Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-13A October 13, 2004 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 13, 2004, at 3:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, Deputy County Executive, Roxanne W. White, Deputy County Executive, Tom Foley, Director of Office of Management and Budget, Melvin Breeden, Director of Community Development, Mark Graham, and Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Presentation: Urbanization Committee Report. Mr. Foley mentioned the Board’s September 8th work session on urban infrastructure needs, noting that this is an issue being driven by the Board’s strategic goal set last year. He added that they are now moving from the policy phase to the implementation phase. Mr. Foley explained that there have been a number of policy decisions before the Board – such as a subdivision text amendment, zoning ordinance changes, implementing master plans, addressing transportation needs, establishing a stormwater program and review of capital improvement plans. He stated that at the September 8th session, the Board discussed the County’s vision for the future of the Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Plan, and some of the realities of making that happen in the County. Mr. Foley noted that the Board has moved toward providing more city and town-like services that involve construction and replacement of facilities for transportation, stormwater, and streetscapes. He added that operational maintenance of sidewalks that leads to the type of environment in the Comprehensive Plan would be significant, citing the work along Berkmar Drive as an example of a VDOT- maintained sidewalk. Mr. Rooker suggested that they put into writing exactly what the County expects VDOT to do, noting that in a recent meeting, a VDOT official did not know who was responsible for sidewalk maintenance. Mr. Foley mentioned recording these suggestions as the Board go along so that staff can share them with VDOT. He presented slides on the topic of addressing urban infrastructure needs, noting that at this meeting the focus would be on achieving the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan, including exploring alternatives to addressing needs. Mr. Foley emphasized that one critical issue to be considered is what level of service is expected for the urban infrastructure, and what the impact is of meeting different levels of service – both in terms of capital and operations maintenance cost, and assessing funding alternatives and time frame for meeting the desired level of service. Mr. Graham described transportation as an “800-lb. gorilla,” noting that he would address the impacts and examples of each mode of transportation. He explained that highway improvements – such as intersection upgrades and traffic-calming measures – would continue to remain high-priority items. Mr. Graham defined “essential links” as road improvements that are needed to make the transportation network functional, where there are currently “gaps.” Mr. Graham said he would present three alternatives for the level of service: status quo, increasing urbanization (such as Prince William and Henrico Counties), and city equivalents (such as Arlington County). He explained status quo as the way things are now, with the County relying on VDOT for most road construction, with the exception of a few CIP projects. He mentioned that private streets are allowed in the County, although public streets are preferable. Mr. Graham noted that the County has very limited mass transit. He mentioned that the impacts on status quo include prohibitive capital costs, fostering a reliance on VDOT for both construction and maintenance of County roads. Mr. Graham added that the County has limited in-house expertise for constructing roads because they are not done on a regular basis. He cited Berkmar Drive and Mill Creek Drive as examples of roads where the County has stepped in and assumed construction to make “essential links,” noting that road improvements such as Georgetown Road, Proffit Road, and Jarmans Gap have been delayed because of reliance on VDOT. Mr. Graham explained that under a more urbanized scenario, the County would construct more roads to VDOT standards that are considered essential links to help fill out the transportation network, especially if VDOT funding is not available. The County still sees VDOT maintenance of all public roads; the County is not in the road maintenance business. He added that this scenario would see some expansion of mass transit. Mr. Graham emphasized that the County would expect more out of the development projects, and has already been active in pursuing proffers from developers to address the October 13, 2004 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) impacts of new construction. He noted that the County would need to “staff up” to accommodate road construction and design, similar to what is done now with public facilities such as new schools. Under the urbanized County example, he explained, there would be Route 29 improvements and Route 20 improvements through VDOT as planned, but the County would step up to complete essential links such as Lickinghole Creek, the Southern Parkway, Georgetown Road, and Proffit Road. Mr. Graham said that those roads have a very high need for upgrades to be able to handle the traffic that is already on them. Mr. Graham presented a map of the Crozet Master Plan, noting how the County might have to step in to help improve parts of Eastern Avenue and Main Street. He mentioned that developers have become more involved with Western Avenue improvements as part of their projects. Mr. Graham