Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-12-07December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) 00014s An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 7, 1998, at 4:00 p.m., Room 235, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. Charles S. Martin. SCHOOL BOARD PRESENT: Mr. John E. Baker, Mr. R. Madison Cummings, Ms. Susan C. Gallion, Mr. Jeffrey D. Joseph (arrived at 5:15 p.m.) Mr. Stephen H. Koleszar, Ms. Diantha H. McKeel and Dr. Charls M. Ward. SCHOOL BOARD ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; School Division Superintendent, Dr. Kevin C. Castner; Assistant County Executive, Roxanne W. White; and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m., by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, Mr. Marshall, and the Chairman of the School Board, Mr. Baker. Agenda Item No. 2. JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD AND LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES. A) Discussion: Albemarle County's 1999 Legislative Program. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Baker welcomed Senator Emily ~ouric, Delegate Mitch Van Yahres and Delegate Paul Harris. Mr. Tucker presented to the Boards and legislators a summary of the Board of Supervisors 1999 Legislative Requests (on file). Ms. Humphris asked that No. 5 that reads as follows be discussed first. Request legislation that will bring counties that have a meals tax under the same meals tax code provisions now enjoyed by cities (58.1-3840). Under current code, counties may only collect a food and beverage tax on meals served in restaurants or prepared single platters in delicatessens or grocery stores. Cities may collect a meals tax on any food or drink sold separately outside of a restaurant, e.g., ice cream, alcoholic beverages, etc. Counties may collect a meals tax on beverages only if they are served with a meal. Current legislation is confusing to citizens and inequitable between cities'and counties. Ms. Humphris asked legislators for support in making the code equitable between cities and counties relative to the meals tax. She noted that counties can only collect food and beverages tax on meals served in restaurants, but the cities can collect it on any food or drink. She explained that counties can collect taxes on beverages only when they are served with a meal. This is very confusing to citizens, and it is inequitable. Mr. Tucker said the language can be drafted for such a bill, but a sponsor is needed. He suggested that one of the legislators present at this meeting might be willing to help in this regard. Delegate Van Yahres asked about vending machine products being specifically excluded from being taxed in cities as well as counties. Davis said they would remain exempt from taxes in both places. Mr. Mr. Marshall asked if any of the legislators saw anything on the list of requests they could not support. The legislators indicated no problem to this effect. Senator Couric asked if a meals tax would be charged if she went into a restaurant in Albemarle County and ordered a Coke. Mr. Tucker replied, uno." Ms. Humphris explained that the beverage may not be taxed unless it is served with a meal. She said an ice cream cone cannot be taxed, either. December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) 000149 Mr. Davis stated that cities, under all circumstances, can tax an ice cream cone. He said an alcoholic beverage ordered in the City is taxable, but in Albemarle County it is not unless it is ordered with a meal. Senator Couric noted that this is tax simplification. Ms. Humphris agreed. Delegate Harris wondered about the question of integrity in the voting process. He stated that he would like to know if the voters perceived what they were voting for when they approved the meals tax. Mr. Davis replied that the ballot was not specific with such details, so he does not know if anyone had any consciousness of this issue, unless it was studied in great detail. He noted that Albemarle County's ballot was more specific than most places. -~ ~. ~ ' · Delegate Harris disagreed with Senator Couric's statement that this is tax simplification. He does not think voters voted for a meals tax with the understanding that if they ordered a Coke, it would fall in the category of a meals tax. He does not think anyone would consider a Coke a meal. Ms. Thomas commented that if people in Albemarle County had an idea of what a meals tax entails, they were probably basing it on their experience in Charlottesville, because it is the one with which most people in Albemarle County are acquainted. She would suspect if voters were asked what a meals tax covers, they would think it covers drinks, because they have paid this tax in Charlottesville. Delegate Harris stated that people may feel this way if they are having drinks with a meal. Ms. Thomas pointed out that drinks would have been taxed, even if they were not served with a meal in Charlottesville. Delegate Harris said there is no evidence to support these comments by the Supervisors, unless a survey is taken and the voters indicate that they expect to pay tax on such things as a Coca Cola. Mr. Davis noted that Albemarle County's ballot actually specified that this was a food and beverage tax. He said the term, meals tax, is just a common term most places have used. The people in Albemarle County actually approved a food and beverage tax so, Ms. Thomas' point can be supported. He said people who voted for a food and beverage ~ax are probably expecting taxes to be charged on a Coke. Senator Couric wondered about the impact on businesses, particularly if someone owns restaurants in both localities. Mr. Marshall answered that it is very confusing. He has a problem with his own personal businesses and the cigarette tax because it is different in the City and County. He went on to say his concern relates to the people who drink one drink after another in a bar and do not eat anything. He would like to collect taxes on these drinks. He added that it might even stop the person from drinking so much, and he or she might be better off.if a tax is charged on each drink. He remarked that he thinks more money can be collected in a bar than on Cokes. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that, after the meals tax was passed, there were a lot of issues involving implementation that were not anticipated. However, the regulations were very specific as far as what the County could do or couldn't do, and this had to be communicated to merchants. It was a complicated process, although it was also an educational process for this Board. He added ~hat he is unsure if the Board of Supervisors really knew exactly what the term, ~Food and Beverage Tax" meant until after the meals tax was passed. He said certain details were uncovered, and the request to the legislators reflects those results. Senator Couric wondered about such experiences in other counties in the Commonwealth. Mr. Davis answered that other counties have had similar problems. He mentioned James City County where the question arose about doughnuts sold in doughnut shops. The determination was that the doughnuts could be taxed as long as the people were sitting at a table. Other Durisdictions have had similar implementation problems, and these have been documented in the various counties. Delegate Van Yahres stated that it-would be helpful if the legislators could have a draft of the proposed bill that the Supervisors would like to have approved. Secondly, he asked for the language of the County's referendum question, and thirdly, he would like to have information from other counties in a similar situation. He said the legislators could then make up their mind O00Y,. O December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) whether they can support such a bill. He stated that it will probably go through the Finance Committee, and he will sponsor it. Delegate Harris emphasized that he will not support the bill if it means taxing Coca Colas or beers, because he does not believe this is what the voters had in mind. Ms. Thomas and others pointed out that voters voted for a food and beverage tax and not a food o__r beverage tax. Mr. Tucker stated that County officials are only interested in the commonality issue. Responding to a question by Senator Couric, Ms. Thomas noted that this bill is part of VACo's program. Ms. Humphris called attention to Number One shown on the 1999 list of legislative requests relating to legislature to either fully fund the 599 funds for police departments across the state or to utilize the same formula for funding police departments as the Compensation Board currently uses for sheriff's departments. This is everybody's priority. Delegate Van Yahres indicated that this request has already been resolved. Referring to Number Two on the legislative requests, Ms. Humphris mentioned that the Supervisors have had conversations with the three legislators about revising the composite index formula to account for the costs of school construction and renovation borne by each locality. Delegate Van Yahres agreed that the composite index formula does not have a good basis. He explained that the desire is to go to a stress index formula since there is very good documentation on this method. Mr. Bowerman noted that the composite index formula is not even appealable. Mr. Marshall mentioned Item Number Three which is a request to the legislation to preclude VDoT from erecting towers in their rights-of-way without permission from the locality. Senator Couric responded that she has a bill drafted on this matter. She said Senator Quail submitted a bill last year that was in local committee, but she does not know the current status of it. She explained that Senator Quail's bill dealt with towers, as well as wetlands and other things, but her bill relates only to towers. Mr. Marshall said there are now seven companies wanting to build towers, etc., and there are several more that have licenses. Delegate Van Yahres noted that in a letter he wrote to VDoT about this issue, he mentioned the fact that when people gave their land or had it taken for rights-of-way for highways, he does not believe they had the intent of having commercial towers erected on their rights-of-way. He said he thought there was a possibility of litigation on that basis. Mr. Marshall stated that County officials would like for VDoT to adhere to County regulations. Senator Couric pointed out that the Supervisors are not saying they would deny the request, but they are simply saying they would like for VDoT to adhere to County requirements. Mr. Bowerman remarked that VDoT's towers are not bad because they are mostly monopoles used for cameras. He said they are not like the towers that can be seen between Richmond and Norfolk, which are lattice towers and have numerous satellite dishes. VDoT has the first use of t~em and the private sector has an ancillary use. If it is a low grade potential nuisance, there shouldn't be any problem for adoption throughout the County. Delegate Van Yahres pointed out that there was a similar situation with state buildings following local building codes, but it was impossible for them to fit into the local standards. Mr. Marshall indicated his unwillingness to see the type of towers Mr. Bowerman just described along Interstate 64. 000 .5 . December 7, 1998 (Ad]ourned Meetingi Mr. Bowerman stated that he had hoped to clarify the issue. He explained that the towers, to which he referred, run along the rights-of-way, and they are an abomination because of the amount of things installed on them. He clarified with VDoT officials at a recent meeting that VDoT's use of the towers are for cameras and other monitoring equipment. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the four requests shown to this Board on a map involving commercial cellular towers includes at least one tower that is 180 feet tall. This tower was proposed for the median strip where the road to Peacock Hill goes over Interstate 64. She said when commercial companies have shown this Board dots on a map and descriptions, they are not the same as VDoT's use of towers. She added that at least one commercial entity was asked by VDoT representatives where it would like the tower if they could choose the place. This is a long way from the County having real applications, but it seemed as though this was in VDoT representatives' minds when they were answering questions at the meeting. Mr. Bowerman agreed that this is probably true, because VDoT could put a camera at a 15 foot elevation on an 180 foot tower. Senator Couric referred to the tower near the Visitor's Center on the way to Richmond. She asked if this tower is zn the right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman answered that he was unsure. Ms. Humphris stated that she does not think the tower, to which Senator Couric referred, would have been approved in Albemarle County because there is not much land around it. Although towers are supposed to be designed to collapse on themselves, Albemarle County's Zoning Ordinance requires that there be enough land around them so they won't hit anything. Senator Courlc inquired if anyone else has seen the goal post style towers that have things hanging from them. Delegate Van Yahres replied that there are utility wires hanging from these towers. He went on to say another problem is that VDoT uses commercial poles on the VDoT rights-of-way. Mr. Davis indicated that this has also happened in Fairfax, Chesapeake, James City County and Chesterfield. These towers do not look anything like the traditional VDoT tower, because they are actually commercial towers. Ms. Humphris stated that this was her understanding when the Supervisors got their first