Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-18December 18, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 0000 ? A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 18, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire 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 and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. 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. A Presentation and Discussion Regarding Reversion. Mr. Tucker said this evening is an opportunity for the Board and the public to hear comments from Mr. Richard Cranwell, the County's counsel on reversion. He then introduced Mr. Cranwell. Mr. Cranwell said it is unfortunate that the City and County are being pushed into a costly piece of litigation. There has been only one other reversion in Virginia, and the first which has been citizen-initiated. He will give a timetable so the public will know the commitment of time and energy the the County will need to invest over the next few years. He will then give strategy which he feels the County should follow in this process. Mr. Cranwell began by giving a history of the things the two localities have done jointly: 1972, Regionalized library services. 1972, Regionalized wastewater and sewer services. 1982, Entered into the first revenue-sharing agreement in Virginia. At the time that was a trailblazing effort. There was no statute on the books that dealt with that idea. After that agreement was approved, there was legislation put in place that gives all localities in Virginia access to those kind of agreements. Everyone thought that was the key to peace and tranquility in this region. 1983-84, Acquired major water supplies through City and County efforts. Regionalized 911 dispatching and all law enforcement dis- patching. 1984, Created an area-wide Community Action Agency. 1986, Created the Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) to coordinate all the planning between the University, the City and the County. 1986, Comprehensive Park Agreement was signed which established joint parks. 1986, Fire Services Contract was signed. 1990, Regionalized solid waste disposal. Both the City and the County essentially have, in the areas where needed, curb- side pickup. 1995, Comprehensive drug enforcement task force. 1995, Mutual Aid Agreement between law enforcement officers in the City, the County and the University of Virginia. 1995, Regional Jail Authority was created. Mr. Cranwell said there are a host of other things that could be discussed. Looking at the services local governments provide, with the exception of Social Services, Schools and Constitutional Officers, just about everything has been covered. These two governing bodies have had an excep- December 18, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) O000Z8 (Page 2) tional working relationship. They have done many things on a cooperative basis that are not often seen by the public. From a historical standpoint, the public needs to understand that dialogue without the intervention of third parties has been a strong suit. He has just mentioned 25 years of cooperative efforts. Mr. Cranwell asked how the County and City find themselves in a legal proceeding where, in all likelihood, they could wind up at cross purposes. He said that a third party has instigated this drive for reversion. It is his understanding the petitioners are getting pro bono legal advice (this means they pay no legal fees). The County is the only party in this process that will have to pay. The reversion statute allows the City and County to go through the process, to the Commission on Local Government, allows there to be an extensive trial before a special three judge court which could then be appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, and at anytime after the three judge court makes it decision. When the appeal is filed, the City has the option of saying we don't like this so we are going to opt out. The citizens will have to pay for the cost to the City and to the County for these legal prepara- tions. The petitioners will have paid nothing. He said this is deadly serious business for the County. Mr. Cranwell said he thinks it is important to understand that the County has sought a dialogue with the City to focus on what everybody visual- izes as a problem that needs to be cured. He has said before that reversion is only a vehicle to take you to a solution to a problem. It is not a solution within itself. Someone must focus on the problem. If the problem is not known, reversion is not going to change anything. He met with the Board on June 14, 1995, at which time the Chairman renewed the request of this Board to have a dialogue with City Council on this question. Unknown to the Board, the process had already begun. He read in the local newspapers that City Council in the Spring of 1995 had commissioned Dr. Tom Muller to prepare a financial analysis. It is his understanding that the report has still not been made public. He informed the audience that every report the Board of Supervisors has had prepared has been made public. He presumes the reason it was not made public was because it was being prepared in anticipation of litigation. Mr. Cranwell said he wrote the City Attorney and again renewed the County's request for a dialogue. The response was that the Council was still trying to learn about reversion and as soon as they did, the Mayor would contact the Chairman and set up a meeting. Council finally agreed to a meeting in August. The City and the County created a committee that met three times and then broke up into subcommittees to look at housing, education, social services and