way to go. Mr. Boyd said the fees should be looked at globally. This week he received a letter concerning waste removal and some kind of a district being considered by the RSWA. That would be another fee. He thinks that everything in the “hopper” should be considered at one time. July 14, 2004 (Adjourned - Afternoon Meeting) ) (Page 6 Mr. Rooker asked if services could be intermingled into a single service district. Mr. Tucker said State Code identifies specifically the types of services that can be in a service district: stormwater, solid waste, improvements to sidewalks, are listed. Mr. Rooker said there could be one line item on the bill for groundwater management, for testing, for stormwater, for the landfill. He does not think there would need to be eight line items on the bill. Mr. Davis said the service district creates a dedicated fund, and how that fund was set up would determine how that money was distributed. Mr. Wyant said concerning the regional basins, some would be taken in from the growth areas plus the groundwater assessments. He thinks staff should decide how much it will cost yearly, and determine its effect on the budget. Mr. Davis said that at last month’s meeting the Board discussed whether the fee structure should cover the water monitoring aspect of the program, or whether that should be paid for in some other way. That is a decision the Board did not make at that time. He thinks Mr. Hirschman needs some guidance from the Board on the groundwater monitoring ordinance as to what that fee structure should be composed of, and whether that fee would just cover the cost of administration of the permitting process, or whether it should also cover the groundwater monitoring component of the Water Protection Ordinance. Mr. Rooker said he thinks a stormwater service district could be expensive. He does not see a relationship between the fees charged and countywide groundwater monitoring. He agrees with the Planning Commission’s comments that it is an expense that is incurred, not with respect to a particular subdivision, but with respect to protection of the County’s resources generally and it should be borne generally. If the Board decides that a service district is the way to handle stormwater and groundwater expenses, that expense should be a service district generally as opposed to trying to recover that from fees on applicants for wells who do not have any greater stake in it than the owners of the other wells in the County. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks the Board shied away from service districts in the past because it pits one area of the County against another. It would be a complicated system of overlays and administration of it could be difficult. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. Mr. Dorrier said he thinks Mr. Walter Perkins was in favor of service districts, but the other Board members shied away from them because it would be hard to administer. Mr. Tucker said when this was discussed in the past it was related to the Crozet area or the urban area. That creates the need for a differential tax and that is part of the differences between Option A and Option B. It might force people to move out into the rural areas trying to avoid a higher tax rate in the development areas. In this case, the Board would be looking at a countywide thing. Years ago the Board talked about a service district that covered the entire County for fire protection; that revenue would have been identified for fire protection improvements and future expansion of the County’s fire departments. Mr. Foley said whether there is a service district or a utility, it would be countywide. The difference would be whether the fee is based on property values, or whether everybody is assessed on the equivalent residential unit basis. Mr. Rooker said that is why he asked earlier about administration of the program and Mr. Davis said he thinks the utility district is more administrative heavy. Ms. Thomas said she favors the idea of assessing according to how much impervious surface there is on a property. She knows that from a practical standpoint that cannot be done so every house will be assessed on the same basis. Mr. Rooker said the good thing about the service district is that more than one thing can be done through that district. Ms. Thomas said the County does not put much money into the T.J. Soil and Water Conservation District. But, they are definitely dealing with stormwater runoff in the rural area. She does not know if it would be legal to tie the contribution to that agency. Mr. Hirschman said since the SWCD already has a program, the County might be able to contract its mandatory stormwater and illicit discharge obligations to them. Staff will be working on a memorandum of agreement to do that. Instead of the County having staff, SWCD already has staff which can provide those services. Mr. Foley said that in September there will be a work session on urban infrastructure and this is one of the big issues which will be discussed. He asked if the Board is concerned about the administrative burdens of establishing the utility and that is why the Board is leaning toward a service district. Mr. Rooker said that, plus the fact that more than one thing can be done through the district. If looking at paying for a number of potential services, he thinks it is not a good approach to set up several administrative facilities. If it is to be done, just have one district so the