inclination of a possibility of having towers in Albemarle County's stretch of 1-64. The commercial companies wanted these towers, so they would be erecting them and VDoT would use them. She recalled that, since VDoT officials indicated the towers were going to be used for their Intelligent Transportation System, County officials asked certain questions. They wanted to know VDoT's plan for this system, as well as how far along it was and if all of these locations were really needed in Albemarle County. She said no answers ever came from VDoT. Mr. Marshall mentioned that one of the problems is that the planners nor the Supervisors understand this technology. Ms. Humphris concurred. The reason consultants were hired is because County officials needed guidance and information on the ~ssue. Ms. Thomas referred to Number Four which is a request to support statewide funding for a Purchase of Development Rights program for those localities that have established and funded such a program. The Supervmsors do not have legislation to hand to the legislators to ask them to champzon, but there are groups of organizations throughout the state that are trying to find money for preservation of farmland and protection of water quality, particularly. She stated that they have been meeting and working through some possibilities, but as of this afternoon, they still had not developed a definite proposal. She added that this is a much larger group than lust Albemarle County representatives, although at this point, only Virginia Beach has such a program. She stated that Albemarle County is close to it, and there are some people in Henrico County who are very interested in it. She said it is a growing idea, but she does not know whether there will be funding proposals this session. However, she asked if Albemarle County officials should let the legislators know they are in favor of the program at the last minute, so the legislators will at least have had some forewarning that this is something of great interest to them. Delegate Van Yahres asked if the County is looking for funding of the PDR program. Ms. Thomas answered, '~yes." There are ideas such as the recordation tax, but nothing has solidified as of yet. December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Mee~ing) 0001.~2 (Page 5) Mr. Perkins inquired if any of the legislators have any plans to introduce legislation to enhance preservation and conservation of farmland. Delegate Van Yahres answered that he has submitted'an amendment to the Right to Farm Act which would limit the use of industrial farms. In other words, he would like to redefine farm, and it would limit the size of farm animal operations to 300 units. He noted that these limitations would apply strictly to new applications. Ms. Thomas said she appreciated Delegate Harris' Riparian Easement bill from last session since people are interested in such a program, and they are asking if there will be any tax benefits from easements. Delegate Harris replied that he hopes this Board will support both pieces of legislation dealing with providing tax relief to those who try to be good stewards of the environment. He noted that the ultimate authority in both of these pieces of legislation lies with the local governing bodies. The staff in Richmond have been working during the summer with local government officials to develop model ordinances which might be helpful to the Supervisors if they decide to support one or both of these bills. He stated that it is a ~win/win" situation, because the taxpayer wins as well as the environment. He urged the Supervmsors to consider the legislation at their earliest convenience. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that he attended one of the VACo sessions where issues such as this were discussed. He stated that Albemarle County already has land use provismons, so the benefit from the initial.riparian right-of-way would be less. He went on to say the state's Economic Development Policy is good for the Commonwealth of Virginia because it mncreases employment and revenue without increasing the tax rate. He mentioned the inequity in the taxation structure because all of these taxes flow to the state. He stated that it would be good if the County got some of these funds back for preservation of its lands. He would very much like to work with the state on this matter. Delegate Harris stated that Mr. Bowerman has raised a very valid concern, and it is a concern that has been expressed throughout the Commonwealth. He thinks the whole tax structure should be revamped, and he asked for guidance from the County officials as to what would work best for Albemarle County. The state tries to provide piece by piece tax relief to citizens, which is a good thing. He said, though, the whole picture needs to be considered in order to restructure the tax system and bring about some equity. Mr. Perkins suggested a local income tax and doing away with real estate tax. Delegate Van Yahres replied that he is proposing such a bill. Mr. Marshall agreed that this would be the fairest taxation. He went on to say there are people who live mn Albemarle County who are fantastically wealthy. He added that he knows others who are living on social security, and they are being taxed out of their homes. This has to stop. He emphasized that he does not want this County to become a country club for the rich. He wants the people who were born and raised here to be able to continue to live here. Mr. Bowerman also concurred with Delegate Harris' comments. Senator Couric asked if the Supervisors are indicating that buffer programs are insignificant for Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman answered that they would be considered. He reminded Senator Couric that the people involved in these programs are also taxpayers to the extent that further tax relief being granted on real estate taxes goes back to the house, as well as the lot it sits on. He explained that everyone pays for the 80 percent land use now including the people who need help the most. He is trying to think of a way that has more equity so the burden is not on the people who are doing the best land use management. Senator Couric asked if Mr. Bowerman is saying the County would give the people back the taxes that have been taken away. Mr. Bowerman concurred. Total equity would be that none of the taxpayers who were given the buffers would have any payment whatever in exchange for the granting of their easements, and they would be allowed the ability to build the watering troughs and things that need to be done to keep the cattle out of the stream. He mentioned that even though Albemarle County is remote from the Chesapeake Bay, 000 53 December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 6 ) ~..~ ....... .~<..~.