said that VDOT would still have an active role in the Jarmans Gap improvements. For the County to function as a city equivalent, he said that they would operate much like an urban area that has taken over the secondary road system, with VDOT constructing and maintaining the primary roads and hopefully the rural roads as well. We essentially split the County so that the County would become responsible for secondary roads in the development areas, but VDOT maintains everything else outside of those. He noted that the County would still construct all of the essential links – what is called for in the master plans, as well as maintaining the secondary roads. Mr. Graham added that private roads would be allowed by waiver only in the rural areas. Ms. Thomas asked for clarification of the private road status. Mr. Graham replied that alleys would stay with developments, but there would not be a need to go with a lane as a private street, it would fall under the County’s standards and would be publicly owned and maintained. Mr. Rooker asked if Arlington County maintained all of their roads, with a VDOT allocation. Mr. Graham replied that this is the case. Mr. Graham stated that the major impact of the city scenario is cost, with limited reliance on VDOT for construction. We are basically going to be responsible for the secondary system. It would require substantial County funding for street construction. The County would have to go through some legislative changes to get that city-equivalent funding. He noted that the County would receive an allocation from the state for maintenance, but realistically that amount is never enough. Mr. Graham added that there would need to be a County public works department with a lot of expertise in road design, construction, and maintenance. The County would still be looking for VDOT to fund the maintenance of roads in the rural areas. Mr. Graham discussed “streetscapes” outside of the public right-of-way, including sidewalks, street trees, streetlights, traffic-calming measures, and “pocket parks.” Mr. Dorrier asked about bicycle paths. Mr. Graham responded that the bicycle paths would fall under transportation because those lanes fall in the roadway itself. He stated that VDOT has indicated they would maintain bicycle paths in their streets, but if the County moved to a city scenario, the County would be responsible for maintaining them as part of secondary roads. Mr. Graham noted that private development is currently providing some streetscape with their projects; if it is a by-right development, they do a little bit more than what is stipulated in the ordinance; in rezonings, the County has been fairly successful in encouraging a street section that is more consistent with what the neighborhood model anticipates. He added that the County provides limited streetscaping now, such as on Route 29 and Route 250 in the right-of-way. Mr. Graham said that if status quo is kept, developments are going to occur faster than infrastructure, and there will be a “sizable gap there,” with County funding coming from the CIP budget. He noted that property owners maintain the streetscapes in the project areas, and the County ends up taking responsibility for sidewalks and street trees. Mr. Graham emphasized that maintenance is of utmost importance, especially as trees grow. Mr. Rooker suggested using tree species that might be easier to maintain. Mr. Graham explained that under the urbanizing County scenario, streetscapes become expensive, with pocket parks, sidewalks, and traffic-calming measures. He added that the County would also construct streetscapes outside of the Master Plan areas based on the improved CIP. The County would continue building those infrastructure projects that provide those essential links, and make that sidewalk network really work. Mr. Graham noted that there could be agreements with homeowners’ associations to maintain trees, but there is concern about the long-term costs to adequately keep up with that. Mr. Dorrier asked how far the right-of-way goes on either side of the trees he used in his example. Mr. Graham demonstrated on his visual presentation where the right-of-way falls, noting that an alternative would be putting the street trees on the private property, so there is not a public infrastructure and shifting the burden to the private property owners. Mr. Foley commented that the ideal in the Neighborhood Model is that the street tree will be in the planting strip, and VDOT would not have any responsibility; that will fall on the County. Mr. Graham elaborated, stating that VDOT will require the County to enter into a Master Agreement with them that the County is responsible for that maintenance. The County, in turn, will enter into an agreement with the property owners’ associations to make them responsible, if that is the intent. October 13, 2004 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) Mr. Rooker asked about a situation where there would just be a grass strip, and periodic planting would be done instead of large trees. Mr. Graham replied that VDOT would not have a problem with either a property owners’ association or the County maintaining flower beds or shrubs, it is the trees that “make them nervous.” Mr. Rooker suggested that there be some kind of planting in the strip, with the trees on the other side of the sidewalk. Ms. Thomas commented that that means everything is moved farther back off the street, creating “an aircraft carrier down the middle of a subdivision,” when the goal is to create a feeling that you’re living on the street. Mr. Rooker said that he is trying to come up with an alternative. He does not