administrative burdens are singular rather than plural. July 14, 2004 (Adjourned - Afternoon Meeting) ) (Page 7 Mr. Boyd said he wants all the fees together in one place so the Board can look at them. Mr. Rooker said he thinks the stormwater district is the way to go. Then there is the decision about groundwater. Then the Board would look at fire services. Those expenses will be there whether the Board decides to do it through a service district or through the general fund. He asked that staff look at what would be needed to set up a service district, and then the Board can decide whether to do it. Mr. Bowerman asked if the distribution amount could be changed after the County began collecting it. Mr. Davis said the purpose of the service district must be designated at the beginning and it is then a dedicated fund for that service. He understands that if a service district is set up to cover multiple purposes, unless a rate is specified for each purpose, it would be a fund available for any of those purposes. That has good and bad aspects to it. Mr. Tucker said when the service district is created countywide it focuses on those types of services and needs. Since General Fund moneys are split with the Schools, the Board would have to decide on the rate after taking that into consideration. Mr. Wyant said he thinks this is a good move. There is a decrease in state funding for infrastructure. He said that sidewalks, storm sewer pipes, etc., are deteriorating faster than funding is being increased. It will create a major problem for the County three to five years from now. He said that some drainage problems have been brought to his attention since he became a Board member. He said the water has to get to a stream, so the County will have to address those problems eventually. Mr. Davis said the question is whether the County wants to assume the responsibility to address the things which are problems and whether or not to pay for those problems with County resources, or how they should be funded. Mr. Rooker said he thinks they would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Davis said part of the proposal is that under Option B there would be an administrative process set up to evaluate and undertake those types of complaints. Mr. Foley said staff is in the process of developing criteria for the Board to use when making that decision. Mr. Dorrier asked if permanent staff were set up to deal with these problems, would that encourage VDOT to push the problem to the County. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the state is looking to do that. Some communities are already asking that they be allowed to maintain their own roads. Under the County Manager form of government, that locality is responsible for its own roads; currently only Henrico and Arlington Counties. Ms. Thomas said the City of Charlottesville is trying to push that further and manage construction of their new roads. There is legislation that would allow that to happen. The tendency she sees is that the state is eager to get rid of anything that is expensive. Some localities are fed up with State agencies and want to do more themselves. That is one reason she was excited about some other way of supporting roads than just through the General Fund because she thinks it will be more and more stressed. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is out of the question that the Legislature will approve a gasoline tax increase. That seems to be obvious as the answer. Mr. Rooker said at the MPO they discussed whether this area might get the legislative authority for a gas tax that could be used for the interchanges on the Meadow Creek Parkway. In the current climate, it is fairly unlikely that there would be separate authority for that, although four or five counties have a gas tax now. One legislative proposal that got through the Senate, but which was tabled in the House, had to do with a seven-cent gas tax that would be divided up among the districts, basically each district keeping its own seven cents. Mr. Dorrier asked if staff needed anything further. Mr. Tucker said he would ask staff if they need any other clarification. Mr. Graham said this started with the idea that this Stormwater Master Plan would become a part of the Comprehensive Plan. He thinks staff needs a resolution of intent to amend that Plan. Mr. Tucker said this would give staff the ability to take developer contributions in the areas identified in the plan as development occurred. Mr. Dorrier said the Board would continue this conversation next month. _______________ motion Agenda Item No. 3. Closed Session. At 5:15 p.m., was offered by Mr. Boyd that the Board adjourn into closed session pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (3) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding the acquisition of property for public use, and, under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific matters requiring legal advice relating to a zoning issue. seconded The motion was by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: July 14, 2004 (Adjourned - Afternoon Meeting) ) (Page 8 AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. NAYS: None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. Note (: The Board will reconvene at 6:00 p.m. in Room 241, and the regularly scheduled meeting will continue at that time with certification of the closed session.) ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 02/02/2005 Initials: EWC