~ .... Albemarle County officials recognize that everything from Albemarle County goes into the James River, and then from the James River to the Chesapeake Bay. He said that is why the Chesapeake Bay ordinance p~ovisions were taken into consideration for the County's ordinance. The 20 percent left is a lot less than the 80 percent already provided in almost all the cases where these riparian rights are eliminated. Delegate Harris noted that there is no such thing as inconsequential tax relief. He said no matter how small it is, it helps. He agreed that if the County officials had more authority to equalize their taxing powers, it would be easier for the County to support the legislation he sponsored last year. He added that there should not be a static analysis of how the taxing system works. If taxes are cut, it does not mean the revenues will be depleted, because that is not the case. He emphasized that taxes can be cut and revenues can be increased. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that he has not seen any initiative to lower the state income tax. Delegate Harris agreed. Ms. Thomas recalled that a few months ago she heard that some state legislators felt they were not appreciated when the additional money came to the localities at the end of the session last year for school construction and school support. She emphasized that County officials appreciate very much the extra funding. Senator Couric and Delegate Van Yahres indicated that they already knew this was true. Ms. Gallion commented that there is an argument about what to do with the proposed lottery funding, and she mentioned the fact that if extra funding is used in one place, it frees up money for something else. She added that perhaps the lottery funds were not promoted in the beginning to be used for schools, but it seemed so at the time. The lottery money will help the educational system, and it never has mn the past. She stated that school officials would appreciate the legislators championing this cause. Delegate Harris asked the School Board's position on the lottery funds. Ms. Gallion responded that the School Board has not taken a position, but as a Board member she would prefer that localities use the funding as they see fit. Delegate Harris said he does not tkink this is the proposal that is going to be presented. Ms. Gallion stated that if the schools should get lottery funding, and it is slotted for school construction only, the money the County has budgeted for construction can then be used elsewhere. Senator Couric inquired about the cost of school construction needs. Mr. Baker replied that it is between $40,000,000 and $50,000,000. Delegate Van Yahres remarked that the original intgnt of the lottery money was for capital zmprovements. The lottery issue was sold on this basis in a lot of cases, but it was never put into legislation that the funds should go for education. He stated that the bill that was passed for the use of lottery funds was for capital funding. Ms. Gallion asked if the bill stipulated that the funds would be used for anything in localities or just for education. Delegate Van Yahres answered that the funds could be used for any capital project in the state, and there were 86 priorities established and put on a list in the Code. This list was to be started at the top, and new projects would be added to the bottom. He thinks this is the best use of lottery funds because, since it is not a fixed amount of money, it has to be applied very carefully. He said school construction is a very good use for lottery funding. Delegate Harris pointed out that the need for school construction as well as other things differ from county to county, so he thinks it is reasonable to return the funds to the localities and let the localities decide how they are to be used. This is the position he will support. Mr. Marshall asked Delegate Harris to explain Governor Gilmore's proposals. Delegate Harris answered that County officials have already addressed one of the Governor's proposals, which is Number One on the list of legislative requests. This is to restore 599 funding to 100 percent of the 000 54 December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 7) level where it is supposed to be. He stated that it has not happened yet, but there will be a serious effort to pass such legislation. Secondly, he mentioned that there is also legislation that will fund or increase salaries to deputy sheriffs. He said deputy sheriffs have extremely low salaries for law enforcement officers, particularly considering that last year state troopers were given a significant increase in pay. He added that this is coupled with the fact that it is fairly expensive for the counties to train their deputies. He said many times deputies are trained in one county, and once they are trained they find out they can make more in another county, so they leave. He stated that this is certainly not the direction that should be continued, so deputy sheriffs' salaries will be brought up to a level commensurate with state troopers and other law enforcement officers. A third proposal deals with proposed legislation to return lottery proceeds as was promised, but never fulfilled to localities, so local officials can decide best how to use these lottery proceeds. He stated that school construction needs could take up all of the lottery profits that are returned to localities, and all of it can be used for school construction. If there are other more pressing areas, localities would have the flexibility to direct those funds to the most needed areas. He stated that promises made to Virginia taxpayers will be fulfilled while returning the lottery profits to localities and allowing the local governments the flexibility in terms of how to use the funding. He added that the fourth proposal is to establish a four year phase out of the two cents on the four and one-half cents sales tax for food throughout the Commonwealth. This is one of the most regressive taxes, and it will be a phase out of one-half percent per year. He added that this is another area where tax relief will be provided to Virginians. In the future he believes officials have to decide how to provide for generalized quality and equity in the state's tax structure. Senator Couric commented that it is not fair to have different arms of public safety competing for funding, because it detracts from their commitment to their jobs. She said public safety needs to be considered as a statewide issue. She stated that deputy sheriffs have been paid so little for a long time, and it is wrong. Mr. Bowerman noted that counties such as Albemarle have helped this situation by adding stipends to deputy sheriffs' salaries. Senator Couric asked if Albemarle County deputies will still get their stipends or will they be at the pay rate of the state. Ms. Humphris answered that if salaries are raised, the stipends will be removed. Delegate Harris said the whole idea is to free