The URL can be used to link to this page

1995-02-01 0000:I.0 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 1, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis; and County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. 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. Mr. Marshall made motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve items 5.1, 5.2b, 5.3 and 5.4, pull item 5.2a and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr? Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Proclamation in support of the "League of Women Voters", was approved by the above recorded vote. PROCLAMATION W~EREAS, February 14, 1994, marks the 75th anniversary of the founding of the League of Women Voters of the United States; and W~EREAS, the League of Women Voters, which was founded in 1920 to help 20 million new women voters carry out their new responsibilities, has worked for 75 years to.be a voice for citizens and a force for change; W~REAS, the League of Women Voters has provided nonpartisan information on candidates and issues for elections, encouraged voter registration and informed voting, helped generations of voters understand the structure and function of government; provided nonpartisan, balanced information on public policy issues to citizens, and worked to achieve government policies that promote public interest; and W-~ER~AS, the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville/ Albemarle is in its 50th year of operation, having been estab- lished in 1946; NOW, THEREFORE, I, David J. Toscano, Mayor of the City of Charlottesville, and Walter F. Perkins, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, do hereby recognize the contribu- tions made by the League of Women Voters of the United States over the past 75 years, extend heartiest congratulations to the members of the League on the occasion of this anniversary, and offer best wishes for the continued success of the League in the future. Item 5.2a. Appropriation: Education, $65,791.99 - (Form ~940047) . It was noted'in a staff report that at its meeting of January 9, 1995, the School Board approved and requested appropriation/reappropriation of funds for several education funds and grants. · The reappropriation of the Albemarle High School Food Service Program Fund Balance of $11,391.49 at the end of the 1993-94 fiscal year. The funds will be used ~to purchase new equipment for the program. · The reappropriation of the Fund Balance for the Textbook Fund in the amount of $24,302.25. Also requested was an appropriation of $3000 for anticipated collection as a result of debt set-off collections. These funds will be used to purchase new textbooks. · The appropriation of the Gardening for Nature Grant received by Stony Point Elementary School in the amount of $150 from the Department of Natural Resources, Virginia Museum of Natural February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 2) 0000 History. This grant is designed to actively demonstrate to children the mutual and symbiotic relationships that plants have with animals, natural environmental elements and people. · The appropriation from the State Department of Education for the Learn and Service America Program in the amount of $810 for Henley Middle School. This project will allow students to enhance their academic, citizenship and personal skills by participating in school/community service-learning programs. · The appropriation of $1908 from the State Department of Education for the Sign Language/Speech mini-grant. The funds will be used to increase school-based interpreting skills for interpreters through course work provided by community colleges and Emersion Week at the Virginia School for the Deaf and Blind. Staff recommends that the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $65,791.99. Mrs. Humphris asked why the $24,302.25 was listed as two expenditures and two revenues instead of one. Mr. Tucker said he would discuss this with the Director of Finance and get an answer for the Board before the end of this meeting. No action was taken on this request at this time. The motion will be set out later in this same meeting. Item 5.2b. Virginia Institute of Government, $2500 (Form ~940048). It was noted in a staff report that the Virginia Institute of Government was formed in 1994 through a coalition of public officials, associations and University faculty to provide a comprehensive program of training, technical assistance and information resources to local governments throughout the State. Funding for the Institute was to come from the State, as well as anticipated contributions from localities interested in accessing their services. Last year the General Assembly appropriated $525,000 for the biennium to enable the Institute to begin its initial work program, although the second year's funding of $350,000 has been recommended for elimination in the Governor's budget. Budget amendments to restore funding have been submit- ted and Institute leaders are hopeful that the Legislature will continue the Lnitial start-up fund. The Institute has assured localities that the program will continue even if State funding is not forthcoming. The Institute requested a contribution of $2500 from Albemarle County for the second half of FY 1994-95; a full year contribution, which will be submitted as part of the FY 1995-96 budget request, would be $5000. This is based on a membership contribution formula recommended by a task force of public officials, which for Albemarle is based on a population bracket of 70,000 to 100,000. Staff recommended that the Board adopt a Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $2500 as Albemarle's voluntary contribution to the Institute for the remainder of the fiscal year. If the Institute is able to become the information clearing house and training network for local governments that it proposes, it will be a valuable resource for Albemarle County and one worth joining. However, staff will continue to assess the services and benefits of the Institute as it develops to determine if future contributions are in the County's best interest. Mrs. Humphris said she understands the importance of having this center as a clearing house to gather information, but she does not necessarily agree with training for elected officials. She found that there is not enough time to take advantage of all of the resources currently available. Even though it is a small amount, she is not sure it should be funded at the local level. Mrs. Thomas said other states have well-established institutes of government to provide training and do research. If no support is given, she thinks the program will be doomed. She sees this action as a way of keeping the program on track and if something happens, the County's money will be re- turned. This is a small amount of money for something that she thinks will be highly valuable. Mr. Tucker said there are 20 localities in the Commonwealth which have already provided funding. Those that have participated are mainly smaller communities. When this was approved by the State it was for a two-year period, but the intent was that the State would fund one-half of the cost and. the localities would provide a match. The match is what the Institute is now requesting. He added that he thinks this is a pilot program and if it does not work, that will be the end of it. It won't be an ongoing thing unless it can be proven that training can be provided, as well as innovative technolo- gies on issues that localities are going to need to survive appropriately and effectively, and provide effective government. Mr. Bowerman said he does not necessarily think everything the Institute does is something Albemarle County will avail itself of, but parts of it could be good. He believes funding the program will allow the chance for something worthwhile. February 1, 1995 (Regular Day (Page 3) Mr. Martin said he has some reservations. He sees the technical systems and information resources as valuable, but feels this program places an unfair disadvantage on the working person because it is hard for them to participate in the training and programs that it may offer. Mrs. Humphris said she understands all of the comments, but feels it is something coming in through the "back door." It was established for good reasons, but funding will come from everyone's tax dollars. There was a statement in the paperwork that the Institute has assured localities that the program will continue even if State funding is not forthcoming, and she does not know how that works if local funding is not forthcoming. She asked what happens to the localities that do not support this request and whether a subscriber fee is paid in order to use the resources or will some localities get a "free ride." By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940048 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR THE VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGOR~ DESCRIP_____~TION 1100011010580100 INST OF GOVT-DUES/MEMBERSHIPS 1100095000999990 CONTINGENCY FOR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT. $ 2,500.00 (2,500.00) $ 0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTIO____ N AMOUNT TOTAL $ 0.00 Item 5.3. Resolution of support for the City of Danville, Virginia, for a regional visitor's center. It was noted in a staff report that the City of Danville has obtained an amendment to the Governor's budget that will provide $200,000 in planning money for a regional visitor's center to be located near Danville. Danville is requesting support of this budget amendment from all localities along Route 29 to promote the tourism industry in this region. If the Board Supports the resolution, Danville requests that certified copies be sent to Senator Charles Hawkins, Governor George Allen, Delegate Whit Clement, as well as Albemarle's legislators. Mrs. Humphris asked if there are other regional visitor centers in Virginia. She does not know if any other locality would like to have one and simply has not requested support. She wondered also if Albemarle County might want to have a regional visitor's center. When the Supervisors get such a resolution asking for support, they do not know what damage they might be doing to another locality. If Albemarle County officials help Danville, they might unknowingly be hurting someone else who might be competing