Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-01December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 1, 1999, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office Building, Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman; Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris; Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.; Mr. Charles S. Martin; Mr. Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 9:10 a.m.); and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, .Ir.; County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis; and County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.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. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Ms. Humphris offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve items 5.1 through 5.4, to pull items 5.2 and 5.6 for discussion later in the meeting, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. None. Item No. 5.1. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to allow for the possible location of certain larger scale public facilities in the designated Rural Areas. The executive summary states that the County has been through the search process for several school sites in recent years, including the current efforts to find a northern elementary site. Additional school site needs are anticipated in upcoming years. These schools function as both educational and community recreational facilities and, thus, require significant land area. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that schools are located in designated Development Areas. It may be more appropriate in some cases not to consume significant Development Area land with larger scale public facilities such as schools and instead locate them in certain Rural Area locations in close proximity to a Development Area. This can save Development Area land for intended urban land uses, yet locate public facilities where public utilities and infrastructure can be feasibly provided to support the use. Any such location should also be evaluated for its relationship to other Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives and the potential of the location being within future Development Area expansion. By the following recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to allow for the possible location of certain larger scale public facilities in the designated Rural Areas: RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, it is incumbent upon the County to provide adequate public facilities and services to the residents of the County; and WHEREAS, the location of larger scale public facilities such as schools and parks within designated Development Areas can consume extensive areas of undeveloped land that could be better used for residential employment, and other business and services uses more appropriately located in the Development Areas; and WHEREAS, it may be appropriate to locate larger scale public facilities in certain locations within the designated Rural Areas of the County, particularly areas in close proximity to designated Development Areas which may be subject to future Development Area expansion. NEW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to allow for the possible location of certain larger scale public facilities in the designated Rural Areas. December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Mebting) (Page 2) Item No. 5.2. Meadow Creek Parkway North of Rio Road/Free State Road to Rio Road Connector- request to proceed under revised study process. The executive summary states that, in July of this year, the Board authorized Mr. Tucker to execute an "Agreement for Highway Project Administration" with VDOT to administer the Meadow Creek Parkway project from Rio Road to Route 29 North. The agreement was divided into three mutually dependent projects: Free State-Rio Road Connector - locate and design, acquire right-of-way, and construct a connector road which would replace the Free State Road railroad bridge replacement project currently in the 6-Year Secondary Plan; Meadow Creek Parkway Study - environmental documents and preliminary engineering necessary to achieve Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) location approval for Meadow Creek Parkway from Free State Road to Route 29 North; and Meadow Creek Parkway Extension - final design, acquire right-of-way and construct this section of Meadow Creek Parkway consistent with the CTB approved location. The agreement appendices designated the responsibilities of the County and VDOT for each project. In attempting to finalize the agreement, the County was advised by VDOT that, to preserve the use of federal funds for the construction of Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road, "environmental documents must be based on logical termini having independent utility." As a result, if VDOT Secondary funds are to be used, the Rio Road to Free State Road connector must be designed and built independent of Meadow Creek Parkway. Four possible alternatives are identified in Attachment A (on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record). Staff recommends that the Board authorize proceeding with Alternative 1, which will allow the Rio Road to Free State Road connector to proceed immediately as a replacement for the Free State Road Railroad Bridge replacement project. In the short term, this connector will provide a better access for the Free State Road area as it develops than improving the Free State Road railroad bridge and sending that traffic through existing streets in the neighborhoods west of the railroad (Northfields, Carrsbrook, etc.). The Free State Road railroad bridge can then be abandoned as a public road for vehicular traffic and limited to pedestrian and bicycle traffic only. In the longer term, while the Meadow Creek Parkway project north of Rio Road will be delayed until a contract to construct the Rio Road to Free State Road connector is awarded, the connector road will be in place as a logical section of the ultimate Meadow Creek Parkway. This alternative also preserves the use of Secondary funds for both projects and does not require amendment of the current 6-Year Secondary Plan. (Ms. Humphris asked that this item be discussed under Agenda Item No. 7. Other Transportation Matters.) Item No. 5.3. Law Enforcement Block Grant Award. The executive summary states that the Department of Justice has awarded Albemarle County $22,215 in federal funding with a required 10 percent local cash match of $2,222 for a total of $24,237 available for public safety initiative. The purpose of the grant program is the reduction of crimes and improving public safety. The funding formula is based primarily on the Part 1 Uniform Crime Report offenses over three-year average. These grant funds may be used in the following areas: Law enforcement support for hiring, training, and employing on a continuing basis new, additional law enforcement officers or support personnel. If new personnel are hired there must be a net gain over the unit of local government's current appropriated budget, in the number of law enforcement officers who perform non-administrative public safety service. Paying overtime to presently employed law enforcement officers and necessary support personnel for the purpose of increasing the number of hours worked by such personnel. Establishing crime prevention programs involving the cooperation between community residents and law enforcement personnel to control, detect, or investigate crime or the prosecution of criminals. Procuring equipment, technology, and other material directly related to basic law enforcement functions. December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting/ (Page 3) Staff has recommended using these grant funds for overtime for current officers concentrating in the northern/western areas of the county. This approach will be patterned after outreach efforts in southern Albemarle. Efforts in the southern section of the County have had an effect on crime and public safety in the area. Staff continues to address crime and quality