up some of the money at the local level. Ms. Humphris mentioned that a major problem, in addition to the deputy sheriffs' salaries, is the situation at the regional jail. She said employees are hired and trained but then they are lost to Buckingham or some other prison or correctional center. She commented that even though the State Compensation Board sets the salaries, local jail employees' salaries are set at a lesser amount than those for people who work in the state prisons and correctional facilities. This is strange, because everybody is supposed to be on the same side. However, the state is inefficacious in the hiring and training process. She added that she hopes the legislators can deal with this problem. Delegate Harris explained that jailers, as well as ABC officers, are included in the increased funding proposal. Ms. Humphris asked if there is a chance all of these people could be paid on the same scale. Delegate Harris replied that was the intent. Mr. Marshall asked if Senator Couric is going to support the 599 proposal. Senator Couric answered affirmatively. She said last year she wrote a letter to the Governor supporting the effort of sending the 599 funds to the localities. She added that it is clearly a bipartisan effort. Delegate Van Yahres agreed that everybody supports sending the 599 funds to the localities, because it is an unfunded promise. He said it is in the Code, but it has not been funded at all since Governor Wilder reduced it because of the recession. He stated that Governor Allen and Governor Gilmore have not put it back in the budget since that time. December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 8) 000155 Mr. Baker stated that the School Board certainly supports this proposal because of the quality of the school resource officers. The County already has a quality Police Department, and the school system is pleased with the work of the members of the Police Department because they are professional officers. He hopes there will be funds to build up the police force with quality people since they can so easily be integrated into the school system. Delegate Harris responded to Mr. Baker that the increased 599 funding will allow this to happen. Mr. Baker asked if the localities will be able to use the money as they wish rather than the state mandating the use of the fund~. Delegate Harris answered that the localities can make their own decisions about the use of the funds. Mr. Baker announced that Dr. Ward has two issues he would like to emphasize, and the Superintendent also would like to speak to two items. Dr. Ward called attention to Page Three of the School Board's Legislative Position Paper dealing with the alternative education programs. He said it is believed the County can do more with alternative type programs to discipline students, and he noted that the Albemarle County representatives have worked with representatives of the City of Charlottesville some on this issue. He then asked for legislation that would help provide more grants aimed toward suspended or expelled students. He mentioned that the County has taken advantage of "return to" programs, which is a project where students may be expelled from school but they continue in a monitored computer type of environment. It is based on a program that began in Fluvanna County. He would prefer that the school system gets a chance to help the students before they have to be referred to the legal system. He mentioned another school system that doesn't have in school suspension, and the students are sent to another school for suspension in a disciplined environment. He has not seen the statistics, but this program appears to be very encouraging. He would like to see something of this nature in Albemarle County~ and he thinks the state legislators can help with this matter. He next mentioned the Comprehensive Services Act, which is found on Page 25 of the School Board's Legislative Position Paper. He thanked the legislators for help with this program. The School Board members think it is fine as it is, and they don't see a problem with it. The idea is to make sure the family assistance and planning teams allocate resources from the jurisdictions that need the assistance. He added that if it is a school issue, then that school should pay for it. He said some people have asked to have the Act changed, but he does not think it will be a problem in the County. He said, though, there could be some interpretations that will cause other area school divisions a problem. He emphasized that the School Board would like to leave this item as it is. The process, as it is, is valid. Senator Couric wondered if the County will get enough funding from this program. Mr. Baker answered, ~no.~ Next, Mr. Baker discussed Charter School legislation which is found on Page 18 of the School Board's Legislative Position Paper. He noted that Albemarle County is one of the few counties to adopt a resolution, and the first reading of the plan will be on December 14. The School Board feels the school system can gain from this experience through alternate programs such as school management and course offerings. He stated that ~chool officials feel the plan has been well thought out, although the process has been rather draining in terms of the resources used. He noted that a draft was presented at a state conference, and the School Board will consider it fully after the state meeting. The School Board's position is to let the legislation remain as it is until it has worked through its two years of implementation. Senator Couric asked if the School Board has already had its public hearing on Charter School Legislation. Mr. Baker answered affirmatively. first reading is to approve the policy and the implementation procedures. The Delegate Van Yahres noted that the Federal Government has turned down the Charter School Legislation plan, and there will not be any federal funding, unless there are some legislative changes. He understands that the necessary changes may be constitutional changes, which would be an almost virtual impossibility. December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 9) Senator Couric pointed out that the Department of Education is working with the application process. She explained that there will be changes required in the application process, but not the legislation. Mr. Koleszar stated that the school officials can make the Charter School plan work, but if the law keeps changing, it causes them to waste a lot of time. He mentioned that this is the same situation with the Standards of Accreditation. Delegate Harris commended the County officials on their progress with charter schools up to this point. He said it is a good development for students involved in the new charter schoool, it is good for the community, and it is good to see that this School Board has tried to take advantage of