for the same thing. Mr. Tucker said this is a request he received from the City Manager in Danville who has requested support from everyone along the Route 29 corridor. Danville is attempting to get a regional center because of its location near the North Carolina border. Most tourist or visitor centers are located on interstate highways. This is the first center that would be on a major U.S. route. Funding has also been requested from the State for this project. Mrs. Humphris said she does not like to support something she knows little about. Mr. Marshall said there are welcome centers along the North Carolina and Virginia state lines. He believes the visitor's center in Danville would be the same as a welcome center, except that it will not be on an interstate. Mr. Perkins said as Interstate Routes 81 and 95 become more congested and there is more truck traffic, there are more people using Route 29 (partic- ularly in passenger vehicles) and there is probably a need for this center, although $200,000 seems like a lot of planning money. Mrs. Humphris said she wonders if there are procedures established to form such a center. Mr. Tucker said if the Board would like, it could defer the request and he will ask someone from Danville to speak on the issue. Mrs. Humphris said this Board does not know whether Danville is the place that this welcome center should be located and if it is competing with other requests. Mr. Tucker said he thinks Danville has done it because of its strategic location to the North Carolina state line. There is no other request in the Governor's budget. Mr. Tucker said this is for planning money and it may not be approved in the Governor's budget. Mr. Martin said he does not have a problem with this request because Route 29 is one of the few primary roads in Virginia that acts as an inter- state to some extent. Danville, Virginia, happens to be on the Virginia/North ; O000X February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) Carolina line. The Board may want'~!~ ~equest that Danville send written material as to their intentions. Mrs. Humphris commented that she had just wanted to bring up this matter for discussion. If a decision is needed for purposes of the General Assembly, then she will support the request. Mr. Tucker pointed out that this project might not be approved because the request is just for planning money. It involves a lot of planning money, however, and that is why support is being requested from other localities. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR REGIONAL TOURIST CENTER DANVILLE, VIRGINIA ROUTE 29 - CENTRAL VIRGINIA AREA WHEREAS, there has been a long standing need for development of the tourism industry along the Route 29 corridor; and WHEREAS, this area of the Commonwealth is the only major area unserved by a regional visitors center; and WHEREAS, a regional visitors center would significantly enhance regional tourism development efforts currently underway within the Region under the auspices of Centerstate 29; and WHEREAS, Governor George Allen has included $200,000 in his recommended FY 1995-96 Budget for the establishment of a regional visitors center on Route 29 in Danville; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Super- visors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that it does endorse and support the proposed budgetary allocation of $200,000 for a regional visitors center on Route 29 in Danville which would service communities along the Route 29 Corridor as well as Route 58 and within the Central Virginia area; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does suggest the concept of a multi-jurisdiction effort to operate a regional visitors center and will coordinate with other localities within the Region under the auspices of the budget funding. Item 5.4a. Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement for Advanced Allocation Fund Loan: Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad - $45,000 for ambulance purchase. It was noted in a staff report that several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at $2.0 million, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting and rescue equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA). The current amount available for loan is $321,839. The Charlottes- ville/Albemarle Rescue Squad (CARS) has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $45,000 to purchase a new ambulance. Repayment of this loan will be made over a five-year period beginning FY 95-96. The JCFRA has approved this request. Mrs. Thomas said she assumes there is a long range plan or some sort of criteria that directs the Board in choosing which rescue squad would get the most allocation. Mr. Tucker explained that there is a long range plan, but the County has not gotten involved with the revolving fund. The Jefferson Area Fire and Rescue Association members have been allowed to work this out among themselves. JCFRA makes the decision relating to the request. Each company is represented in that Association. By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to sign the following Service Agreement: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for purposes of identification, this 3rd day of February, 1995, by and between the COLrNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the CHARLOTTESVILLE- ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC. ("CARS"); W I TNE S S E TH THAT, for and in consideration of the operation by CARS of a rescue squad which will protect human life in Albemarle County during the term of this agreement, the County shall pay to CARS Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000) for the purchase of a new ambulance. This payment shall be made when needed by CARS from ' '0000' 4 February 1, 1995 (Regular DaY Me,ting) (Page 5) the County's fire fund.'::~~'~h~ sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to CARS for a period of five (5) years beginning July, 1995 and extending through July, 1999. Thus at the end of the fifth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000) will have been withheld. If at any time during the term of this agreement, CARS is no longer in the business of providing rescue squad services, CARS covenants that it will convey its interest in the ambulance to the County at no cost to the County for the County or its assigns to use for rescue squad services. CARS further covenants that it shall not convey the ambulance or any interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written consent during the terms of the agreement. A copy of the title to the ambulance shall be delivered to the County within 60 days of the purchase of the ambulance. Item 5.4b. Authorize Chairman to sign Service Agreement for Advanced Allocation Fund Loan: Scottsviile Volunteer Rescue Squad - $45,000 for ambulance purchase. It was noted in a staff report that the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $45,000 to purchase a new ambulance. Repayment of this loan will be over a seven-year period beginning FY 95-96. The JCFRA has approved this request. By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to sign the following Service Agreement: THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made for purposes of identification, this 3rd day of February, 1995, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER RESCUE SQUAD ("Scottsville"); W I TNE S S E TH WHEREAS, the County had previously entered into service agreements with Scottsville, dated October 15, 1987; July 19, 1989; and March 16, 1993, providing for the withholding of certain sums each year by the County from the County's annual grant to Scottsville, as set forth in said agreements, copies of which are attached hereto (on file) as Exhibits A, B, and C; and WHEREAS, as a result of said agreements, the outstanding indebtedness now totals $35,700; and WHEREAS, Scottsville now desires to receive from the County Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000) to be used for the purchase of a new ambulance; and WHEREAS, Scottsville now desires to enter into an agreement consolidating its annual withholding of payments by the County; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the operation by Scottsville of a rescue squad which will protect human life and the purchase of ambulance vehicles during the term of this agree- ment, the County shall pay to Scottsville Forty-Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000), which payment shall be made when needed from the County's fire fund. Thereafter, the sum of Ten Thousand Eight-Five Dollars ($10,085) per year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Scottsville for a period of seven (7) years beginning July, 1995 and extending through July, 2001, with a balance of Ten Thousand One Hundred Five Dollars ($10,105) due in the eighth year (July, 2002). Thus, at the end of the eighth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of Eighty Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($80,700) will have been withheld. This withholding consolidates the balance of all prior advancements as a result of prior service agreements with Scottsville dated October 14, 1987; July 19, 1989; and March 16, 1993. If at any time during the term of this agreement, Scotts- ville is no longer in the business of providing rescue squad services, Scottsville covenants that it will convey its interest in the ambulances to the County at no cost to the County for the County or its assigns to use for rescue squad services. All covenants set forth in the agreements dated October 1987; July 19, 1989; and March 16, 1993, remain in full force and effect. Scottsville further covenants that it shall not convey the ambu- lances or any interest therein to any party other than the County without the County's prior written consent during the term of this agreement. A copy of the title of each ambulance shall be deliv- ered to the County within 60 days of the purchase of the new ambulance. 