think the County is going to be able to afford this, so maybe there is something the County can afford, and maybe we should be at least looking at the options. Mr. Wyant said that he did a study with the city, and learned that tree size is an issue as it could affect road and sidewalk width allowable. Mr. Foley agreed that this is a significant issue, as VDOT’s accepted widths for maintenance need to be at least six feet. Mr. Dorrier commented that trees can crack up sidewalks. Mr. Foley noted that trees will drive maintenance costs up. Ms. Thomas responded that they also help clean up the air. Mr. Rooker emphasized that the question is where to put the trees. Mr. Graham said that regardless of whether you put the tree in the private property or in the right- of-way, it is still costing somebody money. He added that the question is, “Where is that burden for maintaining that tree going? Is it going to that private property owner or the County for seeing some of the benefit of that tree?” Mr. Rooker stated that his concern is that putting trees in the public area could present costs for maintenance and the possible future costs if the tree causes damage. Mr. Graham continued, noting that developments are expected to fund streetscapes at higher levels for new projects, as reflected in the Neighborhood Model and the Subdivision Ordinance amendment currently before the Board. He added that County expense would also grow, with sidewalks, parks, and street trees, as reflected in the Crozet Master Plan. Mr. Graham emphasized that VDOT constructs sidewalks with their road projects, such as Jarmans Gap Road, and maintaining those to some degree. Mr. Rooker asked about planting along roads like that. Mr. Graham responded that new subdivision regulations call for a minimum of a three-foot strip between the curb and the sidewalk if there is no street tree, and a minimum of a six-foot strip if there is a tree. VDOT is anticipating that there will always be a vegetative strip of some size between that sidewalk and that curb, effective next year. Mr. Rooker commented that it is nice to have the separation of trees and sidewalks for walkers and joggers. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that Route 29 has a planting strip, but it is the older stipulated width of two feet or so. Mr. Graham explained that there is a significant difference in maintenance depending on the location of the streetscape. He noted that if it falls in the right-of-way, the County should clarify whether property owners are responsible for maintenance of trees. Mr. Graham said that outside new development, the County maintains streetscapes along arterial streets and areas that might be identified in the Master Plan. He cited the example of St. George Avenue in the Crozet Master Plan, where the County would do improvements there. Mr. Graham noted that VDOT provides a base-level of maintenance for sidewalks, under the status quo and urbanized County scenarios. He said that VDOT would consider their maintenance of sidewalks along Berkmar to be acceptable. Mr. Graham said that the County would need to decide whether they want to raise that level of standard and be responsible for it. Mr. Rooker commented that VDOT is being “penny wise and pound foolish” by allowing the weeds to ruin the sidewalks. Ms. Thomas said that she believes there are a different set of questions associated with road maintenance than streetscapes. Mr. Graham agreed, noting that there is lots of flexibility as far as finding a balance between the County, VDOT, and property owners. Mr. Wyant commented that the function needs to be considered over the aesthetics of roadways. Mr. Graham agreed, stating that what is called for in the Crozet Master Plan and the Neighborhood Model shows an ideal. He guesses the question becomes, how close can the County afford to come to that ideal. Mr. Rooker said that there is a difference between what could be required in private neighborhoods, and what can be put into public areas. Maybe the standard is different. Mr. Graham said that under the urbanized County scenario, the idea is for the County to maintain the streetscapes along the arterial streets, but in the neighborhoods, the property owners would be responsible for most or all of that maintenance. Mr. Rooker commented that it comes down to an allocation of public resources, and choices will need to be made between sidewalks and streetscapes depending on the amount of funding available. Mr. Graham continued, explaining that under the city equivalent scenario, the secondary streets are County-operated, so there would be an extensive streetscape and associated cost impacts. He October 13, 2004 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) mentioned that there would still be private development payment for construction, but the County would be stepping in to maintain right-of-way improvements in neighborhoods. Mr. Graham presented an example of a County-built sidewalk/streetscape scenario, similar to what is done now with the CIP. He showed cost differentials for maintenance of sidewalks and streetscapes with different levels of service – A, B, C, and D levels – showing costs between $0 to $900,000 annually. Mr. Graham said that enhanced sidewalk and street tree maintenance would cost $800,000 annually. Ms. Thomas asked what the multiplier used is. Mr. Graham responded that the County is currently building two miles per year of streets in the development areas, and he used this assumption and played it out for ten years, shrinking to a mile and a half, then a mile a year. He explained that this also includes an assumption of the County building 