past legislation dealing with charter schools. Dr. Castner asked the legislators' support for the implementation of the Standards of Accreditation, although he said the higher standards will probably result in certain problems. He then called attention to Page Four relating to block grants for remediation funding, which he said could result in a flexibility issue. He said Governor Gilmore has gone on record as supporting additional teachers, particularly at the primary level. He stated that the Superintendents Association, as well as others, are pleased to hear this, although they would like some flexibility. He mentioned that this County does not have extra classrooms, and he would like to be able to consider reading teachers or an extended school year for some of the schools. The funds could be used for direct contact with students, and school officials would appreciate the ability to do this. He then referred to the Literacy Passport Test which has more than 99 percent of the students passing it. He said, though, the standards relating to where the test scores are going to be set will probably result in a percentage of 30 to 50 percent of the students not taking the test at the initial step. He stated that this is something with which school officials will have to work. They need the legislators to work closely with them and support them in this endeavor in a way that will give the local school systems the needed flexibility. There cannot be high standards of success without some problems. He also mentioned that the State Board of Education has given the school systems a time line to get this process started. Senator Couric suggested working through the Best Practices Centers. Dr. Castner agreed that everybody needs to work together toward the same goal, and it is not a partisan issue. However, at this time, the best practices have not been developed, but increased effort is needed to help more children be successful. He said it is a partnership effort. Senator Couric inquired if remediation is going to be built into after school programs. Dr. Castner replied that the after school programs will probably have to be restructured, and students with the greatest needs will have to be addressed. He said improvements are made each year, but there has never before been such a fixed target. Senator Couric suggested that it would be good for school representatives to talk to the public about programs that are in place in individual schools to help children succeed. The public is very curious about these types of efforts. (Mr. Bowerman left at 5:10 p.m.) Dr. Castner noted that Senator Couric has taken the opportunity to go to some of the PTO meetings. He stated that he will encourage teachers and administrators to share with Senator Couric how they are addressing some of these issues. Delegate Van Yahres remarked that it is very i~ortant to inform the public that the Standards of Learning test scores are going to be used as a tool for learning and not as an end product. He said a lot of parents fear that they are just going to be used to set standards, and they will not be used as they should genuinely be used which, in a lot of cases, is a tool to remediate. Dr. Castner stated that he does not think the schOol officials' job is to set the standards as much as it is to educate the students. He said it will cause "truth in packaging," when students go from elementary to middle December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 10) school, and it can be shown how many students have been helped. He stated that it will result in extended effort for some students, and it will also increase parental involvement. Mr. Baker noted that Albemarle County's report card is an example of ~truth in packaging," and it shows the results from all levels. The report card also points out areas where there is need for improvement. He stated that successes in innovative programs are highlighted but, at the same time, areas of improvement are suggested. He added that the report card has been in place for two years, and it is highly publicized. He will get copies of the report card to the legislators. Mr. Marshall stated that he would like to commend Dr. Castner on two things. First, he said Dr. Castner gets along well with the County Executive. Secondly, he said Dr. Castner realizes special needs of children. He commented that he has seen this first hand in his district, because there are quite a few children there who are socially and economically deprived. He noted that these children are taught to read in after school programs and on Sundays in their churches. He said parents of other children are brought in to help the children read and to help them get up to a level where they can become good citizens. He stated that it is not how much money is spent in certain schools, but it is how much money is spent on an individual child. He added that Dr. Castner has singled out such children to help. Mr. Baker mentioned that not only is there a school report card, but Albemarle County also has a Board/Superintendent report card which represents the School Board's partnership with the Superintendent in setting goals. He said when the School Board and Superintendent leave this meeting they will have the mid process review of this report card. He stated that not only does the report card point the good and bad areas, but it also shows areas where improvement can be made. Mr. Koleszar stated that parents look at their children's report cards and then they come to school officials and want to know why the numbers are so bad. To remedy this, parents are given "truth in packaging" information so they can help identify areas where assistance is needed. Delegate Harris wondered if consideration has been given to an outside agency that would do a similar analysis of the County school system. Dr. Castner said the purpose of the report card isn't just to highlight each specific area. He stated that data is shown for every student in every school, and it gives the whole picture. This process shows the good areas, as well as the bad areas. He added that the purpose is not to just show one side or the other. Delegate Harris stated that he thought it would be good to address the effectiveness of the remediation programs, and how effective the school system is in dealing with disadvantaged children, as well as how effective the School Board's approach is to making sure children know how to read by a certain age. This type of analysis is also very important to the School Board's mission, which is to make sure these things happen, that they happen efficiently, and that state and local dollars are used in the most effective manner. Dr. Ward pointed out that the School Improvement Teams also have community members on them so they have a chance to scrutinize these things at the local level. He stated that sometimes they will indicate