of life issues in the Esmont community and other neighborhoods in southern Albemarle. Expanding the police presence in the northern/western regions of the county will allow staff to continue to identify and address crime issues that specifically impact these areas. The concept is to assign Neighborhood Resource Officers (NRO's) a geographic area of responsibility. These officers will be tasked with analyzing and coordinating activities in their geographic region. The grant funding would be used to provide overtime coverage and to re-staff for shortages. NRO's would also be assigned to deal with neighborhood problems and be a liaison for the community with the police department. The NRO's would provide a plan of action to address public safety and quality of life issues in their geographic region. Duties would include: Identifying problems in geographic regions including crime statistics and traffic analysis. Acting as a liaison with area schools, churches, civic associations, senior groups, and neighborhood watches. Identifying and meeting with community leaders in each geographic area. Concentrating on meeting people, even door-to-door visits with businesses and residents in each geographic area. Handling follow-up investigations if necessary. Utilizing patrol at every available opportunity. Staff recommends approval for the use of the Block Grant funds for overtime for officers working on community policing initiatives in the northern/western areas of the County. By the above-recorded vote, the Board approved the use of the Block Grant funds for overtime for officers working on community policing initiatives in the northern/western areas of the County. Item No. 5.4. Adopt Resolution to approve FY 2000 Thomas Jefferson Venture Budget. The executive summary states that the Thomas Jefferson Venture, approved in October 1999, will receive $289,480 for fiscal year 2000 to fund several programs previously approved by the Board of Supervisors. A letter from Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director Of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record), requests Board approval of the FY00 budget for the Thomas Jefferson Venture. No local match is required from Albemarle County. Staff recommends approval of the resolution approving the FY00 Thomas Jefferson Venture. By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution to Approve the FY 2000 Thomas Jefferson Venture Budget: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE THOMAS JEFFERSON VENTURE BUDGET WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Venture has been certified under the Regional Competitiveness Act to implement the Venture Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Venture Strategic Plan has been adopted at a previous date by each locality within the region; and WHEREAS, the attached Budget for Year One will b'e the first step in implementing the Strategic Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby approve the Year One Budget for the Thomas Jefferson Venture. Item No. 5.5. Competitive Compensation Analysis, response to questions from Board members, was received for information. Item No. 5.6. 1999 Albemarle County Cost of Living Study was received for information. Mr. Martin asked that this item be pulled from the agenda and placed on the January 5, 2000 regular agenda for discussion by the Board. December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) Item No. 5.7. Abstract of Votes cast in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, at the November 3, 1999 General Election, was received for information. Item No. 5.8. Copy of public notice for reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0055000, Crozet WTP, was received for information. Item No. 5.9. Copy of First Quarter Report for JAUNT services in Albemarle County for FY00, was received for information. Item No. 5.10. Copy of School Board's 2000 Legislative Position Paper, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: June 4, 1997 and September 15, 1999. Mr. Perkins said he read the minutes of June 4, 1997 and approved them as written. Mr. Bowerman said he read the minutes of September 15, 1999 and approved them as written. Mr. Bowerman moved to approve the minutes of June 4, 1997 and September 15, 1999 as written. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary for Item No. 5.2, which was pulled for discussion. (The executive summary appears under Consent Agenda.) He also noted a revision to the executive summary which had been previously distributed (on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record). Ms. Thomas asked for an explanation of the phrase "logical termini having independent utility". She also asked why Route 29 North and Rio Road are not logical termini having independent utility. Ms. Humphris said VDOT's presentation was based on that terminology, but no one knows what that means. Mr. Cilimberg said the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), in a recent meeting, said that that terminology is based on the process of going through an environmental study to qualify a project for federal funding. Because staff was studying building soon a section of roadway that would ultimately be part of the Meadow Creek Parkway, and which would be funded by the state, the project has to be separated completely from the Meadow Creek Parkway environmental study. The Meadow Creek Parkway environmental study must have a beginning and end point not driven by any other project under study. The other project under study would be the Free State Road/Rio Road piece of the Meadow Creek Parkway. The FHA's concern is that not including the Free State Road/Rio Road project in the complete environmental process, and funding it with state money, would drive the ultimate location or termini of the Meadow Creek Parkway. Therefore, alternatives are to conduct the Meadow Creek Parkway study from Rio Road to Route 29 North now, which could take three years under the environmental process to, or to separate the two and look at the Free State Road/Rio Road section first and later connect the Parkway to Rio Road once the Free State Road/Rio Road project is under contract. He further clarified that the Meadow Creek Parkway environmental impact study will not start at Free State Road; it will start at Rio Road. The Free State Road/Rio Road section will be considered as one alternative, but it could go in another location under the environmental impact study. Mr. Davis said the corrected executive summary is not correct from VDOT's point of view. The County views these as mutually dependent projects, but VDOT views the Free State Road project as being independent. Mr. Martin said VDOT is concerned that the Meadow Creek Parkway will extend all the way to Route 29. This mandate decreases the chances that it will. He is concerned that Free State Road will simply come to an abrupt end, not really going anywhere. He agreed that the County needs to look at the entire project. Mr. Tucker said staff thinks this is the best opportunity to get the road started. Choosing the other alternative, which would require an environmental impact study, would be at the County's expense and according to VDOT's timetable. Mr. Martin added that might mean there would be even more development in that area in the meantime. The money is already set aside to upgrade the Free State Road Railroad Bridge. It may not be possible to prevent access to the Northfields Subdivision by any development in that area. Mr. Bowerman said he is concerned that if the County engineers a center line, I December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) and then a developer dedicates and builds on a section of the property, once the environmental impact study is completed on the entire proiect, it could impact on that development. Mr. Cilimberg said the placement of the Free State Bridge is a factor too. It is in the secondary plan and is scheduled to begin next year. The bridge would send some of the development traffic into Northfields. Therefore, the bottom portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway is actually replacing