0000 5 February t, 1995 (Regular DaY M~gi (Page 6) Item 5.5. Status Report on'~ntain/Ri~getOp Protection Ordinance, was received as follows for information: "The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan recommends as a short term strategy, "Develop a mountain protection district to protect the scenic and aesthetic values associated with mountains, and to further protect their environmental characteristics." Development of such ordinance provisions was included in the Department of Planning and Community Development's FY 1992-93 work program. During that year, the Commission requested the staff delay initi- ating work on this item, as well as other work program items, until the Commission completed its review of the Housinq Report, economic development policy, and other matters that had been forwarded by the Board of Supervisors (most specifically several Comprehensive Plan amendments). Mountain/Ridgetop Protection again appeared on the Department's FY 1993-94 work program. Because of continuing work on previously identified items, most specifically several Comprehensive Plan amendments, and the anticipated beginning of the review of the full Comprehensive Plan, staff advised the Commission in February of 1994 that it would propose taking up Mountain/Ridgetop Protection with the Comprehensive Plan review. The Commission indicated no objection to this approach. This item will be taken up as part of the second phase of the Comprehensive Plan review schedule proposed to the Commission and Board at its joint meeting in August. (The second phase review will follow the Commission recommendation of the Land Use Plan to the Board in August, 1995.)" Item 5.6. Memorandum dated January 24, 1995, from Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering and Public Works, to 'Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Berkmar North Extension Status, was received as follows for information: "The memorandum states that notice to proceed was given to Mega Contractors, Inc., on October 31, 1994. The project duration is 200 days which establishes a target substantial completion date of May 19, 1995. As of January 1995, the work is approximately 40 percent complete which is slightly behind schedule. This delay can be attributed to unforeseen difficulties encountered in the relocation (lowering) of two existing waterlines in the path of the road, and the time of year the bulk excavation work is being performed (wet and cold weather conditions limit when proper earth compaction can be accomplished). The actual work completed through January should include all of the clearing and grubbing, all of the roadway culverts and most of the associated endwall structures, 75 percent of the grading, the lowering of the existing waterlines, and the beginning of the new 30 inch waterline installation along Woodburne Road. By February, the curb and gutter work and roadway surface drainage work should commence on the east side of the road and at both sides behind Jim Price Chevrolet. The stone base will not begin until a signifi- cant portion of the curbing and surface drainage is completed. This is anticipated in early April. Since it will be critical to have the road accepted by V]DoT at the time it is placed into service, we anticipate opening the road by early July. The contract amount, including change orders to date, is $902,307.54. The February 1995, pay request will exceed the 50 percent milestone and thereby trigger our first reimbursement request from the revenue sharing agreement with V]DOT. We have been notified by VDOT that the two traffic signals prof- fered and required as part of the Sam's and Wal-Mart developments must now be installed in conjunction with the opening of Berkmar North. One of these signals is to be located at the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive. The other is to be located at the Sheraton/Wal-Mart intersection on Hilton Heights ROad. According to our documentation, it is the developer's responsibil- ity to pay the cost of one signal and install the second. Due to the project schedule and the difficulty to coordinate, we antici- pate offering an alternative to the developer to reimburse the County for both signals. Provided the developer is responsive, the traffic signals should be in place at the time the road is scheduled to open. If not, the road opening may be impacted." Item 5.7. Letter dated January 17, 1995, from The Honorable L. F. Payne, House of Representatives, regarding unfunded federal mandates, was received as follows for information: "As you know, I have long supported legislation to curb the use of unfunded federal mandates by the federal government. I am writing to inform you that I have cosponsored legislation that will make it very difficult for Congress to pass new mandates. H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates Relief Act of 1995, would require that bills brought to the floor of the House and Senate establish- · O000 G February 1, 1995 (Regular Day M~n~) (Page 7) lng a new mandate be accompanied by a cost/benefit analysis as well as funding for the mandate. Bills not complying with this rule would be ruled out of order and thus rejected. Waiving the point of order would require House members to cast a separate recorded vote on the mandate itself. The legislation I am cosponsoring will also require federal regulators to notify and consult with local government officials before writing new regulations that would affect them. H.R. 5 establishes a federal commission to review all existing mandates and determine which ones can be terminated or modified. I believe H.R. 5 will help restore balance to the federal/state relationship. Enactment of this important legislation will help rein in the federal government and make it more responsive to the needs of all our citizens, particularly those in small and rural towns, cities and counties." Item 5.8. Letter dated January 20, 1995, from The Honorable Governor George Allen, regarding the proposal to eliminate the Business, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) Tax, was received as follows for information: "Please forgive the form of this communication, but I wanted to respond immediately to the concerns expressed by some local government leaders regarding my proposal to eliminate the Busi- ness, Professional and Occupational License (BPOL) Tax, or gross receipts tax. There has been a great deal of misinformation circulating in recent days regarding this proposal, and some local leaders would not have justified concerns regarding the revenue impact of my plan if they knew the truth. First, let me emphasize that a growing economy and growing reve- nues are the chief ends of both of my tax proposals -- the indi- vidual income tax cut for working families and the gross receipts tax elimination. These proposals will leave $2.1 billion in the hands of the people in the cities, counties and towns throughout Virginia during the next five years. Enclosed (on file) is a locality-by-locality breakdown of the additional resources that will remain in your communities over the next five years if my proposals are approved. In my conversations with businessmen and businesswomen throughout Virginia during the last year, I have heard again and again that the gross receipts tax is especially destructive to our efforts to bring new jobs and resources to the Commonwealth. And while not every locality levies the gross receipts tax, every locality suffers when our Commonwealth loses jobs and revenue because small businesses do not expand and out-of-state prospects select busi- ness sites outside Virginia. In crafting a plan to phase out this regressive, job-killing tax, I was determined not to place the burden on local governments. I have also listened carefully to the genuine concerns voiced by local government leaders in recent weeks. Accordingly, I have asked Delegate John Watkins and Senator Walter Stosch to introduce legislation that will phase out the gross receipts tax over the next five years, with these key features: ® During the five-year phase-out period, locali- ties will be required to reduce gross receipts tax revenues by an amount equal to the replace- ment revenue provided by the Commonwealth. · There is no obligation on the part of localities to reduce BPOL revenue if the state fails to provide replacement revenue. · During the five-year phase-out, localities will continue to enjoy the benefit of BPOL revenue increases resulting from economic growth. · The promise of continuing state support after the five-year phase-out is backed up by this explicit guarantee: If state replacement reve- nues are not provided, authority to levy the gross receipts tax will be restored. These provisions reflect my commitment to holding localities harmless during the five-year period in which this regressive tax is eliminated. These provisions also should allay fears that state support wfll evaporate after the gross receipts tax is eliminated, or that other local taxes will have to be raised. February 1, 1995 (Regular DaY Mee~ih~) (Page 8) I believe this program is balanced, fair and beneficial to Virginia's competitive position in attracting new jobs. Because of the replacement revenue guarantee, the elimination of this egregious tax will be funded primarily through reductions in state, no local, spending. 