2 to 3,000 feet of sidewalks a year, putting the street trees in as part of building those. He thinks the big important thing to do is just to illustrate the point that while the cost would not be very big over the first ten years, they do rapidly escalate especially on these enhanced levels of service. Mr. Graham said that trees need to be replaced after about 25 to 40 years, and that is the most expensive maintenance cost in this scenario, thousands of dollars per tree to take the trees down. Mr. Bowerman asked if those figures are based on actual localities, noting that trees live to be 50 and 100 years old. Mr. Graham replied that when they are restrained in smaller areas, they might not. He added that if they are allowed to grow, sidewalks and curbs can crack and buckle. Mr. Wyant emphasized that that is an argument for being very selective in choosing trees. Mr. Graham stressed that there are a lot of assumptions built in, but it will surely be a rapidly growing expense over time. Ms. Thomas asked how much the city spends on tree-related public works. Mr. Graham replied that he does not have exact figures, but there are very few trees in the right-of-way in the city. The city tends to push their sidewalks up against the curb, and then the trees are out of the right-of-way. Mr. Dorrier commented that in Scottsville, consultants recommended removing trees because they are cracking up sidewalks, adding that Bradford pears are problematic. Mr. Wyant said that he has recommended tree removal in situations where the trees can cause damage. Ms. Thomas stated that more than just cost should be considered when deciding about whether to include trees or not. Mr. Foley responded that the County is trying to provide an option for street trees that may not cause such a big impact to the public. Mr. Graham said that some people have expressed surprise at the perceived low cost of the streetscape maintenance. Mr. Rooker suggested looking at other localities to learn from their experiences about what has worked and what has not. Ms. Thomas said that once the concrete is laid down, it is mighty difficult to ever get a tree in there again. Mr. Rooker commented that in his district, sidewalks do not have street trees. He thinks it would be a tremendous leap forward if there was a planting strip whether or not the County plants big trees in that strip. Mr. Graham stated that their perspective was to try to get street trees planted on private property so that the long-term maintenance does not fall on the public. Mr. Foley explained that the County has discussed four new regional stormwater management basins, stream protection and restoration, and drainage systems. He said that the status quo is not possible because of new state and federal mandates, and the Board selected a County-wide program to include both an urban stormwater system and rural area water quality projects, such as stream restoration. Mr. Foley said that some of the capital funding impacts would include the construction of those facilities, but developers will assume pro-rated shares of the cost as well. He added that the County would be primarily responsible for maintenance and replacement of those facilities, and there would be limited private money for them. Mr. Rooker asked why a private stormwater facility – serving a private neighborhood – would be turned over to the County for maintenance. Mr. Davis replied that the ordinance requires that the facilities be brought up to County standards, and the reality of putting a major capital cost on a neighborhood of limited means with an acute problem would probably result in them coming to the County to bail them out. Mr. Bowerman stated that there could be an increased level of surveillance on these facilities. Mr. Foley emphasized that the stormwater program direction the County agreed to take includes stepping up inspection of private facilities. Mr. Dorrier asked if water protection deals with the reservoir. Mr. Graham explained that the County’s Water Protection Ordinance deals with the quantity of water, the excess runoff of increased impervious cover on development sites, and the water quality impacts associated with development. The County currently requires all new development to address those impacts. Mr. Davis commented that Board decisions made a few years ago now require dedication of easements that contain those facilities to the County so that new subdivision stormwater facilities are already part of County maintenance. Mr. Wyant asked about agreements made with those developments. Mr. Davis explained that there is a maintenance agreement with developers for the stormwater basins themselves, and the County inspects those on an annual basis. The County’s experience has shown that over time, it is very difficult to have those successfully maintained by the development homeowners’ association. Mr. Foley clarified that the level of service that the Board gave direction on assumes that the County remains much more involved because of the prospect of less costs in the long run. This is sort of laying out the level of service that was discussed before it was contained in the stormwater program October 13, 2004 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) under consideration. There were some pretty good discussions on different ways of funding. The real decision that the County has not come to is in the ‘Under Consideration’ area of whether to use the utility and stormwater district or just the general fund to fund some of these improvements. He added that items laid out in the Stormwater Master Plan cost $750,000 per year to increase to $1.25 million in five