that something different needs to be done in certain areas because new data has been developed. He mentioned, too, that the data is available for everyone to see. Ms. Gallion noted that there are multiple indicators which help school officials do a better job. Mr. Cummings said Dr. Castner alluded to the need for remediation and the school system's efforts to align with the Standards of Learning and to perform commensurate with those. He stated that Mr. Marshall menuioned the disadvantaged students in the County, and there was also a discussion of the report card. He said all of these comments have allowed him to approach his biggest concern which is shown on Page 12 of the School Board's Legislative Position Paper, which is the state funding for four-year-old programs. He stated that some of the legislators have observed the preschool at-risk program at Stone-Robinson, and now the same type of program is in three other schools. December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 11) 000 155 Senator Couric asked which schools have the other programs. Mr. Cummings answered that the preschool at-risk programs are being held at Greer, Agnor-Hurt and Cale Elementary Schools, as well as Stone-Robinson. He noted that it is called the Bright Stars Program. He added that if these disadvantaged children can be given an opportunity then school officials will achieve their goal, which is 100 percent reading on or above grade level at second grade. He stated that if this is not being done, the children are being cheated. He said any help on the state level for preschool programs, at least for at-risk children, would be appreciated. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 5:12 p.m.) Senator Harris inquired as to how the success of such programs are measured in terms of accountability. He asked how the school officials can certify that they are getting the most for their money, as far as what they are putting into these programs. Dr. Castner answered that every time the County has a pilot program, there is an evaluation of it. He said with one of the programs, it was noted that there was much more growth in Grades One, Two and Three and not as much in Grades Four and Five, so adjustments will have to be made. He stated that there is a reading test given to all second graders which will show if the students coming from the Stone-Robinson Bright Stars Program are up to the proper level. He noted that when the first Bright Stars Program was held at Stone-Robinson School, the Principal there told him that she could go into the second grade classroom and she could not tell which children had been in the program. This is how the Principal of Stone-Robinson measured the success of the program. He went on to say this observation was helpful, because that is why the program was started. He stated that multiple indicators are being used, and the second grade reading test is very important. He added that there are benchmark places along the way, and any time there is a program, evidence is gathered as to whether or not it is working, and changes are made where necessary. Ms. White pointed out that family involvement is another important criteria for success of the programs. She said it is a big component, not only with the Bright Stars Program, but also as the child progresses through the schools. She said a family's interaction with the schools can be very positive. Delegate Harris commented that he knows the School Board has already determined the items for which it wants support from the legislators on the state level. He then encouraged the School Board to make parental involvement the number one issue. He does not know of any greater indicator of a student's success and achievement than the involvement of parents in their child's education. He stated that the school officials have been very creative in figuring out how to get parents to be more involved particularly in the area of Standards of Learning. He would welcome the opportunity to work with educators on this matter, and he hopes it will be one of the School Board's top priorities. He remarked that with the Standards of Learning, educators are inviting a lot of confusion and misinformation in addition to what may already exist. Dr. Ward suggested that the three legislators might consider speaking to PTOs on this topic. Senator Couric mentioned that there has been a lack of data with the Head Start program to show that a child who was involved with Head Start is as successful as a child who was not. She said it would be good to be able to follow some of the children throughout the years who start off in a four-year- old program. She added that this would show whether or not children are successful when they are involved with a certain program and a sustained effort has been made. (At 5:15 p.m., Mr. Jeffrey Joseph arrived.) Ms. White pointed out that the County is starting a Family Support curriculum to work with the Bright Stars Program. This program will monitor the progress of the students, and family workers will be working with social services in the elementary schools. She stated that in this manner, the success of the program can be documented for the public. Senator Couric agreed that this would be helpful. She said it needs to be proven that these programs work. December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 12) 000159 Delegate Van Yahres suggested that school officials need to push the involvement of parents in the Best Management Practices relative to the regional centers. He has talked to the Superintendent of Schools about this, and he has also done a major study defining the best practices for involving parents. Delegate Van Yahres stated that the programs are there, but he thinks the centers should bring them to the educators. The regional centers need to put the programs in place and then school officials could consider them. Mr. Baker noted that there was an emphasis, shared by the School Board, to inform the community zn recognizing that 70 percent of those who provide for the education of the County's children don't have children in the schools themselves. He stated that the School Board's emphasis has been to involve the community to make sure the community knows the County facilities are available to them. He mentioned that there is a full range of activities at any school. He said it has also been a focus of the School Board to make sure everyone knows that it is a community effort and there is community gain by having a strong school division. The School Board shares the legislators' focus, and a number of things have been done to involve the whole community, as well as parents. He stated, though, that they are too lengthy to discuss now. Delegate Harris remarked that one of the things that applied to the Head Start Program, and it may also apply to the Four-Year-Old Program, is that there is no