that project and can stand independently. Mr. Bowerman said the Huntington section is a poorly designed road for an urban area. Mr. Cilimberg added that emergency vehicles have to enter by way of a private driveway off Dunlora Drive. Mr. Martin said he does not like the idea of a road that ends nowhere. However, he does not want to postpone construction for three to four years, which could result in the condemnation of roads built in the right-of-way in the meantime. Ms. Thomas asked how the plan fits in with the action the Planning Commission took when it did not decide the path of a road through a new development it approved. Mr. Cilimberg admitted that that is a problem. The Commission has never looked at that section as to the specific location as part of the study it wants to get funded; therefore, the road may pass through any of several locations. The Engineering Department examined the project and selected what it thought was the best probable location. Initially the Commission required that the subdivision plat had to note that the Meadow Creek Parkway might pass through it. The owner then said he would not develop that part of the subdivision. Mr. Davis said the action required is for the Board to authorize the County Executive to execute the amended agreement for Highway Project Administration. This would implement what the Board has discussed as Alternative 1, to accelerate the Freestate Connector as a County-managed, state funds- financed project to preserve access to the community served by Free State Road. Mr. Bowerman offered the motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to authorize the County Executive to execute the amended agreement for Highway Project Administration, to implement Alternative 1, to accelerate the Freestate Connector as a County-managed, state funds-financed project to preserve access to the community served by Free State Road. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: · Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Mr. Bill Mills said VDOT has installed center and edge lines on Huntington Road. It has not yet installed the edge lines in the Woodbrook Subdivision. Mr. Mills said VDOT has completed repairs to the entrance to Mr. Marshall's property. Mr. Mills said Raintree and Old BrOok Road Subdivisions need an urban cross section from Raintree in order to install bikelanes. He thought citizens might be concerned about losing parking. Mr. Bowerman said residents have agreed to park on one side of the street only, and he will contact the homeowners association to find out which side they want to park on. Mr. Perkins said he received a request to ask VDOT to conduct a speed study on Brown's Gap Turnpike to lower the speed limit on Route 680 from Route 810 to Route 240. Mr. Perkins said a citizen's automobile was recently damaged while travelling on the road to Innisfree, and that he had asked that the road be paved. Mr. Mills said he spoke to the Superintendent about paving that section of the road and will follow up. He has also met with the consultant to work on other issues at Innisfree. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the City's portion of Route 29 is still signalized with the County portion. Mr. Mills responded, "No." Mr. Bowerman asked if not possible to route Richmond traffic to the first exit, taking them to the west of the city instead of over Free Bridge. The time difference would be minimal, but could be less traffic on Free Bridge. Mr. Marshall said this is actually a shorter route in terms of time spent travelling. It was the consensus of the Board to ask for this. Mr. Mills will look into this. December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation by Housing. Ms. Virginia McDonald gave the presentation on the Housing Department, which included information regarding the Rental Assistance Program, Homeownership Programs, Non-Profit Partnerships, the Public Housing Administration (PHA), and the Housing Committee. Mr. Marshall said the average rent for a one- to three-bedroom house is under $600, and he wanted to know who pays the rent above and beyond the government's contribution. Ms. McDonald said that is the renter's responsibility. The amount the government pays depends on the amount of money a family is awarded, the location of the residence, and "rent reasonableness", so different people receive different amounts of money. Mr. Marshall said he felt the issue of affordable housing could best be handled through the Development Area Initiatives Study Committee, which needs to expand the growth areas for affordable housing. There is a widening gap between the rich and poor in the County. Ms. McDonald said the land use plan and economics come into play. The PHA continues to provide loans. Re-funding of the Virginia Housing Partnership by the state will be part of a legislative project. Mr. Martin said this has been included in the neighborhood model, and the County has to ensure that it becomes a reality. Large houses with only two people in them are currently filling infill. Ms. Thomas asked how Montgomery County manages the process. Ms. McDonald said the Housing Study Committee put together a local ordinance package, but has not yet presented it, because it wants developers to serve on the committee so that they will be more likely to support the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked about a "rent-to-own program" which would allow a homeowner to work with AHIP to find a family who can rent the home and eventually purchase it, without that being "visible" to the community. Ms. McDonald said that such a program is already in place. Mr. Bowerman said many people have trouble coming up with a downpayment. Mr. Martin said the City is discussing tightening up public housing rules to help teach people how to prepare for home ownership. Ms. McDonald said effective this February, the QHWRA (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of October 1998) can set aside a percentage of a renter's vouchers to be used as mortgage payments. Ms. Thomas said many people in the community are trying to provide affordable housing. Mr. Marshall asked for a definition of"affordable housing". Ms. McDonald said an "affordable home" must be decent and quality housing that does not exceed 30 percent of a family's income. Mr. Marshall said he wants to control growth and that the County must have affordable housing mixed with more expensive homes. Agenda Item No. 9. School Board Report. Mr. John Baker presented the School Board Report (handout available in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record). Mr. Martin said that in order to provide special services to some children results in them being labeled with Individual Education Programs (IEP's). That then locks the school system into mandates, resulting in a "catch-22". Mr. Baker said this is compounded more than one child is involved in an incident but not all have an IEP. Mr. Bowerman asked about softdrinks. Mr. Baker said eventually they would not be available in any of the. schools. Mr. Martin said his son told him there is no logical way to assign lockers, so many students have to carry all their books around all day. He said students should be assigned lockers near their classes. Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation to School Board Members. Mr. Martin presented plaques certifying the Board's appreciation to Mr. John Baker and Mr. Jeff Joseph for their years of service on the School Board. Agenda Item No. 11. Membership in Chamber of Commerce (continued discussion from November 3, 1999). Mr. Tucker said that, at its November 3, 1999 meeting, the Board discussed potential membership in the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce and requested further discussion at the December 1, 1999 meeting. The information below summarizes participation by selected counties in their respective chambers and a description of current and potential services provided by the Chamber to Albemarle County. The following information answers the question: "Is your county a member of your local Chamber of Commerce, at what cost, and what specific services do you receive for your membership?" December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) Augusta County Member of the Greater Augusta Regional Chamber along with Staunton and Waynesboro. Contribution is $580, a fixed amount. Both the cities of Staunton & Waynesboro and the County of Augusta have memberships. They pay regular dues based on the number of employees they have. The Chamber provides exactly the same services provided to any other Chamber member with no special arrangements. Rockinqham County Chamber member. They contribute $3,000; however, this is an arbitrary amount determined by the Board to fund various projects in the community. Hanover County Henrico County Chesterfield County All three counties are members of the Richmond Chamber. Each contributes money of various amounts to Economic Development Programs, "GREAT," and a welfare to work program, "Workforce 1". Each County participates in the "Greater Richmond Partnership" campaign. This is a five-year campaign in which each locality (including the City of Richmond) has pledged to give $325,000 per year over five years to the success and establishment of this program. Loudoun County Chamber member, although they do not actually fund the Chamber itself. Stafford County Member of the Fredericksburg Regional Chamber. They contribute $1,093 in membership fees, which allows them to share the same benefits as other members. The fee is adjusted for government membership. They also fund or sponsor several community programs, such as job fairs, etc. James City County Member of the Williamsburg Chamber of Commerce. The County pays $12,000 in dues to the Chamber. Spotsylvania County Member of Fredericksburg Regional Chamber of Commerce, which includes Stafford, Spotsylvania, and King George counties. They are trying to bring Caroline County into Chamber membership. Dues are $1,093, which has been fixed for the past three years. They also participate in events throughout the year for a fee, i.e., regional awards breakfast, and the opportunity to participate in training retreat, etc. The County Administrator is a voting member of the Board of Directors. Fauquier County Fauquier County is not an official member of their chamber, but maintains a close working relationship through a $50,000 annual contribution to the Chamber's Tourism Bureau. Fauquier uses the Chamber to assist them with economic development referrals from the State and to represent the business community on their various boards and committees. Mr. Tucker said, based on the above information, there seems to be no consistent pattern in the relationship and membership fees between each local governing body and their Chamber. Rather, each locality seems to develop their relationship based on their own needs, some paying a fiat membership fee, and some paying additional funds for specific, well defined services or programs over and above general membership services. This summary was provided for the Board's information and for determining whether the Chamber should submit a funding request for FY2001. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the Board should become a member of the Chamber, because the region's economic viability depends on the Chamber. Mr. Perkins said he also supported membership in the Chamber. Ms. Thomas said she liked the Fauquier County model; the County should not be a member, but should maintain a close working relationship with the Chamber. She added that the County already contributes $200,000 annually for tourism. Ms. Humphris agreed, saying that the Chamber is a worthwhile part of the community, but there are other organizations that fill the County's needs without the County joining them. The School Division also contributes substantial funds and leadership. The Chamber's purpose is to monitor and influence local legislation, which should not be something to which the County December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) belongs. Mr. Bowerman said the Chamber and all other groups are equal in terms of community spirit and impact on the community, and the current relationship with the Chamber is adequate. It was the consensus of the Board not to join the Chamber. Agenda Item No. 12. Mediation Center Proposal, Presentation by Ms. Carolyn Miller. Ms. Miller summarized the executive summary, which states that the County's local Mediation Center, located at Focus, is one of eight mediation centers around the state who have joined together as the Virginia Coalition of Community Mediation Centers. The Coalition will be seeking funding from the Virginia General Assembly for a public-private partnership that will provide conflict resolution services on broad community issues. The centers are currently unable to be proactive in providing conflict resolution assistance to localities for community wide issues due to lack of funding. Currently their funding comes mainly from fees, donations and limited local support. Information from the local Mediation Center provides a summary of the key elements of the proposed legislation and the key benefits to both the state and local communities (on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record). Information was also provided on the impact and financial benefit of mediation services from the eight centers throughout the state, as well as the benefit of the local Mediation Center to the Albemarle/Charlottesville community. This information was provided for the Board's information and did not require any action at this time. Ms. Thomas said the Sustainability Council said a number of mediations positively resolved are one of 20 indicators that give a picture of a healthy community, so she suggested including that data. Ms. Miller said the Council would present a resolution by the first of the year. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: "Sister County" relationship with Pacific County. Mr. Tucker summarized the following letter from Pacific County Commissioner, Jon Kaino, Jr.:" "We would like to thank you for the wonderful information on Albemarle County and your letter of November Std. Albemarle County .certainly should be proud of its impressive contribution to the rich history of our great country. Pacific County is very interested in pursuing your proposed "sister county" relationship. Although we are also unsure of the specifics such a relationship might entail, we are excited about the unique role each of our counties played in the Lewis and Clark expedition. At a recent public meeting the Board of Commissioners passed a motion to support this proposed program and we look forward to discussing the specifics in greater detail. For now, please continue to direct your correspondence through me as chairman although in the future we may designate a staff person as a more appropriate contact. In closing, we would like to thank you again for your inquiry and feel our potential relationship would be a benefit for everyone involved." Mr. Tucker said staff would continue to look into the matter if the Board so desires. Ms. Thomas said City schoolchildren have begun pen-pal relationship with schools in Pacific County. It was the consensus of the Board to pursue such a relationship. Agenda Item No. 14. Work Session: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program. . Mr. Tucker said that at the Board of Supervisors meeting on November 3, 1999, the ACE committee presented its final report, at which time the Board directed staff to identify ACE-related issues that need further discussion. Staff from the County Executive's Office, County Attorney's Office, Department of Finance, and Department of Planning and Community Development subsequently met to review some potential implementation issues and questions. The following questions need further discussion and/or decisions by the Board and staff before full adoption and implementation of the proposed ACE program: Should the Board take public comment on the concept of an ACE program before the County Attorney drafts an ACE ordinance, or should the ACE ordinance be drafted first and then submitted to the BOS forpublic