years. Mr. Foley noted that he actually believes that cost will double over that time period. Mr. Foley said that the public facilities considerations take into account the impact of urban areas and increased density on construction of libraries, parks and recreation facilities, schools, fire and rescue stations, parking, etc. He added that there will be opportunities to partner with the private sector also, such as with the Crozet Library, where the location could provide the core for the entire downtown development. Mr. Foley said that there will be increased operations and maintenance costs because of higher levels of service offered. He added that the information they are presenting includes impacts on the capital and operations costs given different levels of service. Mr. Foley stated that the only item they have not yet discussed is finding funding alternatives, and regardless of which scenario is considered, the Board will need to consider these options. He cited examples such as service districts, fee-based assessed on real estate values, or separate taxing authorities such as a transportation body that could assign a gas tax to deal with major transportation needs. Mr. Foley said that general funds and revenues could help pay for these items also. Ms. Thomas asked where the Public-Private Education Act fits in, such as the Community Development Authority. She noted that developers were optimistic about the possibility of saving interest charges, such as with North Pointe. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she did not feel the County currently has the expertise to deal with these funding alternatives. They may be only a fad, but they are a growing way for other counties to be funding some specific projects. Mr. Davis commented that some of those public-private partnerships are not related to development, and have been met with mixed success, according to participating localities. Ms. Thomas said that that is true of other funding options as well. Mr. Rooker asked if counties and cities in Virginia are allowed to enter into sale-lease tax of public facilities. He noted that there are currently all kinds of deals being done by localities on a nationwide basis where they basically sell public facilities – transportation, public buildings, etc. – and private parties buy the depreciation. Mr. Davis responded that in larger localities – such as Mr. Rooker’s Chicago example – there must be specific buyers, and they are very complicated deals. He thinks there is a size issue there. He has not seen any in Virginia. Mr. Rooker said he had recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal about this recently, and large localities were making a lot of money. Mr. Dorrier asked about assessing different tax rates. Mr. Davis pointed out that under current tax laws, land use is limited in how it is applied, and there are constitutional restraints on different tax rates, with the exception of personal property taxes. Mr. Foley said that the Board will need to make decisions on service districts versus general fund revenues to help pay for improvements, as well as clearly outlining what the increased expectation is for developers and homeowners associations. He said that all urban infrastructure needs should be considered so that the Board can balance out what should be paid for by general funds versus districts. The staff wanted the Board to look at this holistically, and look at the cumulative impact of meeting these needs, so that a decision can be made considering each of the areas and what might be most appropriate. He added that the timeframe for improvements should also be considered, as there will be revenue growth in the future. Mr. Foley noted that the Capital Improvements Technical Committee currently has in front of them millions of dollars worth of increased requests to build roads, and they are “basically on hold” because they are not sure what direction the County is going to go in. That whole process cannot really go forward without some more direction from the Board, and timing obviously is a critical piece of this. He added that the committee is currently looking at ten and five-year scenarios. Mr. Foley commented that given all of the financial needs out there, the County must make a real commitment to multi-year financial planning. That is the process the staff uses to establish priorities and to address the cumulative impacts of all these things. Mr. Dorrier summarized that the Board needs to set priorities – what we can afford now, and what we cannot afford, and then percentages of amounts of money that we want to spend. He said that construction priorities should be set first. Mr. Rooker commented that some items – such as stormwater – are mandatory, and the highest priority should be to meet them. He said that some items such as large transportation projects should be considered with joint city-County planning. Mr. Rooker said that there seemed to be consensus to deal with stormwater on a County-wide basis, but things such as sidewalks and streetscapes that only benefit the urban areas are not going to be appealing to the County as a whole. He is in favor of pursuing the service district for stormwater, using the equivalent unit method that the Board discussed at its last meeting. Mr. Foley said that the staff would be looking for that direction during the strategic planning retreat. In response to Mr. Dorrier’s questions, Mr. Foley noted that the CIP Technical Committee is given the initial review of CIP requests that have come in, and there are significant new construction and transportation projects in those requests, based on the