evidence to prove that these programs are working. These programs have to focus on empowering the children so they understand they can claim responsibility for their own successes academically and in other ways. He stated that they need to receive the constant message that they can achieve and can aspire to what they want to do instead of having'an attitude that they are being cared for in some way. He added that there will never be the type of results hoped for if the children go from the Four-Year-Old Program into another program where they are similarly cared for, instead of empowered. He said that is why there is no data to prove that the money put into these programs is working. However, if the focus zs on empowering the children and their parents with the message that they can claim responsibility if they are accountable for their own actions, then the state, federal and local governments can save lots of money in the future. He said once this idea is instilled in children at a young age, it doesn't leave them. Dr. Castner stated that the Head Start Program is not under the County's perview. He mentioned, though, that one of the things observed with the curriculum of the Bright Stars Program is that it is far better in preparing the children for reading readiness than the Head Start Program. He agreed that the focus needs to be on readiness, etc. He also pointed out that the same conversation relating to Head Start versus the Bright Stars Program is occurrzng with the group to which Ms. White referred. Mr. Cummings said the children should not be penalized because of the perceived or actual irresponsibility of their parents. He stated that these children need an education, too, and will become better citizens because the school system is willing to spend the money. He said it.is not their fault, if their parents aren't involved. Delegate Harris concurred, although he repeated his previous statement that the children need to be getting the message that they are empowered. Mr. Koleszar referred to his concern that as more money is available for school construction, the Board of Supervisors has chosen to fund school improvements over other things. He asked that the legislators not penalize counties such as Albemarle and sacrifice their facilities in favor of people in other counties who have made other choices. He noted that the prime need for better facilities is throughout the state. He stated that the reason there are good facilities in Albemarle County is because the Supervisors have made tough choices, and they have chosen school facilities over other things. The County should not be penalized for that. Delegate Harris asked how much money came to the County from the state for school construction before the last Legislative Session. The School Board members indicated that they had not received any money for school construction before that time. Delegate Harris said the school system is getting some funding now, and more will be coming in the future. However, he agreed that whatever formula is put into place, it should be equitable, and it should not be punitive in the sense of those who have already been responsible. December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 13) 0001 $0 Ms. Thomas remarked that she has a way to make sure state funding is spent in a better way than it might otherwise be spent when it comes to school construction. She suggested that when the Freedom of Information Act comes before the legislators, and they are asked to make sure the discussions about school construction or purchase of properties take place in public, they will need to regard this as the best ~Land Speculators Relief Act." She said at first members of the public will think it is great, because they are getting in on early discussions about pieces of property. She noted, though, that if land speculators know exactly where County officials want to build the next school, the price of the land will have skyrocketed by its purchase time. She went on to say she understands this issue has not been attached to the proposal coming to the legislators, and purchase of property is still going to be allowed behind closed doors. She suggested that if there is great enthusiasm for opening up more and more discussions to the public, that the legislators do not consider the purchase of property as an item to be discussed in open meetings. She added that the taxpayers will ultimately not thank the legislators, if this should happen. Mr. Marshall stated that the meeting will have to ~djourn, because the School Board has another meeting to attend. Mr. Baker said he would like to address another issue which is teachers' salaries. He stated that teachers' salaries could be the most important thing to making all the programs discussed today successful. He added that the County has a highly selective process, and quality people are hired. However, he said some quality people are also lost. Senator Couric thanked the members of both Boards for continually calling the legislators and discussing issues with them. Delegate Harris mentioned that there are other issues where time was not spent today, such as the waste management issues. He is sure County officials will want to be informed, and he encouraged them to follow the development of these issues. He stated that he would appreciate the Supervisors letting the legislators know their feelings on such matters. Delegate Van Yahres noted that the pace is so rapid, it is hard for the legislators to keep abreast of all the issues being brought forward. The legislators count on County officials to let them know, before they vote, as to how they feel about these items. He added that he has been asked why he voted for certain issues, and the reason is that he was not informed before he voted by local authorities. He said he would appreciate hearing from the County Attorney, Mr. Tucker and Dr. Castner, as well as others. He emphasized that the issues have to be followed on a daily basis, because they move so fast. He stated that it is imperative for the County officials to let the legislators know their feelings on these matters. Mr. Bowerman stated that the web site is a good way to get updated information on the bills. Delegate Van Yahres concurred, although he asked that information be brought back to the legislators. It does not help if the County officials get the information, but they do not let the legislators know how they feel about certain issues. Mr. Marshall thanked the legislators for coming. Item No. 2B. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. There were none. December 7, 1998 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 14) Agenda Item No. 3. Board of Supervisors. Adjourn. At 5:30 p.m., Mr. Marshall adjourned the Mr. Baker stated that the School Board was recessed until 6:00 p.m. this same evening. Approved by Board Initials ~'~