comment? Staff's recommendation is that the public should have the opportunity to comment on the concept of an ACE program before an ordinance is drafted. This sequence of events December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) would help the County understand public concerns regarding the program, would give the County additional valuable insight into how an ACE program might best work, and would help the County avoid the mistaken appearance that the public was not consulted prior to the adoption of the ACE program. What calendar or timeline should be established for application periods/purchase dates? Staff recommends that applications should be taken throughout the course of the year, but the purchase of conservation easements should take place only once, at the end of the year. This arrangement would minimize the likelihood that the County would exhaust the annual ACE budget on marginal properties early in the year and, subsequently, have no money left for the purchase of easements on desirable properties that might become available later. In the event that an eligible property is not admitted into the program during a particular year, the property's eligibility could be rolled over into the next year. To what extent should the County acquire easements on marginal properties? Although the proposed annual application process, which would purchase conservation easements only once during the year, may help screen out marginal properties, the situation could arise when only marginal properties, i.e. ones receiving the minimal number of qualifying points, have submitted applications. If and when that situation occurs, the County will need to decide if it wants to purchase these marginal properties or hold funding until more desirable properties apply. Should specific criteria be developed for ranking properties that are adjacent to County growth areas? The Board should consider whether or not a special set of criteria should exist for ranking properties adjacent to the County's growth areas. In the event that the County purchased easements on properties next to the growth boundary, and subsequently decided to extend this boundary, the County would have an additional obstacle to providing services to the expanded growth areas. Additionally, points should be assigned to properties located in groundwater recharging areas. This allowance is not included in the ACE committee's final report. What is the methodology for appraising the value of conservation easements? Appraisal methodology exists for determining the dollar value of conservation easements, although neither the committee or the staff has determined the most appropriate and beneficial method at this time. The Board should be aware that the appraisal technique that would be used for the ACE program will be determined at a future time. Should the dollar amount offered by the County to purchase the conservation easement on a property be negotiable or non-negotiable? Staff recommends that the dollar amount offered for the purchase of a conservation easement should be non-negotiable, i.e., the property owner can either accept the offer, or reject it. Opening the price to negotiation would likely encourage haggling over development rights, and would greatly complicate the ACE process. Who will pay the attorney fees, title search, land survey (if necessary), and appraisal fees on properties for which the County would like to make an offer? Attorney fees, title search, land survey, and appraisal fees could be paid by either the seller of the conservation easement or the County depending on the circumstances of the sale. If, for example, the seller does not furnish the County with an adequate description of the property, the seller would pay the cost of having a land survey completed. The Board should determine who would pay what under an ACE program. Should Albemarle County or some other entity L e. the recreational authority, be the holder of acquired easements? Either Albemarle County or another entity could hold the easements. The advantage of having the County hold the easements is that, in the event that a buy-back clause were adopted, buy- backs would be administratively simple. The advantage of having another entity hold the easements is that buy-backs would be subject to less political pressure than might be the case if the County held the easements. Should the ACE ordinance give property owners the option to buy back the conservation easement on their property after some number of years? Allowing buy-backs could mean that land the public thought would never be developed might come under development someday. This possibility could undermine public confidence in the program. The County, on the other hand, might have a compelling need for land held under conservation easement and might find that a release and substitution clause in the ordinance would be beneficial. Mr. Tucker said these questions are raised for the Board's discussion and do not necessarily require a specific action or decision at this time. If the Board wishes to hold a public hearing prior to developing an ordinance, then many of these questions can be resolved subsequent to public input. However, should the Board wish to have an ordinance drafted prior to the public hearing, decisions would need to be reached on the calendar, growth area criteria, negotiable/non-negotiable offers, payment of fees, surveys, etc., easement holder, and buy-backs. Mr. Bowerman suggested holding a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission. After an ordinance is drafted, the Board would have to hold a second public hearing. Mr. Marshall said the County can set the money aside, but does not have to spend all of it. Ms. Thomas said the County could December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) experience an emergency when the County has to buy a piece of top-ranked property, so perhaps an emergency clause should be built in. Mr. Tucker said there might be marginal proPerties that are not as desirable as others. The Board can have the authority to expand growth areas, so perhaps ranking should be established. For example, ground water recharge areas should have a high number of points assigned to them. Ms. Thomas said that should wait until the ranking system is part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Board could always modify the ranking system. Ms. Thomas said there was a lot of public comment about the ranking of properties adjacent to growth areas. Ms. Humphris said it would be helpful to see whether the committee looked at other areas in the country that have dealt with properties in a growth area. Mr. Tucker said the appraisal methodology might have to be done by outside appraisals, due to staffing limitations. Mr. Marshall said that some people are selling their property because they cannot afford to pay the taxes. Mr. Tucker said that is a private decision. Mr. Perkins suggested using the methodology already in place at the federal level. Mr. Tucker said the IRS accounts for only ten percent of the property's value, and not too many people will provide easements if they only get ten percent of the value. Ms. Thomas said the County should get someone impartial, such as the County Assessor, to help out. Mr. Tucker said the committee suggests that easements should not be negotiable, but staff suggested the establishment of an appeals committee. Attorney's fees should be handled on a case-by- case basis. Ms. Thomas said the County should ask the state to augment its program that offsets the expense of putting land under easement. Mr. Tucker suggested that the County or another entity such as the Public Recreational Facilities Authority (PRFA), should hold the easements. In the case of buybacks, it would be easier for the County to manage the process. Mr. Martin said these could be huge decisions that should be made by a political body. Ms. Thomas said the PRFA should hold the easements, making it harder to break an agreement. Mr. Davis said the Board would have to make certain determinations under the Comprehensive Plan, so the PRFA could not decide to give back