some other things. They had about eight meetings trying to grapple with and understand what it is that everybody thinks is broke that needs to be fixed. Later, it was suggested that a study be funded to see if through the reversion process it is: 1) a good idea to consolidate the schools, and 2) how it could be done. The County even agreed to pay one-half of the cost. It is important for all to remember that on June 22, 1995, the Chairman said "Delaying these discussions until City Council is willing to meet and the matter is before the courts is unacceptable to the County." All of the agreements mentioned earlier were negotiated without having to partici- pate in the litigation process. Mr. Cranwell said he thinks the City and the County were close to getting a study on schools. Then, somebody felt they needed more registered voters to sign the petition because there may have been more registered voters at the beginning of the year. Then somebody had to file a petition. That petition was filed and here we are. The County has no choice. The County was made a party. The County is the only party in this equation that is at risk. Mr. Cranwell said both the City and the County have filed responsive pleadings to the petition. A special three-judge court has been appointed. There are some jurisdictional issues that will have to be addressed which will probably take 60 to 90 days. If the jurisdictional requirements are met, the matter will be referred to the Commission on Local Government (a quasi- judicial body of five people experienced in local government, three in city government and two in county government). Once the matter is referred to the Commission, there will be a voluminous data and information gathering process to prepare for the hearings conducted by the Commission. These hearings are December 18, 1996 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) (Page 3) 0000 9 similar to a legal proceeding and trial, except that all the formalities and rules of evidence do not apply. That process takes several months. Mr. Cranwell said he anticipates that by the Summer of 1997 everybody would be in a position to schedule the Commission hearings. The hearing on the evidentiary part will probably last three or four days. One evening the Commission will hold a public hearing where citizens can come in and speak (He has not seen the public hearings have a lot of impact on the process). Once all of the evidence is in, the Commission will take from 60 to 120 days to write its report. This Board should receive that report sometime between September and November, 1997. It is an advisory report and will be referred back to the three-judge court that is now in place. The three judges are sitting circuit judges so their schedules have to be coordinated and all of the discovery work done in preparation for a trial that will last from one week to ten days. All parties should be ready for the trial by the Summer of 1998. Depending on the court, a decision should be made within 45 days after the evidence is completed. Then there is a 30-day period in which to note an appeal. There has only been one reversion case in Virginia thus far, and it was appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. Briefing schedules there run as long as five months. Then there is a wait of four to five months before oral arguments are heard. It would probably be the Summer of 1999 before there would be a decision from the Supreme Court. Depending on what the Supreme Court does (they can affirm, reverse, reverse with final decision, or reverse and remand), then the reversion cannot take place until six months thereafter. He believes that if reversion does occur through the litigation process, it would probably be the year 2000 before it would take effect. Mr. Cranwell said the County is going to be involved in a rather extensive piece of litigation, one that will probably not see finality until the 21st Century. That is just an educated guess on a time line based on his experience in annexation cases and the only reversion case that has occurred in Virginia. Mr. Cranwell then set out parameters for how the County should approach this particular piece of litigation. First, this is deadly serious business for the County. When the process is over, the County will not be able to step back, look at it, and if it does not like it, walk away from it. It has a chilling finality for the County. The petitioners do not have to pay their legal counsel, but the County will have to hire lawyers, engineers, financial consultants, probably a governmental efficiency expert, and an expert in education. This will most likely cost, at a minimum, $750,000 over the next four years. Mr. Cranwell said there are two ways to create a town in Virginia, and they are vastly different ways. Until the reversion statute was enacted, towns were friendly things for counties. In a county there would be an area that got a dense population growth that would then demand services. That area would then be incorporated into a town. That relieved service burdens on the county (police to take pressure off the sheriff's department, garbage pickup). That is the traditional way to create a town. The new way to create a town works just the opposite. Now, there is a city that is densely populated, and it becomes a town giving up certain obligations. That burden is then forced back on the county. In theory there is a service burden that is transferred to the county. In theory there would be sufficient taxable real estate, personal property, and other things in the city that would become a part of the county to take care of the cost of the burdens. The theory doesn't