Master Plans. There is no real policy that says we do build roads. In fact, County policy in the past has been that we do not. So the staff would need to understand what direction the County is going in before they would recommend something to the Board. October 13, 2004 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Rooker mentioned that he was informed by Wayne Woodcock at an MPO meeting that money could be moved from the Ivy Road project to the Georgetown Road project, which would provide most of the needed funds for those improvements. Ms. Thomas said that the Board has had discussions about strategies without dealing with the urbanizing issues, and now they are “getting the reality that things are going to cost money.” She added that she is proud of the direction the County has been going in, recognizing that you cannot scatter direction throughout the County and have the quality of life you want. Ms. Thomas said that the Board is trying to avoid having to go back and correct oversights for things like stormwater disposal. She added that the Board has been working towards a positive quality of life in both rural and urban settings, noting that their plans should not be thrown out just because of cost. She has just always assumed it was going to cost some money. She mentioned the recognition the County has received for its intelligence in planning strategies such as the Neighborhood Model. The question is how the Board is going to fund that, rather than whether we are going to fund it. The Board can quibble about where street trees are placed and such, but anything less would make the County a “Grade B” community. She cautioned Board members on getting too fixated on the cost. Mr. Foley said that he is not expecting decisions to be made today, but this session is more th informational, and the October 26 meeting is devoted more towards decision-making. Mr. Dorrier said that he believes community development authorities need to be considered more seriously. Mr. Foley responded that they see CDAs falling under service districts, and the areas need to be defined. Mr. Wyant commented that some items need to be separated as far as what is new construction, and what needs to be maintained. He said that the County may have to allocate funds as VDOT does, with new and existing projects considered separately. Mr. Rooker said that state maintenance funds are dwindling, and that also needs to be taken into account. (At 4:24 p.m., the Board took a recess, and then reconvened at 4:31 p.m.) _______________ Agenda Item No. 3. Presentation: Five Year Forecast Financial Model. Ms. White addressed the Board, reminding them that at last year’s Board retreat, Board members had indicated an interest in using long-term financial planning in making decisions about resource allocations. She presented an overview of a written model that showed the impact of capital decisions on the operating budget. She then introduced Courtney Rogers of Davenport and Associates to further explain. Mr. Rogers explained that Davenport has been working with the County for five years on financial planning, including courts, public safety initiatives, and set-aside for capital projects to reduce debt incurred. He said that his firm has done modeling for other localities, but each is unique and cannot really be packaged, and is continuously being refined. Mr. Rogers said that using a multi-year model with different revenues and expenditures assumptions, they have presented the impact of capital projects on cashflow levels and tax rates. This is kind of a foresight item to be able to look ahead to show how to minimize the impact. He emphasized that the model was set up so that all of the iterations can be done by County staff at any point. Mr. Rogers said that the County has been rated AAA by Moody’s, and was close to getting that rating from Standard & Poor’s, but that firm required a longer term analysis than what Albemarle had at the time. He noted that they would approach S&P again once this model is in place. Mr. Rogers stated that the model would be implemented with the approved budget/CIP, and as time goes on, staff considers specific departmental plans and puts them into the model. These items can be turned on and off to see what happens. He cited examples of salary increases, etc., as being variables that could be used in the model to glean the financial impact. Mr. Rogers pointed out that economic impacts could also be factored in. Mr. Rooker asked if it would be easy to run different scenarios, such as fluctuating housing prices. Mr. Rogers said the model is created so that it can accommodate many different changing variables. Mr. Wyant asked if variables such as what VDOT will fund or not fund would be able to be considered in this model. Mr. Rogers responded that they could be factored in as well. He explained that cash versus bonds and interest rates are also flexible in this model, so that they can be changed to affect outcome. Mr. Rogers defined some of the major inputs, such as salary increases, benefit costs, and general operational increases. He mentioned that they can be changed on a year-to-year basis, and so can property values and tax rates and inflation rates. Mr. Rogers said that on the departmental level, the inputs for operational expenses and capital expenses can be changed either as one-time or ongoing items. He reported that all individual tax items are broken out in the model as well. October 13, 2004 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) Regarding expenditures, Mr. Rogers said that there is detail provided on departmental and master levels. For capital expenses and their