development rights without approval by the Board. However, if the Board makes a decision, the PRFA might decide not to follow the Board's lead. Ms. Humphris said since the Board appoints the members of PRFA, she wondered if there was a danger of members being replaced by the Board in order to get what the Board wants. Mr. Davis said the Board could not call for resignations, but could always replace members as appointments come up. Mr. Marshall asked what happens if there is a lien on the property. Mr. Davis said owners should not give away any rights that would reduce their security. Mr. Martin said the County would have to satisfy all liens. Ms. Sherry Buttrick introduced members of the ACE Committee. She said she has no objection to holding a public hearing. However, it is important to closely Io°k at the calendar to provide the Board enough time to react to tax year constraints. Regarding marginal properties, she said the committee set a minimal ranking score, but the bar can be set as high as desired. She suggested that a "marginal" property should not be considered, but if it reaches the minimum, the bar can be raised. The committee looked at seven properties, and there was a large variance in the ranking. The committee discussed whether easements should be negotiable. It was their consensus that once the County Assessor or an outside assessor sets a fair market value, easements should be non- negotiable. Ms. Buttrick said there is a reimbursement program for landowners to pay for costs incurred by the landowner for land purchased under the Open Space Land Act. For the County to be an applicant, the statute would have to be amended, and the General Assembly is examining this issue. The committee felt the PRFA should hold the easements, but they could be co-held with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation to strengthen the holding. The committee felt there should not be a buyback program since easements should be perpetual. The Virginia Beach program says easements must be perpetual, but owners may buy back easements under the Open Space Land Act as perpetual easements. The County cannot change the State Code by ordinance, so the provision is already in place. If the Ordinance is enacted, the Board can either substitute land or state the open space is no longer needed. At this time, however, the County would be required to provide substitution land. There may be a time when a certain parcel is essential for the orderly growth of the community, so the law always provides the ability to release land under the Open Space Land Act. Some members of the public said they hoped the easements program would develop a "hard green edge" (urban growth areas) to prevent growth areas from expanding. However, this might lead to leapfrogging, which would increase the cost of housing to provide infrastructure to outlying areas. Mr. Robert F. Watson, GoVernment Affairs Director for the Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition, said it is important to include this item in the Board's revieW of the Comprehensive Plan. If the ACE Program is enacted, it should be effective concurrent with the Rural Areas Study. December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Tom Olivier agreed with Mr. Watson, saying it is important to have a strong PDR program in place, but if it is to be successful, it has to support the ecological underpinnings of the community. Land resources may be overlooked while protecting scenic resources. This is a bad time to finalize land acquisition criteria, and the Board should wait until the Rural Areas portion of the Comprehensive Plan is examined. Mr. John Martin agreed with the two previous speakers' comments. He added that it is important to determine a desirable population level before developing growth areas, which will help dictate which land should be purchased. Otherwise the County will acquire a patchwork of land and create leapfrogging. Mr. (Charles) Martin said it is important to set a target limit on the population and then limit planning and resources. If the County grows beyond the target, the public will demand resources that were not planned for. This is like parking--people will drive their cars whether there is parking available or not. Ms. Humphris said she appreciates the work Mr. (John) Martin and others have done on the County's population. It is important to determine the limitation of resources, because that determines how many people can be supported. Ms. Thomas said it is important to update the Comprehensive Plan, but there is one already in existence. This will always be a fluid process. This committee was charged with developing a program to further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, and putting off the suggestions until after revising the Comprehensive Plan would ensure there is never an ACE Program. Mr. Marshall said limiting development will impact the use of resources. For example, perhaps the County should limit subdivisions to those which have access to public water and sewer. Mr. Perkins said it is time to move forward quickly with the PDR program and the County Attorney should work on an Ordinance. Every parcel in the County is threatened by development. It was the consensus of the Board to set a aublic hearing for January 12, 1999. Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments. Ms. Humphris offered the motion to reappoint Ms. Tracy Corea to the Equalization Board with said term to begin January 1, 2000 and to expire December 31, 2000, and to reappoint Ms. Karen Powell as the Rivanna District representative on the Board of Social Services with said term to begin January 1', 2000 and to expire December 31, 2003. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. None. Mr. Bowerman offered the motion to reappoint Mr. John C. Lowry as the Samuel Miller District representative on the Industrial Development Authority with said term to begin January 20, 2000 and to expire January 19, 2004. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion paSsed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board. Ms. Humphris said VACO is sending a bill to the General Assembly asking VDOT to implement headlight monitors. Ms. Humphris said the High Growth Coalition will meet tomorrow to finalize legislative positions. Ms. Thomas serves on the committee and said the mission statement of 22 counties is to advocate and support legislation that maintains and strengthens local authority to manage local growth and its impact. The committee said emphasis should be placed less on funding because other organizations are already focusing on funding. Instead, the legislative focus should be to pursue enabling legislation so localities can decide how to take action on a subdivision ordinance or site plan. A vested rights bill will be recommended.~ The legislative strategy is to be proactive and against any legislation that prevents the County from dealing with growth. One issue that is controversial is whether the Coalition should hire a lobbyist on its own. It does not exist as an organization that could do this on its own, so each locality would have to pay a portion of a lobbyist's salaries ($1,000 to $1,500 per coalition member). The Coalition already pays for a lobbyist on the Planning District Commission. This one, however, would be able to focus on growth interests: She pointed out this could be a double-edge sword if the lobbyist goes after something that is not in Albemarle County's interest, so she voted against it based on previous Board discussions. Ms. Humphris said she is also opposed to a lobbyist. The County is in the High Growth Coalition because it is the most effective way to achieve its goals, and individual members can do their own lobbying. Mr. Marshall said if the December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Coalition cannot be highly organized, it should have a lobbyist. Ms. Humphris said people who have an interest in these issues should attend the meetings. (Note: Mr. BoWerman left the meeting at 12:13 p.m.) Ms. Humphris said this was not up and running until recently. There is now a solid core group of counties and cities committed to addressing the problems brought by growth. She suggested the Board give it more time and support, because one year is not adequate time. Mr. MarShall said when he was the president of the Local Retail Merchants Association, it had to hire a lobbyist in order to get legislation passed. Mr. Perkins said the Board can always exercise its right to hire a lobbyist at any time. It was the consensus of the Board to have Ms. Thomas continue to oppose funding a lobbyist. Ms. Humphris said the Environmental Protection Agency has funded 50 new brown field pilots. Several years ago she provided a list of brown fields to Mr. Cilimberg. At that time Mr. Cilimberg checked on potential brown field sites, but it is up to owners to pursue qualification. Ms. Humphris noted that the Board received a copy of a resolution establishing employee traffic reduction programs. Mr. Tucker said the Clerk would put this item on the next consent agenda for action. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 12:16 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said the subject of no "through truck traffic" in Batesville is going to a VDOT public hearing. Citizens have asked if VDOT could use their photo system to determine the amount of through truck traffic, but VDOT said County staff and police would have to do an origin and destination study. Ms. Humphris noted that after the restriction was put into effect on Georgetown Road, it was not effective until VDOT moved the signs into more visible locations, which then dramatically decreased truck traffic. Ms. Thomas said the Board would have to approach the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) in order to get it approved. There are local industries that are concerned that their suppliers will object to the signs. Mr. Martin said VDOT does not historically remove truck traffic. Mr. Tucker said the CTB has the final say. Ms. Thomas said staff has indicated the road met four of the five criteria required to achieve this status. Mr. Cilimberg said the County would have to hire staff or a consultant to conduct a traffic study. Mr. Martin suggested Mr. Cilimberg prepare a cost study. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT has to evaluate that criteria anyway, and suggested waiting for those results. Mr. Marshall said Mr. Dan Jordan put him in touch with Mr. Michael Merriman, Director of Facilities Planning and Construction of Monticello, who said that Monticello wants to improve its gift shop by adding 315 net square feet of retail space and 110 net square feet of office space. Ms. Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator, suggested that Monticello request an expedited permit process. Ms. Humphris said she was concerned that this might set a precedent, but Mr. Marshall said the request should be given priority since it is a historical site. Mr. Marshall offered the motion to expedite the public hearing process for SP-99-71. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. None. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Cilimberg the status of the Routes 250/240 connector. Mr. Cilimberg said Planning staff would talk with property owners to determine whether they are willing to do what it will take to make this a capital improvement project. It will not qualify for secondary road monies as an extension of Park Street, but revenue sharing money could be used. He added that the Engineering Department will have to conduct a location design study. The other alternative would be a full-blown Routes 250/240 connectOr with an extension to Park Street, which might qualify as a primary or secondary road projeCt. However, it could be years before state funds would be available for such a project. Agenda Item No. 17. Closed Session: Legal Matters. At 12:35 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to go into closed session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions; under subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a school site; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the transition of Charlottesville to town status, regarding specific legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional agreement, and regarding pending litigation relating to the Ivy Landfill. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Closed Session. At 2:09 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board 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 executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Recess and Reconvene in Room 235. Agenda Item No. 20. 2:00 p.m. - Meeting with Legislators to Discuss 2000 Legislative Plan. Mr. Martin called the joint meeting with the legislators to order at 2:10 p.m. in Room 235. Legislators present: Senator Emily Couric, Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres, and Delegate Paul C. Harris. Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant Cbunty Executive, presented the following changes and comments to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District 2000 Legislative Program since last year: · Staff is concerned that the County could lose up to $.5 million due to the "hold harmless" clause. · The Stamp Act has affected Meals Tax revenue. Federal legislation eliminated the County's ability to collect on some food items, resulting in up to $300,000 in lost revenue. · State income tax has been redistributed back to localities. · The legislators were asked to support recommendations from the Juvenile Justice Advisory Committee. The legislators were asked to support traffic light photo monitoring systems. Mr. Martin said these would be particularly useful on Hydraulic and Rio Roads. Mr. Davis said there is a "sunset provision" for other localities. Delegate Van Yahres noted that similar legislation failed last year. The legislators were asked to support early intervention programs. Mr. Bowerman said parents have to become involved in the care of their children. Ms. White said voluntary home visits concentrate on health care and literacy. Mr. Martin said the program serves people who request these services, which means they are trying to help themselves. The Comprehensive Services Act is placing a higher cost on localities each year (now up to $3.5 million per year). Ms. Humphris said the Health Welfare Reform Program situation is critical. Because of the new welfare program there are insufficient funds to provide childcare for people with Iow-paying jobs. More people were invited to participate in the program than funds can support. She said Mr. Clarence Carter would not allow $70 to $80 million to be spent because it would undermine the original rationale of the welfare legislation: Senators Mark Early and Emily Couric introduced a bill two years ago, but nothing is being done at this time. Ms. Humphris asked legislators to pursue federal funds. Senator Couric said the Social Services and Rehabilitation Commission's focus is on those people who are hardest to serve. There are many questions surrounding people who are already in the program. Ms. Thomas said it might be t~elpful to inform the legislators about the cost of living in the County. A parent with one child must make $12.00 per hour in order to live in the County. Staff can provide further information to the legislators. Ms. Humphris asked that the Department of Social Services provide information on available funds, but Delegate Van Yahres said that was unnecessary since legislators were meeting with the Social Services next week. Mr. Martin said he is glad to see welfare reform since so many people rely on welfare as a crutch. Regarding land use and growth management, Mr. Martin said state funding is very important as the County attempts to control growth. The PDR Program allows the County and the state to protect resources. Mr. Bowerman noted that the County has earmarked $1.0 million this year toward pursuing this goal. Ms. Thomas said there will also be money in the Governor's budget, but the wording of legislation may prevent the funds from being used. · Ms. Humphris asked about a request to enable the County to