work. In actuality, what happened in South Boston and Halifax County is that the burden was greater than the revenue stream that was transferred. What occurred was a cost that was unfunded. The county taxpayers have to pick up that cost. That is what Albemarle County has to be vigilant against. The law allows the court, if reversion is awarded, to impose terms and conditions that will keep that from happening. Mr. Cranwell said he would like to talk about the ~real" world. The reversion statute is not user-friendly for counties. Since the early 1900s, there have been 110+ annexation suits filed against counties, and cities/towns have prevailed in all but six or seven of those cases. The reversion statute says ~the court shall grant reversion unless it finds .... " That is unusual construction for a statute. Usually there is some affirmative burden to prove December 18, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000030 some positive thing to prevail. In this case, the court has to find that certain things will not exist. Mr. Cranwell said his firm had asked for reasonable terms and conditions on the Halifax reversion, but the Commission recommended the reversion without any terms and conditions. When they got to the three-judge court, they fought hard against reversion, but were really focused on getting reasonable terms and conditions if the reversion was imposed, and they got some (a 15-year moratorium on annexation, 1.0 millions gallons of capacity in the wastewater treatment facility, an order that the town maintain certain services so they could not come into court and say these are the services we will continue to provide, but there is no requirement that they be provided). Unfortunately, when they got to the Supreme Court, it said the three-judge court had abused its discretion in doing those things. That reversion occurred without those specific conditions. However, with that experience in mind, and with the guidelines from the court, Albemarle County has to be vigilant as to how it defends and how it structures terms and conditions to be sure this is taken care of. Mr. Cranwell suggested that Albemarle County not take a hard line on reversion itself. He feels the chances for defeating reversion are virtually nonexistent if the City takes the position they want reversion. It will be almost impossible to convince any court there is not a way to make this work because they all know that towns and counties have been coexisting fairly well almost since the inception of the Commonwealth. He suggested that a permanent solution is needed. Reversion is a permanent solution although it is one the County has not sought. But, it is a solution that can work if all parties work together. Everybody does need to understand that as long as the litiga- tion is pending, there will be no negotiations on boundary adjustments, on revenue-sharing, on redistricting, or on consolidation of the schools. There are no assurances that if the City and County worked out something that everybody was happy with, that would be acceptable to the group which has forced this issue. As long as the litigation is ongoing, the County does not have the luxury to divert resources because the only purpose for this litiga- tion is to put leverage on the County to negotiate something other than reversion. Mr. Cranwell said that in 1982, the County thought there was a permanent solution. At that time, the voters of the County approved the revenue-sharing agreement in a referendum. In the 14 intervening years, there has been a transfer of approximately $44.0 million to the City. Over the next 15 years, it will be approximately $90.0+ million. Everybody thought that would take care of the problem, and a lasting solution had been achieved. It lasted only 14 years. Not one person in the County has objected to this massive transfer of wealth. No one in the County has threatened litigation to try and change the status quo. No one in County government has worked with any citizens group or anybody else to change the status quo. Nobody in the County asked to be made a party to these proceedings. Unlike 1982, no one in the County will have a vote on the final outcome. Mr. Cranwell said it should be obvious that the County cannot now, with litigation that could last four or five years, step back. The County is the only group that is at risk. The City has a fail-safe opt out. Over the next 18 years, the total transfer of payments will be $135.0+ million if the status quo is maintained. What the County did in 1982 was not sufficient to solve the problem. Mr. Cranwell said Virginia is unique. It is the only state that has independent cities. He said reversion will be a permanent solution because Charlottesville will not be an independent city if they revert. It can never attain independent city status again. There will be no more revenue-sharing based on a voluntary agreement between the parties. The relationship will be the relationship which has been structured in the Commonwealth since its inception. Duplicate constitutional officers will be eliminated. Control of the most costly governmental service, education, will become the responsibil- ity of the County. Without the cost of education, the town of Charlottesville should be in good shape in terms of being able to deal with the governmental services that remain. Mr. Cranwell said it is probably not necessary to mount an all out offense against reversion. If the County wants lasting peace, it must make sure that the terms and conditions are structured to be sure the citizens of the County are not bearing the burden of the change in status between the two December 18, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) ooooa governing bodies. If the County fashions terms and conditions, it will fashion a permanent resolution. He suggests that the County not seek anything more than a fair and permanent solution. He suggests that will be far more difficult said then done. As the Board knows, there is already significant debate going on about whether the City consultant's assumptions were correct. It is going to be a challenge and will take time and effort, because every service will have to be analyzed and decide what it will look like if reversion occurs. The cost and delivery of those services will have to be examined. Mr. Cranwell said he has a plea he wants to direct to the City. He has told the Board that it should ~step to the plate" and say that if the City wants to do this, the Board is willing to go through the reversion process and work to make sure it works for the County's citizens and it is fair. What the County should not do, and what the taxpayers in the City and County should not have to do, is have this hanging over their heads. He urged City Council to decide immediately whether they want to go through this process or not. They can make it easy by saying reversion is not the way to go, we will take our chances talking with the County, we don't need folks pushing us, so we are not going to approve whatever happens, and it will be over. The County will not have to spend any money, and the City will not have to spend any money. City Council can say, we can't make that decision until we see what it looks like. He urged the City, if they think it is a solution, to be willing to take the same risks that the County is being asked to take. If they think reversion is a solution, they should pass a resolution saying ~we will decline. We have confidence in the Commission on Local Government, our legal counsel, our experts, and that the three-judge court will fashion a fair and equitable solution. That will be permanent." His plea is that somebody on City Council make a decision that will allow the "folks" to know that if they are going through this process and spend the money, that it will not be a charade. Mr. Cranwell said he is confident that given the right kind of direc- tion, something can be fashioned to protect the citizens of Albemarle County and it be fair to the citizens of the City. He is confident the Commission and the courts will have the wisdom to do that. He does not believe that when it is all said and done and the court decision is out, everybody will be happy. It would be a tragedy to go through this, there be a solution the courts have hammered out that has been reviewed in the appeal process which is said to be fair and equitable to everybody, and the City walks away. There is the opportunity now, if the City will step forward and exercise its preroga- tive under the statute, to say it is over and we don't have to worry about it, or we know it is real, let's invest the kind of time and resources that are necessary to make it work. If they don't do that, the County will have to invest time and resources because it will have to live with it. Mr. Cranwell said his firm has already started the process, but they think that when it is all said and done there will be a permanent solution that is fair. Will it be one that will survive? Only the City can tell us. They ought to do that. His firm will do the necessary work to make sure that whatever happens is in the best interests of the citizens of the County and the County government. He then offered to answer question. He said that a lot of governing bodies would not have this kind of forthright discussion about strategy and how to deal with the case in public session. He commends the Board for doing that. It is obvious as to how the County will proceed. It should be obvious by the first of the year, how the City will proceed. Mr. Marshall agreed with what Mr. Cranwell has said that the County must go along with reversion. He asked if the City said they were going through with reversion and agreed to terms, if the City wants to give the County their schools, do they have to give the County their school buildings? If they want to give the County their police department, do they have to give the County the police cars and other supplies? Do they have to give the County assets? Mr. Cranwell said the answer to those questions is Uno". In the Halifax County case, he believes it was suggested that they buy the school buses from South Boston, even though Halifax was getting the school system. He believes they asked that Halifax County hire all of their school teachers, all their school personnel, guarantee them jobs, pay for the school buses, to guarantee their salary levels for two or three years, and that Halifax be ordered not to close any schools. They did not succeed in any of those conditions, but that is what they asked for. December 18, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 0000; 2 Mr. Martin said it seems to him the County has to pay the money neces- sary to make sure any terms and conditions are fair if City Council is not willing to come out and state they will not support reversion. If the County did not do that, it might end up in a situation where it had the students and not the schools. Mr. Cranwell said the cost to the County has been estimated at about $3.0 million if there are no terms and conditions. Mr. Davis said that did not include Albemarle paying for buses and schools. Mr. Cranwell said unless the courts ordered the City to transfer the buses to Albemarle, they might just keep the buses and sell them off. Ms. Thomas asked if the Supreme Court told the lower court