0000 7 I have also kept my commitment to veto unfunded mandates on localities. My actions have enhanced local flexibility by effec- tively halting the insidious practice of imposing new obligations without corresponding state funding. Finally, I have made clear my desire to move forward comprehen- sively during the next year in forging a new partnership between the Commonwealth and its cities, counties and towns. I want to join local government leaders and members of the General Assembly in a bipartisan search for a more coherent and equitable alloca- tion of resources and responsibilities at the state and local levels." Mrs. Humphris said she read all of the material and reviewed the attachment, and at first she was thoroughly confused. The information is not clear. She hopes the Supervisors recognized how much the localities will suffer if the BPOL Tax is eliminated. Even if the Governor's phasing over the next five years goes into effect, the chart which shows the benefit to the localities is deceptive. The formula shows the income tax reduction to some residents and indicates that the total amount returned to the localities will be $7,868,400. The problem is that with this form of accounting, this is not money the County will be able to use to provide services that its citizens are requesting. It is money which stays in the community, but it relates only in a very small way to the County's ability to continue providing the services that its citizens have indicated they require. She said this is a strange way of answering the question about the effect of the elimination of the BPOL tax, and it is an unusual way of making it seem that the amount of income tax reductions to some of the citizens is going to be that much of a boom to the County's operating budget. Mrs. Thomas remarked that she attended this public hearing in Richmond. Mr. Marshall said he had wanted to attend the hearing, also, but he had another meeting. He was one of the executive directors of the State Retail Merchants Association in 19771, and they lobbied the General Assembly to do away with this tax, because it is grossly unfair. He added that businesses lose money every year and they have to pay taxes on some of it that has been lost. Mrs. Thomas commented that it is the same as the utility tax. She said there are taxes businesses have to pay whether or not they are making a profit. Mr. Marshall stated that taxes are paid on gross receipts, and not on profit. He added that professional people, within the $100,000 a year range, are the ones who are hit the hardest. This tax is just enough to keep them from staying in business. He believes there are other ways to make up for losing this tax. He thinks the Governor is going to give enough money back to the localities to offset the majority of this loss. Mrs. Thomas remarked that the money the localities will receive means the Governor is cutting services. She said 50 percent of every dollar spent by the state comes back to the localities. It is fairly certain the services cut will be cut at the local level. She pointed out that the Governor is not somehow creating some money that he is going to give the localities to replace the BPOL tax. One of the things she had not realized until she went to the hearing was that manufacturing is not affected by this tax. This tax relates only to sales, so many arguments about employment or employers being brought here seem to be misdirected. Mr. Marshall stated that the backbone of this nation is small business- es. Mrs. Thomas commented that she does not think the argument is whether or not to have a BPOL tax. She said the argument is between the BPOL tax and the revised BPOL tax which has been in the stages of development for two years. A major part of that proposal pertains to not taxing. There would be a thresh- old below which companies are not taxed. Mr. Tucker said that this is a model ordinance. Mrs. Thomas concurred. She suspects that this is what is going to be put into effect. Mrs. Humphris said she was trying to point out that the documentation and justification which was sent to Board members do not present a fair case, as to the effect of abolishing the BPOL tax, as it is currently proposed. Mr. Marshall agreed. This is just typical government juggling that is seen all the time. Mrs. Humphris commented that the chart is not a clear statement of the fact. Mr. Perkins said an economist could look at the situation and note that Albemarle County is going to have $7,800,000 kept in this County. If the multiplier effect is put on this amount, which is what economists do, then it could indicate that Albemarle County is going to get $22,000,000. At least this was not done. Mrs. Humphris agreed that the situation could be worse. Item 5.9. Letter dated January 23, 1995, from Mrs. A. G. Tucker, Resi- dent Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, 0000 .9 February 1, 1995 (Regular DaY (Page 10) Item 5.13. Copy of Rivanna Solid Waste Authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1994, was accepted as informa- tion. Item 5.14. Copy of application dated January 5, 1995, filed with the State Corporation Commission by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative for a change in electric rates and to revise its tariffs, was accepted as informa- tion. Item 5.15. Bond Program Report and Monthly Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) for the month of December, 1994, was accepted as information. Item 5.16. Copy of letter dated January 11, 1995, from Ms. Julie L. Vosmik, Director, Division of Survey and Register, Department of Historic Resources, to Mr. F. Palmer Weber, stating that the State Review Board and the Board of Historic Resources will consider Malvern, Albemarle County for nomination to the National Register and inclusion in the Virginia Landmarks Register, was accepted as information. Item 5.17. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 17 and January 24, 1995, was accepted as information. Item 5.18. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for December 19, 1994, was accepted as information. Mrs. Thomas said this item included a letter regarding nationwide water loss. The indication was that the best way to conserve water was to take care of the invisible water losses that take place when pipes are leaking. There is water leaking from the Authority's own pipes, which is a continuing problem. It has been suggested that this problem be taken very seriously, and that it would be worth spending some money in the beginning to detect water losses and to do the kind of maintenance that is necessary. If homeowners were asked to conserve on flushing their toilets, the tYPe of water loss would not be made up that takes place when water goes into the ground where it does not do anybody any good. Mrs. Humphris said she heard that the Service Authority has purchased some sophisticated equipment that seeks out these problems. This system is used extensively by the County and there is an ongoing program. She is not sure how the City handles such problems. Mr. Tucker responded that the City has a similar program. Mrs. Thomas remarked that it is still costly. There is some debate as to how much to use this system of determining problems and when to fix the leaks, etc. Item 5.19. December 1994 Financial Report, was accepted as information. Item 5.20. Memorandum dated January 26, 1995, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., regarding the Buck Mountain Creek Permitting and Design Schedule, was accepted as information. Agenda Item No. 6. Transportation Matters: Other Transportation Mat- ters. Mrs. Angela Tucker, Resident Engineer, said she is compiling a gravel roads list through working with individual Board members. The list will show if right-of-way is available, the magisterial district, the estimated cost and other general data on the gravel road. She feels this would be helpful in expediting gravel road projects in the future. Mr. Tucker said he received a telephone call asking if VDoT would consider installing rumble strips before the intersection at Proffit Road and Route 20 t° slow vehicles and alert people that they are approaching an intersection. Mrs. Tucker said she will review this. Mr. Martin said he talked with Mrs. Tucker last week about some issues. at Hollymead Drive. He asked Mrs. Tucker if she is going to write Mr. A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, or send something directly to him as to what VDoT decided it could or could not do. Mrs. Tucker said she plans to address this directly to Mr. Reaser and will copy Mr. Martin. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the residents of Grassmere Subdivision have reached a consensus as to what they remember VDoT promised and would like to have that promise fulfilled, but there needs to be more discussion. Mrs. Thomas said she met with residents and VDoT representatives to discuss traffic plans for Route 250 at Ivy. VDoT plans to widen Route 250, 0000 0 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) but the residents are fearful this would require a through lane, make it more dangerous to exit Owensville Road and to safely make left-hand turns onto Route 250. The residents are suggesting blinking lights and stop lights be considered. This would be less expensive than the $250,000 to add the lane on Route 250. She encourages VDoT to consider these suggestions. The residents are also concerned about the design features of the commercial area in Ivy. Mr. Marshall asked who chose the new guardrails on Route 20 South where the construction was recently completed. Mrs. Tucker said the guardrails were at the request of Ms. Jean Mickiewicz. The guardrails are corten steal and fabricated to blend with the rural scenery. Mr. Marshall said Ms. Mickiewicz moved here from New York about six months ago. He has received a number of complaints from the other residents. Mr. Marshall said he would like to be kept abreast of these issues in the future. He asked if the residents signed a petition would the guardrails be painted. Mrs. Tucker said replacement of the guardrails would be a significant cost. Mr. Marshall said he will advise the residents to generate a petition against the guardrails and present it to VDoT. Mrs. Tucker said these guardrails are being requested in many different areas. She apologized for not sharing this decision with the Board, but proceeded with the assumption that this is the preference people have been ex- pressing to VDoT. The residents can call her office and someone will explain why these guardrails were chosen. Mr. Bowerman complimented VDoT and Mega Construction for its on-gozng work at Route 29. The recent switch to new signalization at the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 went smoothly with the participation of Albemarle County police. It is amazing that the disruption on Route 29 is as minimal as it is for such a large project. Mr. Tucker said the latest snow removal was also well-done. Mr. Perkins said the schools were also well-pleased. Agenda Item No. 7. Request from Edward Cooper to participate in pri- vate/public partnership to get professional baseball league in Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Mr. Edward Cooper, President of the Centerfield Group, Inc., said he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Supervisors about bringing minor league professional baseball to Albemarle County and the greater Charlottes- ville area. He is asking the Supervisors to consider the creation of a stadium authority to get things started in terms of bringing minor league baseball to Charlottesville. He is also planning on addressing the City Council this coming Monday about the same thing. Perhaps there could be a joint City/County stadium