operate farmers' markets. Senator Couric said Nelson County permits some farmers' markets, but they are runby groups. Ms. Humphris December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) said that perhaps the County could administer them. Mr. Davis said the County cannot fund the markets, but can provide sites for them. Ms. Thomas noted that the County renewed funds for the Virginia Department of Housing Fund since no state funds have been available since 1997. Delegate Van Yahres said amendments did not prevail in the past, but he hopes it will be in the Governor's budget this year. Other Matters: Delegate Van Yahres said Standards of Learning (SOL) adjustments will be made, and that it was helpful to receive comments about testing. Too much emphasis is placed on SOUs as a measure of learning. Mr. Martin said the School Board says funding is a problem and that some teachers hate the SOL's so much that they have quit their jobs. Ms: Humphris said she recently attended a presentation during which costs were said to be $285,000 a year to implement SOL's. Senator Couric said SOL's are here to stay and that educators need to find things that do not require funds, such as mediation and training. Younger teachers are accepting the SOL's better than are older teachers. Senator Couric will resubmit a bill to allow local government more control over cell towers. Mr. Bowerman asked what height towers will be permitted to reach. Delegate Harris responded that the height will vary depending on terrain. The FAA has authority over towers in excess of 120 feet. The alternatives are to have few higher towers or more towers that are shorter. Delegate Harris hopes to change the law to require that lottery profits be returned to localities with no "strings attached". Mr. Martin said the School Board would like to see this done. Senator Couric asked if there would be a problem if the funds were tied to construction. Mr. Tucker said the School Board would like the funds to be available for construction and other purposes. Ms. Thomas said she is not surprised that this suggestion was being made since these funds are decreasing. The County needs adequate facilities for students, and Virginia is one of the few states that do not give funds to localities for construction. Senator Couric asked about class size. Ms. Thomas said class size is adequate in the County, but that it drives the budget. Mr. Martin said the cost of providing student trailers is large. Delegate Van Yahres said the lottery is not a reliable source of funding, and that the money should be placed in capital. The state is now earmarking funds for construction, and no school system will be "hamstrung". Mr. Tucker said the Board of Supervisors would always request that funds be designated as capital funds. Ms. Humphris said the Board's policy is not to rely on any funding source that is not stable. Having an elected School Board means they are now more independent. Delegate Van Yahres said elected School Boards are problematic. He and Mr. Tucker agreed that an elected School Board should be given taxing power, because local government has to shift revenue from other areas of public service and infrastructure to pay for schools. Mr. Martin said he fears that giving the School Board taxing power would turn members into politicians instead of ensuring they are concerned about education. Mr. Marshall said if public interest groups are behind the School Board, the cost of living will rise. Ms. Thomas said VACO indicated that the amount of money spent on education is about the same as is received from real estate taxes. It is important that other sources of revenue are not taken away. Delegate Harris asked why the County needs impact fees since they are not used in Northern Virginia. Ms. Thomas said officials in Prince William County felt the narrow guidelines made impact fees unusable. Mr. Bowerman said impact fees would be more helpful if the County had more control over secondary road design. Mr. Martin said if the Board had more planning options it might not need impact fees. Ms. Humphris said other counties' facilities ordinances are impossible to implement because of the paperwork involved. Mr. Martin added that the Pave in Place Program was placed into effect, but VDOT did not change its road standards. Delegate Harris said this approach reverses the normal process of growth leading the infrastructure. If infrastructure must be in place prior to building, developers may raise the cost of a home by $10,000 to $15,000, making housing even less affordable. Mr. Bowerman said it would be helpful if the County had flexible land use so there would be less infrastructure to build if present roads were utilized. Delegate Harris Said a no-growth locality like Albemarle County may have too much control over growth in certain areas. Mr. Martin said there is the danger of running the middle class out of the County, so it should be up to the Board to monitor the cost of housing. Ms. Thomas said current residents are now paying the cost of new residents' infrastructure, and therefore ask for impact fees to be put in place. Delegate Harris said most people moving into areas of the County are relocating from other areas, not coming from the "outside". Mr. Bowerman said people moving into the area pay for schools through their taxes, so charging them an impact fee would result in double taxation. He disagreed with Delegate Harris, saying Albemarle County is not a "no growth" community, but it is getting harder to provide services due to the Iow tax rate. Delegate Harris brought up relaxing the Dillon Rule. Mr. Martin said he approved of such action, saying the Board should have more flexibility. Most states operate with legislators and local government both sharing authority. Delegate Van Yahres and Mr. Martin said Virginia is the only state where local government has to convince the state of its needs, which is problematic since many legislators do not have local experience. This is much the same way the federal goVernment does not I December 1, 1999 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) trust state legislators. Mr. Tucker agreed, saying that since the Board "takes the hits" from constituents, it should have the ability to support the public's wishes. Delegate Harris said this could result in different regulations from locality to locality. Mr. Tucker said cities and counties should have the same power. Ms. Thomas said it is easier to deal with lobbyists at the state level rather than with local governments. Delegate Harris noted that the County supports legislation to allow localities to pass on to property owners the cost of the removal or repair of graffiti undertaken by the locality. Delegate Van Yahres said this a local issue in some areas, but not in Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said there has been some discussion concerning eliminating or reducing the 911 surcharge. Some localities do not follow the code behind the law, but Albemarle County does. An unidentified man said that in this year's budget the state said the average surcharge in other states is 60 cents; it is twice that in Virginia. There was no further discussion with the legislators. At 3:20 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to go into closed session pursuant to section 2.1-344(a) of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and commissions; under subsection (3) to consider the acquisition of property for a school site; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation relating to the transition of Charlottesville to town status, and regarding specific legal matters relating to an interjurisdictional agreement. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: Mr. Marshall did not attend the closed session.) At 2:10 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board 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 executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Perkins. None. Mr. Marshall Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Martin adjourned the meeting at 4:50 p.m. Approved by Board Date '~, ), ~ Initials ~