in the South Boston case that they had gone into too great of detail, is what the Board talking about now greater detail than the court is going into? Is this the sort of thing that will be worked out in the court case, and the Board expect a ruling from the court to include such things as whether the school buses are transferred to Albemarle? Mr. Cranwell said "yes". In the South Bos- ton/Halifax case, South Boston had a list of things they were going to continue to provide (There is no statutory mandate that they provide those services. The next day they could have said they were not going to provide the services.), so his firm asked the court to give a term and condition to say they had to provide those services at least at the level that they were providing them at the date of reversion, because the financial balance in the case was predicated on them providing those services. They did not want to shift that financial burden to Halifax. The court agreed and granted such a term and condition. The Supreme Court said they went too far. Mr. Cranwell said he knows how to structure this term and condition the next time so it does not go too far. The Board can discuss that later. That is one of the things that the County needs to be vigilant about. Mr. Cranwell said there is some question as to whether the court can order a consolidation of the schools. That is an issue his firm raised. The court agreed that they could not order a consolidation of the schools but would order the county to take over the schools and operate them just as they operate the county schools and make sure that all of the revenue is trans- ferred to the county. Mr. Bowerman said this Board has been told many times that it cannot make decisions for future boards. If the reversion case were before City Council today he understands the current City Council could say ~yes" or "no" to that. How can this City Council make a definitive judgment today on a decision that might not be made for three or four years and which at that time would have a different city council? Mr. Cranwell said they cannot legally bind a future governing body. Virginia is noted for the gentlemanly way it does business. He suggests that if the present City Council said it was going to exercise that prerogative, the County could probably count on future city councils honoring that promise. He would feel more comfortable as to how the County will react knowing that is the case. He thinks it will have a killing effect on the willingness of the petitioners to go forward, and the County would probably see this thing go away. The County could then go back and reinitiate all the cooperative conversations that were taking place. The two bodies could then sit down, if there is a problem, and identify that problem and talk about the solution. According to Dr. Muller there was some impending gloom in the future financially. He obviously knows something that the bond underwriters don't know. Charlottesville has a AAA bond rating, and bonds are not issued for one year. Someone is looking at the long-term financial health of the City when they make those kind of ratings. There are no guarantees, but he thinks that if they will make that decision, he thinks the people in the City will honor their word, and he would feel more comfortable proceeding that way. If they tell you they are going to exercise that right, he can probably compress the time it will take to get this process through to where it can be over before there is a new city council. Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Cranwell meant exercising the option of saying they are not going to go through with it. Mr. Cranwell said if City Council says they will reject it, this process could be shut down and moved as fast as possible through the Commission, and get it to the courts and get that final order and close it out. The County would not have to go through all the in- depth preparation to deal with it. Just out of how one neighbor treats another, and how a governing body should deal with its own citizenry, he thinks Council owes it to all to say what their intentions are. He knows they have had Dr. Muller's study. They have Carter Glass on board. They have had consultants looking at the school system. He believes they have the factual basis to make a decision now as to what they want to do. This will not be an December 18, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 0000 inexpensive venture for the City unless they are just ~along for the ride." The County will have to work hard to convince the Commission and the courts how to structure this thing. Ms. Thomas said it has been mentioned that outside consultants alone could cost $750,000. She sees that all of the County staff will be diverted in its attention and that will be extremely expensive. Those will be hidden costs. The Board is already beginning to feel there are other things it would like to spend its time on. Given that there will be the $750,000 for outside help, with an equal amount in hidden costs for staff, how can the Board be sure it is not spending more time and effort than is necessary to get what has been referred to as the right conditions? At some point, the Board has to be accountable to the taxpayers. Mr. Cranwell said there is an easy way to arrive at that decision. Mr. Wally Cox, Accountant, has said that if rever- sion went into effect tomorrow, it would cost $3.0 million a year. That is a large amount of money, so the Board should be willing to make a significant commitment to see that kind of loss is not inflicted on County residents. Mr. Marshall said that figure does not count the assets the County would