related operational costs, he said that those items are broken out on a departmental and project-by-project basis. He added that the impact on tax rates is also calculated as a separate outcome variable. Mr. Dorrier asked about 2004 expected revenues. Mr. Rogers clarified that they are working with the 2005 budget now, adding that the general property tax rate is used for income. Ms. Thomas asked about when school expenses would be included. Ms. White responded that right now the projected transfer to the school is used, acknowledging that it may be altered as more information is available. Ms. Thomas expressed her understanding that the school proportion shrinks when an area becomes more urbanized. Mr. Foley agreed. Mr. Wyant asked when accurate data would be included in this model. Ms. White responded that staff would bring forth several scenarios of capital impacts of project costs when budget numbers for 2005 are available. Mr. Rogers commented that the model is about 95 percent done, and specific information would soon be available to feed into the model, such as what was done with fire and rescue. Mr. Wyant commented that he has used this type of “sensitivity model” in the past, and it is very helpful in analyzing possible impacts. Ms. White stated that she sees the value of the model as property assessments increase, anticipating the possibility that they may level off. Mr. Breeden noted that historically, that has been the pattern. Ms. Thomas said that she read an article that indicated the city felt it was relying too much on real estate income, and wondered if there was a way of determining how more retail revenue might impact the model. Ms. White responded that there is nothing in the model that really anticipates that beyond an annual income source. Ms. Thomas stated that there is already so much retail square footage per resident as it is. Mr. Rooker commented that he believes Albemarle is not “out of line” with other localities. Ms. Thomas said that the national average is 20 square feet, and Albemarle is closer to 80 square feet. Mr. Rooker said that he would be surprised if all of the Highway Commercial projects, such as Albemarle Place, were ready in the next 10 to 12 years. Mr. Dorrier asked if there was a way to include the tax advantages offered to private developers in the model. Mr. Rogers said that those types of public-private partnerships are not really accommodated in the current version of this model, but it has been created with future modifications in mind. Mr. Rooker asked if future private road-building expenses had been included in the model. Mr. Breeden said that CIP projects have been built into the model, but other less tangible agreements have not yet been factored in. Mr. Dorrier noted that magisterial districts are built around population, not values of property, commenting that values of property will skew specific taxes such as transportation districts. Mr. Tucker emphasized that they try to balance the districts to take those factors into account. Mr. Rooker stated that it could be argued that rural areas are more expensive, as urban locations are tighter and cost the County less to serve. The investment to service the same number of people in a rural area is usually more expensive than the investment necessary to service the same number of people in the urban area. Mr. Dorrier commented that most of the primary roads fall in the urban areas. Mr. Tucker said that these issues would be revisited at the Board retreat, and again at the January meetings. __________ Mr. Tucker noted that, at the Board’s direction, his office has prepared a resolution related to the personal property relief act to go to the Governor and all legislators for the Chairman’s signature. Motion seconded was then offered by Mr. Rooker, by Mr. Wyant, to adopt a resolution (set out below) requesting that the 2005 General Assembly fully restore personal property tax relief reimbursement to Albemarle County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE 2005 GENERAL ASSEMBLY FULLY RESTORE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF (PPTR) REIMBURSEMENT TO ALBEMARLE COUNTY FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY, 2006 THROUGH JUNE, 2006 WHEREAS , the 2004 General Assembly revised the Personal Property Tax Relief (PPTR) Act of 1998, one impact of which was to reduce the State reimbursement to 44 localities in the Commonwealth by $240.0 million; October 13, 2004 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) WHEREAS , the revised legislation eliminates any State reimbursement funds to localities in the last half of Fiscal Year 2005/06 (January, 2006 – June 2006); WHEREAS , Albemarle County along with other localities with a split–billing of personal property tax collection will experience a significant revenue shortfall in Fiscal Year 2005/06 as a result of this legislation; WHEREAS , Albemarle County will incur an $8.0 million shortfall in FY05/06 due to the loss of state personal property reimbursement revenues for the last half of Fiscal Year 2005/06; WHEREAS , this legislation passed by the 2004 General Assembly resolved the State’s financial crisis, it has unknowingly and unfairly placed an $8.0 million tax burden on Albemarle County citizens; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the Governor and the 2005 General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia restore the necessary State funds that will fully reimburse Albemarle County for their rightful Personal Property tax revenues for the period January 2006 through June 2006. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 03/02/2005 Initials: DBM