lose. Mr. Cranwell said that is right. His firm worked in Prince George County for five years and the fees were not that much. Prince George had the threat of annexation from two cities, but defeated both attempts to annex. Whatever they spent was worth it over the long haul. He cannot say what amount this Board should sPend. Ms. Thomas said some people who have spoken to her have placed a lot of emphasis on the public hearings. They think they can influence things by these public hearings. Mr. Cranwell said at the hearing before the Commission on Local Government, they got about 2500 people to attend. Everyone of them was opposed to annexation. People spoke for five or six hours and everyone of them told the Commission they did not want any annexation. The Commission recommended annexation for both cities. Fortunately, when the proceeding got to the courts, that decision was turned around. Mr. Perkins said he had one point of clarification. He said Mr. Cranwell said earlier that no one in the County had objected to the revenue- sharing agreement. There is probably nobody in County government that has voiced that publicly, but there certainly have been County citizens who questioned revenue-sharing feeling it is taxation without representation. Mr. Cranwell said the point he was making is that there will always be dissent, but there has been no organized effort in the County, by the government, or the citizens, to undo the bargain of 1982. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Cranwell to sum up one final time what he thinks should happen. Mr. Cranwell said he would hope the County could get some degree of certainty because this is not a light moment for the County. It would be beneficial if the City would take a stand. Otherwise, the County will have to commit time and resources to make sure the burdens that are shifted are adequately compensated for, and this is not a losing situation for the citizens of the County. Mr. Marshall said the fact is that this Board will not oppose reversion because it does not stand in a position to oppose it. Mr. Cranwell said if the City joins in with the petitioners agreeing to reversion, if the County focuses its resources on trying to defeat that, it is wasting its efforts. The County would be spending money on something where the possibility of success is so remote that the County is not getting anything for each dollar spent. He suggests that if the City takes that position, the Board focus on a permanent solution. That solution will be: The City will no longer be a city and will never become a city again. The County will then have some burden lifted from its tax base, which is about S0.10/hundred at the present time. There will be a consolidation of those things that are not currently covered by voluntary agreements with the City. Those are basically the social services department, education and the constitutional officers. Mr. Martin said he agrees. He thinks that if City Council states that they want to revert then the Board needs to focus on the outcome to be sure it is an acceptable kind of outcome. He feels comfortable that if the County has to take over the City, the County will do it and will do it well. The County has the people to do it, so it will just do it. Mr. Marshall said in addition to that, the County does not have a choice. Mr. Martin said that is true. December 18, 1996 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~4 (Page 8) Mr. Cranwell said he knows it is not welcome to have to deal with lawyers and consultants, etc. He will say again that the County does not have the luxury of a choice. The real tragedy is that no one has said what the problem is. Reversion is not a solution within itself. It is just a mecha- nism to be used to get to a solution. Everybody has a theoretical picture that there will be peace and tranquility if reversion occurs and things will be better then they are now. In order to be better, there has to be a problem that needs to be fixed. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. He does not think it is broke here. Twenty-five years of cooperation is unusual. The County and City fashioned a voluntary settlement that transferred wealth from this locality to another locality in the 1980s when nobody else in the Commonwealth had done it. Albemarle County was such a leader that it created a statutory matrix that now exists for anybody else in the Commonwealth to use. So, what's the problem? In this region, things are fine. There is a healthy, robust economy. If the City says they want reversion, the County knows they have to go about it seriously, but the County would know that its efforts would not be in vain. If the County can get some definite guidance from the other, life would be easier. Otherwise, the County is in for about four years of hard, dedicated work. When it is all said and done, he thinks everything will be all right. There being no further discussion of this item at this time, the Board moved to the next agenda item. Agenda Item No 6. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Tucker thanked Mr. Denny Barberio and his student from Walton Middle School who taped this presentation tonight. It will be shown on Channel 13, the public access channel on Adelphia Cable, tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 p.m. and again next week in the evening on a date yet to be announced. Ms. Humphris said this will be a great public service. There were a good number of people who were not able to attend tonight. Agenda Item No. 7. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:21 p.m. Approved by the Board of County Supervi- sors Date q'l'9~ Initials~i/