authority to oversee the stadium facility in which the baseball team could play. The Centerfield Group, Inc., is a company which has been formed as an entertainment company to bring baseball to Charlottes- ville. This group is looking for some assistance in creating a public/private partnership to create this stadium, and he explained that there are two good reasons for doing that. One reason is quality of life, and the other is economic development. This group sees minor league baseball as good, clean family entertainment. The group has done some initial surveys in Albemarle, and the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia is in the process of conducting a larger survey. Some of the initial surveys have identified the need for additional entertainment options for citizens of Albemarle and Charlottes- ville, as well as the contiguous counties around Albemarle. In terms of quality of life, there is a niche that has been identified as the possibility of bringing additional entertainment to the community. Jobs also participate in the quality of life as well as economic development. The Charlottesville Professional Baseball Club would bring somewhere between eight and twelve full-time front office jobs to the area, and that is just part of the jobs which would be created during baseball season, solely from the Baseball Club. It is estimated that between 40 and 100 people would be employed part-time for concessions, souvenirs, ticket sales, etc. There is a sizeable amount of money that would be involved in the salaries for these people, and there would probably be close to 21 to 25 full-time positions that would be brought to the area. As far as quality of life is concerned, there are intangible benefits of community involvement. The community will have the ability to call a professional team its own, and there will be bragging rights, depending upon which league is involved, as well as the possibility of taking on some of the cities that are nearby which currently have minor league baseball. He thinks these cities are ready and would welcome a local rivalry, and he mentioned teams in the Lynchburg and Prince William County areas as southern and northern examples. There are also other intangible benefits that one can glean from this type of project, and they can be discussed later in the presentation. Mr. Cooper again mentioned the eight to twelve full-time employees of the club which would include a General Manager, Director of Ticket Sales, Director of Merchandising and Marketing, and someone to assist in the opera- tion of the stadium. There are a number of positions that have been planned in his proposed budget, and in addition, he mentioned the number of jobs that February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeti~g) 0~00021 (Page 12) would be brought into the community. There is also a ripple effect involved. The National Association of Baseball Leagues, which is the umbrella group, oversees all of the 18 minor leagues throughout the country, Mexico and Canada. This Association estimates that a Class A Baseball Club, which is the type proposed to come to Charlottesville, would bring into the economy, between $3,500,000 and $5,000,000, depending upon the multiplier effect that is desired. He is willing to start with this range and work from there. Once a club has been secured and there is a place to play, the proposed budget calls for operating expenses in excess of $1,000,000. A that time, the Charlottesville Professional Baseball Club would be putting into the local economy that amount of money. Mr. Cooper then talked about the materials that he has presented to the Board. He noted that there is a six page information document entitled, "Information on Minor League Baseball," and it has been broken down into four different categories. The first category relates to the location and acquisi- tion of property for the stadium complex, and it is estimated that between 65 to 95 acres would be enough property to accommodate a stadium facility. If a stadium authority is developed, it is hoped that a multi-purpose stadium would be built that would seat 5,250 fans, and it would be desirable to build it to baseball specifications. Attachment D deals with facility standards and compliance inspection procedures for professional baseball. He would look forward to the opportunity to work with the stadium authority to create a stadium that matches these specifications. It is the intention of the Centerfield GroUp, as well as the investors in the Baseball Club, to enter into a lease with the stadium authority which would provide a multi-purpose stadium. This stadium would not only be used 70 days out of the year by the professional team, but it would also be available for use by members of the community, if it is financed as a public/private partnership. He could see the many little leagues, as well as older players, having their play-offs and championship games in the stadium. He can also see the County and City high schools having their play-off games there, and he can see the stadium being used as a regional place for baseball play-offs and state tournaments. He added that non-baseball uses can also be considered, such as a symphony concert under the stars. He has had some discussions with a few of the civic groups in the community aboUt the possibility of locating a piece of land that is large enough to create a facility which would be accommodating of their endeavors, as well. Next, Mr. Cooper talked about obtaining a minor league team. He does not currently have a minor league club. He and his partners have been in contact with the South Atlantic League, which operates from Hagerstown, Maryland to Savannah, Georgia, about an expansion franchise. He went to Dallas, Texas to the baseball winter meetings last December and made an informal presentation on behalf of, not only his ownership group, but also the idea of locating a franchise in Charlottesville. He feels confident that, while he did not come away with verification that he had a team, it was as close to that as it could get. He also feels confident that if the major leagues expand, as well as the minor leagues, and the South Atlantic League is capable of expanding, that Charlottesville would be seriously considered as owners of an expansion franchise. However, no one is sure this is going to happen, but there is a good chance that it will. If this does not happen, there is an ongoing search for an existing professional Class A baseball club which would be interested in relocating to the greater Charlottesville area. One club has been identified and negotiations have been started with that team. Mr. Cooper remarked that the fourth and last section of the handout that he sent to the Supervisors deals with the operation of the club, and he has listed some of the titles of the full-time staff positions which would be hired. These are just a few of them, but there would certainly be a full-time staff to work with the stadium authority relating to the upkeep and mainte- nance of the stadium, as far as the regulations of the lease relating to maintaining the stadium. He also provided a listing of the types of expendi- tures which can be anticipated in the community. The current budget plans for over $900,000 from the Baseball Club to go into the community, but the National ASsociation reports that a typical Class A baseball team generates more than $4,200,000 annually into its local economy. He has detailed in the information furnished this Board some of the ways this happens, such as expenditures by the parent club, expenditures by the fans, visiting staff, umpires, fans and the club within the community. He then called attention to the proposed time line of the chain of events. It starts with the commissioning of a survey by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Virginia. He has been given reasonable assur- ances by the Center's staff that a report should be ready by the middle or third week of this month. He is not going to go through every point of the time line, but he noted that on the third page is the opening date of April, 1997 in a temporary facility for the South Atlantic League's Charlottesville franchise. It is expected that major league baseball would like to be operational by this date, and that is what his group is hoping for, as well. Although to sign a player development contract with one of the major league clubs and to get a new facility created by April, 1997, might be unrealistic. Understanding this, his group would like to work with the Supervisors to at least find a temporary facility to house the club and to play games prior to the construction and creation of a stadium facility. He then urged the supervisors to consider a stadium authority to oversee the creation of a multi-purpose stadium. This community is in need of some additional enter- February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000022 (Page 13) tainment opportunities in the summer. This has come to him from a number of sources. He mentioned that he has stopped people On the street and asked about entertainment in the area. He has asked if these people think Albemarle would benefit from having professional baseball, and the people respond that professional baseball would be great. He emPhasized that prOfessional baseball would be good for the economy, and he thinks it would be good for the County and City. He would be happy to answer questions. Mr. Marshall stated that many years ago in the 1940s, his uncle was the manager of a baseball team. Mr. Marshall recalled that he saw Willie Mays play on a local field. He is very much in support of having a baseball team. He loves the game, but when it comes to using taxpayers' money for this team, he has a problem in being able to justify this expenditure. He also noted that Mr. Cooper does not have a feasibility study available. He inquired if there are any approximate figures of what the stadium would cost assuming that the land could be acquired for a reasonable expense, the neighbors would agree to the location and an agreement coUld be worked out with the County Fair so that the facility could operate as a multi-purpose facility. He next recalled the difficulties surrounding the request for the open air theater to be located off of Route 250. He understands the stadium will be leased back and expenses can be recovered. However, when he looks at the high and low figures of attendance at $4.50 a person, he sees a high of $1,200,000 in receipts and a low of $250,000 in receipts. He does not know how much money the County can afford to pay on a lease with those kinds of figures, if the County taxpayers are to recover the expenditures they would be putting out for the stadium. He asked if Mr. Cooper has any ideas or suggestions relating to his questions. Mr. Cooper replied that he could not comment at this time relative to the cost to create a stadium such as he has mentioned. He knows of stadiums which have been built for $2,500,000. Mr. Marshall asked if this price includes the land. Mr. Cooper explained that this cost is only for construc- tion, and the land would be a separate expense. Mr. Marshall suggested that, as an example, a facility including the land could be created for $3,000,000. He asked what the anticipated lease cost would be for the County. Mr. Cooper answered that it would depend on attendance and the size of the park, etc. His group is interested in paying its fair share, which is a component of the private partnership. Mr. Marshall also wondered about the maintenance cost involved. Mr. Cooper said he could not answer this question at this point. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks these are all legitimate questions which have to be answered. It seems to him that there are three things which need to be done initially. He is enthusiastic about this project and the possibilities of it. He noted that Jim Cahill was in the audience, and that Mr. Cahill represented another interest from Danville. Mr. Bowerman commented that the first thing that needs to be examined is whether or not the market will support the team. Mr. Cooper has undertaken a study to determine that, and if it does not support a team, Mr. Cooper will be gone. Secondly, the League is not going to grant a franchise to a place where there is no stadium, and a stadium will not be provided if there is no league for it. It seems to him that it is reasonable to study the possibility of forming the authority. He knows the Public Recreation Authority exists in the County, which could be a vehicle. He also knows the public/private partnership also includes investors and bonds that the IDA, or the authority, could issue which would then offset part of the public cost with private investment funds, besides the Centerfield Group or whichever other group invested. If the Supervisors are serious about considering this project, and they think it would be good for the community, then the very questions that Mr. Marshall has raised need to be investigated. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he personally thinks the ball club would be excellent in Charlottesville and Albemarle. He is including the City in his thoughts about this project, since it is a Community vision. In order to do get the necessary answers to the questions, some of the groundwork needs to be done. This Board cannot make such a decision without this information, but he thinks the work needs to start, if the Supervisors want to entertain this concept. He thinks it is very worthwhile to entertain this concept. He believes the benefits to the community are great, and he mentioned the infrastructure which exists with the University insofar as rooms, lodging and meals are concerned. This infrastructure is not being totally used in the summer when this facility would be in use. People would be coming in from outside the community to either spend the night, and eat in the area or at the ball park. He stated that this project fits well in this area. Mr. Martin remarked that he does not disagree with anything Mr. Bowerman has said, and he thinks the ball team probably would be a good idea. He never played baseball, but he grew up reading about it, and he is very familiar with Single A, Double A and Triple A minor leagues. He then asked where the ball park would be located,, when the County Fair officials cannot even find a permanent site, although probably 90 percent of the people in this community love the idea of having a County Fair. He emphasized that nobody wants a permanent County Fair site near them. He would not turn down the request at this point, but he thinks, realistically, that a site will not be found. Probably only 40, 50 or 60 percent of the people in the community might be in favor of having a baseball league, but when it comes to where it is going to be located, they will not want it near them. Mr. Marshall inquired if any money has to be spent, if the Supervisors agree to support this authority. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that she has not had a chance to talk to Mr. Cooper because she has been away for awhile. She has a theory that if there 0000 ,3 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) is money to be made,, the private sector will invest its money and make the project pay. If the private sector thinks there is a question about the investment of their own private money, however, they will ask that the taxpayers share their money and participate in the possibility of a loss. She thinks this theory has been proven, because whenever taxpayers' money is considered, there is probably something that makes that person insecure about investing his or her own money. She went on to say that Mr. Cooper would not be at this meeting if he knew that he could make a lot of money on his own. He would not want to have the County involved. She is concerned about that, and she has a question about the survey that the University Center is conduct- ing. If the survey does not have in it some questions about whether the taxpayers want their tax dollars spent to build a stadium and support it, then it has no reliability. Mr. Cooper assured Mrs. Humphris that the survey includes such questions. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the taxpayers would also need to know how much money would be involved. If Mr. Cooper's survey is already underway, and he has no more idea about finances than he has revealed to the Supervisors today, and there is no more idea reflected in the survey, then the survey does not mean much. She added that what Mr. Marshall is talking about when he asked if there is a critical mass to support such an endeavor is purely common sense. Many of these types of projects have failed. Although she has never played baseball, she has a lot of it in her family. There are two points related to this project, and they are tax dollars and site. She agreed with Mr. Martin when he wondered if a place could be found where people would accept the lights, noise and traffic associated with a baseball club. She said this is a major problem, and the County already has trouble with too many lights. People do not want lights in the Towe Park, and they have been promised that they won't have them. There are a lot of unknowns such as maintenance costs, operating costs and location. She mentioned also that there is no admissions tax currently, which would be needed for County income. There is a minimal lodging tax of two percent, and other localities have lodging taxes of much more than that, including the City. The County does not have a meals tax, so it would be impossible to take advantage of any income there, plus there would be a cost in. services to.the County. She then reminded the other members of the Board about the length of time that she has been trying to get a jail authority established so that the jail could be financed. This has not been done, yet, and she suggested that creating authorities should stand in order of priorities. She wants the Centerfield Group to know in the beginning that this how she feels. If this project could be done, then the Centerfield Group would be doing it on its own, without asking for the County's financial help. Mr. Cooper said that he appreciates Mrs. Humphris' comments, and he sees the obstacles that she and other members of the Board have cited. Mr. Cooper agreed that he is an eternal optimist. He thinks baseball is a Worthwhile project to bring to a community. He feels confident this is a good endeavor, not only for himself and his partners, but also for the County and City in terms of the partnership and the possibilities that might be created within a stadium authority. All of the questions and possible obstacles that have been brought up by the Board members could be addressed within the context of this stadium authority. This is where these types of things can be wOrked on and examined. Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Cooper is suggesting that an authority should be established first, before getting the answers. Mr. Cooper answered that he believes many of the things to which Board members have referred can be resolved. He will provide them with as many answers as he can at this point. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that she and Mr. Cooper have never met. She then asked if Mr. Cooper would tell the Board something about his business background. Mr. Cooper responded that he directs the grassroots program for the National Trade Association in Washington. For the last three or four years, he has been a private consultant as a small businessman who does grassroots lobbying and training for labor unions, trade associations and small associations throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. For the last few years he has been running his own small business, but his full-time day job is as a member of the Government Relations staff for the Trade ASsociation. He serves as spokesman for the group, but there are other members who have participated in real estate and the entertainment business, as well as the legal world. There are investors in the group who have expertise in their own areas, and he thinks they can bring some good things to the business side of baseball. He is confident that his investors group has the knowledge to make this project a successful endeavor. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cooper to comment on Mrs. Humphris' concern about the need for public participation on this type of project. With the current economic situation, he would like for Mr. Cooper to explain why the public is a necessary ingredient. Mr. Cooper answered that quite frankly if his group of investors could build the stadium themselves, they certainly would, if they could locate the land. He thinks there is land available in the County, and he got this feeling after talking to many members of the business community. The land just has to be identified and obtained. He and his partners are, first and foremost, in the baseball business. He believes that by tomorrow evening, at the latest, they should have the requisite capital and bank loans needed for an expansion franchise, and that shortly thereafter they will be able to arrange to operate the club successfully. He is referring to what is needed and required by the League. The creation of the stadium is a big proposition, and it is one that does not just include baseball. He reiterated 0000 4 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) that it is hoped this could be a multi-use stadium that has baseball as a component within it. He stated that there are some very real and tangible assets which can be brought to the community by the creation of a stadium, in addition to having his group rent the stadium. Mrs. Humphris stated that Mr. Cooper will have to admit that without securing legal agreements, etc., PartiCipation by any other entity before the stadium issue is resolved is unlikely. She said there would be no idea if the County Fair officials would want to be where the stadium was located, or whether they could afford to be there. This is really theoretical, and there is no concrete information here at all. Mr. Cooper agreed, but once word spreads that the Supervisors have approved a Stadium authority, he believes the members of that authority working with himself and his partners', as well as other interested members of the community, will come forward and craft something that will be a workable plan. It is not his own personal style, nor that of his investors, to come to the Supervisors and Councilors and say they are bringing a baseball club here, and they want the local governments to build the stadium, and they want it on certain terms, and if they do not agree, it won't be brought here. He believes the survey will indicate that baseball will do very well here, and it is a good business to bring to this community. He would not have picked Charlottesville if he did not think the project would work here. Mrs. Humphris asked if there is a question on the survey relating to whether or not people want the ball park near their home. Mr. Cooper respond- ed that there is not such a specific question in the University's survey. However, this is not the only survey that will be done for this project. He can reasonably assure the Supervisors that there will be other surveys in the future that will answer some of the questions that are being raised at this meeting. The initial survey is being done to make sure the investors group's feelings are correct that Charlottesville and Albemarle County is a good place to have professional baseball. Mrs. Humphris commented that she agrees with the other people who have spoken, and she does not think Mr. Cooper will find anybody who is going to be absolutely negative about this project. People are going to say they think it is a great idea, but those people know nothing about the problems, etc. They are just responding emotionally. The Supervisors have to recognize that this is an emotional response, and the public does not know what is involved in the whole proposition. She sees no foundation for setting up an authority and then doing the findings. The findings have to be done first. She mentioned that all of the findings are known about the needs of the jail, yet, this Board has been unable to set up an authority. She thinks it would really compromise this Board to set up an authority and then entertain a request for a rezoning. The Supervisors would be a part and a party to wanting the project to succeed, and then they could be asked to rezone a piece of property on which to put the project. This would put the Supervisors in an awkward position, because they would have to say yes or no to themselves. This is the problem of the government getting into business. The Supervisors have no business being in business, and they have no business doing business with taxpayers' money. Mr. Perkins commented that there is some enthusiasm for this project, but there is also a lot of unanswered questions which will have to be an- swered. He asked Mr. Tucker and his staff to work with Mr. Cooper on some of these questions and also to work with the City staff to see which direction should be followed. Mr. Martin mentioned that it seems to him the University would be the logical partner because it needs a stadium for its baSeball field. The University supposedly has one of the worse facilities fOr baseball in the ACC, so it seems as though that would be a better partnership. He is willing to support the idea of baseball in this community, but he cannot imagine the County taking part in building a stadium so that a baseball team would come here in the hopes that the taxpayers' money would be spent later. This is so foreign to anything that County officials would ever contemplate doing. He would hope that the University officials might be interested, because he knows they have discussed stadiums in the past. He noted that University officials got an unfavorable response from the public, even when they wanted to expand University Hall. Mr. Cooper said he and his partners have had several discussions with people from the University about redesigning and reworking their current stadium facility. He agreed with Mr. Martin's comments about the stadium probably being the worst facility for baseball in the ACC, as indicated by members of the Athletic Department at the University. There have been some discussions about the possibly of utilizing the University stadium, not only on a temporary basis but on a permanent basis. The Athletic Department members have let him know they are currently in the process of a capital campaign to renovate many of their existing structures. Currently the University does not have the requisite amount of money that would be needed to add an additional facility to their capital campaign. Mr. Martin remarked that he does not know much about this issue, but he is just voicing his reaction. He sees this as a situation where Mr. CoOper is representing a baseball entity which would like to have a baseball league here. Mr. Cooper would like to have a stadium built so that the baseball games could be played. If Mr. Cooper really wants to get baseball in this area, he is going to have to also get someone into his group who has some 0000 5 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) money to help an entity such as the University to jointly build a stadium. There needs to be another component of the partnership to have some capital available. Mr. Cooper stated that part of his presentation today is to begin to move forward on the creation of a public/private partnership to develop some capital. His group members are prepared, and they have worked with many business leaders in the community to identify and to get the support that Mr. Martin is suggesting. He does not believe that he and his partners will be able to get enough funds together to create the stadium complex and to purchase the land and put in the infrastructure for that complex. He thinks his group can come up with a sizeable amount of the money needed for this project. Mr. Martin commented that Mr. Cooper and his associates could suggest to the University officials that they can help with the University's campaign for a stadium. Mr. Cooper responded that there are some drawbacks in having a professional baseball arrangement with the University, and he would be happy to go into them with the Supervisors. One of the problems is that some of the revenues from the concessions comes from alcoholic sales. Mr. Martin pointed out that Mr. Cooper would probably not get alcoholic sales approved through this Board, anyway. Mr. Cooper went on to say that revenues also come from certain signages, but there is nothing that says in the final mix, once the stadium authority is created and is working with other entities, that certain percentages could go in the form of payment back to the County or the City. There are different ways this situation can be handled. There might be an equitable way so that baseball can exist, the County and City can have a stadium, the County Fair can have a fairgrounds and, over a reasonable amount of time, the money that is laid out to create this stadium is recouped. Mr. Bowerman commented that it seems to him this process has to start somewhere, and that is what Mr. Cooper haS done, Mr. Co0Pe~ has made this matter public, and he is engaging the Supervisors. This will be either a problem or an opportunity, and if it cannot be worked out, so be it. To not consider it as an opportunity and to try to find ways to accommodate it or to at least go through the process, would be ill advised. He thinks it is in the community's best interest to consider the matter. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Bowerman what he would suggest. Mr. Martin noted that he is not trying to stop the project, and he would like to encourage it, as long as everybody knows in the beginning that the probability is good that it won't work. Mr. Bowerman responded that he thinks different mechanisms have to be presented to this Board by Mr. Davis and Mr. Tucker. It has been mentioned to him that there is already an authority in place which can handle this project, but he thinks that the City's involvement is very important. It might be that a different authority would need to be created, and this Board would need to know the positive and negative sides of this issue. The cost to the public would need to be known, as well as the cost to private investors thrOugh bonds. For example, it might be possible to get a landowner to dedicate 65 acres in exchange for the landowner's name to be put on the stadium. There are all types of things that can be considered which does not take public dollars. He stated that 80 percent of the communities which have these projects have at least some private/public partnership in the facility. Mr. Martin asked what is the next step. Mr. Bowerman replied that the staff should be asked to bring back some information about different alterna- tives and talk to Mr. Cooper, as well as anybody else, who is interested. The activity is not limited just to the Centerfield Group. It would be anyone who could present the possibility of bringing a ball club here. He stated that Mrs. Humphris' and Mr. Marshall's questions need to be answered, as well as the issue of site. Mr. Cooper has to do a marketing survey, and he would be well advised to ask the questions that Mrs. Humphris has indicated. Mr. Martin mentioned that what Mr. Bowerman is suggesting seems to be a fairly time consuming process for staff. He asked if this is something the Supervisors want to do, if they talk among themselves and feel as though the alternatives are probably not things they will be able to accept. He wondered if the staff should be burdened with this job. He inquired if Mr. Bowerman feels this project is that important, and if he feels it is possible that options will be brought back by staff that this Board could approve, which would make it worthwhile for the staff to donate this much time. Mr. Bowerman replied that he personally feels this project is that important. However, if three or more members of this Board feel that it is not worth pursuing, then it should be decided now. Mrs. Humphris stated that she does not think it is not worth pursuing, but she wondered if it is worth the County staff's time to do this type of research. She suggested that it might be incumbent on the applicant to do a lot more work, before the County staff is burdened with this project. She emphasized that the County staff needs information from the applicant. Mr. Bowerman agreed that the majority of the information would come from the applicant, because it is this group which has the knowledge of baseball and how it works as an entity, wherever it is. Information is needed from the County staff, however, regarding the legalities and the functional operation O000 G February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) of a potential authority, and the benefits and negatives of that. He does not think this is necessarily a large time consuming project. Mr. Davis commented that he would need an opportunity to talk to people in other localities who have had such projects, because it is a complicated process. If staff is asked to examine this project, the first thing he would want to do is to meet with representatives of a couple of localities with this experience to get a sense from them as to the problems, as well as the opportunities of this project. This, in itself, would take a certain amount of time. There are several different approaches, as far as legalities are concerned. The Public Recreational Facility Authority exists, but it is for an entirely different purpose, and he is not sure if the people on tha% particular Board deal with baseball. A park authority could be considered which would be similar to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority. There are good and bad examples of how these things have worked in Prince William, Richmond and Norfolk. He thinks it would take a great deal of time and effort to put together a package that the Supervisors could rely upon and which would take into account the experiences of the other localities. He does not think the legalities are that complicated, but he thinks the economic consequences and opportunities are more complicated to analyze. It would take a great deal of time from someone with a financial background to get an answer to the question as to whether or not a stadium could be financed through public bonds without incurring debt to the locality. Mr. Marshall stated that he can support Mr. Bowerman's request, if this project does not get prioritized at the top of the staff's list of things to do. He said the staff could consider this project, as time permitted, but it would have to be put aside if something else of more importance occurred. He thinks this project is something that should be considered, as long as taxpayers' money is not being spent, other than the time the staff takes to examine this matter. Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks it is reasonable to require that a lot of the information be gathered by the investment group. Mrs. Humphris recalled that Mr. Davis' first statement was that putting together this information would be very complex. Mr. Davis agreed that the lease negotiation, in itself, would be a complicated process. If the Supervi- sors want a complete legal and financial analysis on whether or not this is something they want to do before making a decision on creating an authority, it would take a significant amount of staff time to get them to that point. Mrs. Humphris said that brings her back to her comment to Mr. Cooper that she cannot see this Board establishing an authority without knowing the implica- tions, based on the necessary research. Mr. Martin said he assumes the lease agreement would be between the baseball club and the authority. Mr. Cooper replied affirmatively. Mr. Martin asked if the taxpayers have the responsibility for those bonds. Mr. Davis responded that if the project was handled as it was done in Prince William County, then those bonds are issued by the authority, and the authori- ty is ultimately responsible for the debt service. He went on to say that this debt service is funded through a lease agreement with the baseball club or as a limited partnership. Mr. Marshall asked if the authority would be part of the limited partnership. Mr. Davis answered, "no." Mr. Martin referred to the Jail Board and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He asked if the County government is responsible for these entities' debts if they defaulted. Mr. Davis replied that there is at least a moral responsibility. In order to have the bonds to be marketable, the people look behind the authority as to the entities which create the authority, and there is an expectation that there will not be a default on these types of bonds. Mrs. Thomas said when Rivanna floats bonds, the report that is developed definitely deals with the strength of Albemarle County's ability to back the bonds. She agreed that there is an assumption. Mr. Davis commented that Rivanna has a regular stream of customers and investors take this into consideration when they invest in those bonds. A baseball authority would be a little more speculative because of the nature of the revenues. Mr. Bowerman asked if the staff could be requested today to talk to the Centerfield Group and get back to the Supervisors with a feasibility study. This information needs to include whether this discussion should be continued or terminated, based upon what they have learned in meeting with the Center- field Group, as far as what is involved and what has to be done. The staff could give this Board some options as to whether this project should be pursued. If it is pursued, the Supervisors will need to know what is likely to happen in terms of cost and time, etc. It would be good to know what are the responsibilities of the investment group, the authority and this Board. This Board has never done anything such as this. Mr. Martin concurred that his concern lies in the fact that this Board has never considered anything such as this, althOUgh he does not have any problems with the staff spending some time examining this matter. He went on to say that if the Supervisors are going to consider using taxpayers' money for infrastructure, then water and sewer lines should be considered into growth areas. This is the discussion that the Supervisors need to be thinking about, and not baseball, although he has nothing against baseball. He is February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000027 (Page 18) using the word infrastructure and maybe that is the wrong word, but he is referring to spending capital money. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that over $3,000,000 was spent at Walnut Creek Park, and this Board has approved a lot of recreational items which are not infrastructure in terms of providing water and sewer. Mr. Marshall commented that he is not willing to spend taxpayers' money on speculative ventures, but he is willing to consider this project, as to the possibilities. Mr. Bowerman next wondered what is the minimum of public involvement that is required. Mr. coOper resPonded that there are a number of different ways that the public can be involved. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Board members are either willing to consider this matter, or they are not, and that is the issue before them today. Mr. Davis commented that he believes Mr. Marshall is saying there is a consensus of the Board that there is not a willingness to spend taxpayers' dollars on this type of venture. Mr. DaVis added that the first piece of information he would want to consider is what the experience has been with other similar size baseball teams in Virginia or in the region. If they are ventures which have been done with the same legal framework under which this County operates and have not required taxpayers' dollars, then he would like to know what those are. This would be the first step in the analysis. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that Mr. Davis would have to know a lot of information surrounding each circumstance. Mr. Davis agreed. The first step would be to find out if there are any jurisdictions which have not required subsidies from the localities. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cooper if he knows of any jurisdictions in this category. Mr. Cooper replied that he does not know of any, although there could be some, but they do not come immediately to mind. Mr. Davis said that he is not aware of any, but he has not done a survey. Mr. Cooper explained that almost every situation such as this, of which he knows, involves at least guarantees by the public entity to create the stadium. He mentioned a stadium in Frederick, Maryland that receives some loan guarantees from the county and from the state. One of the ways to get past the gap of what the public was willing to put up and what the team was capable of putting up was to go out into the business community of the greater Frederick area and to find the money that way. Just as the use of the stadium is limited by imagination, the financing is also limited in the same way. At this time, Mr. Martin offered a motion to allow Mr. Tucker and Mr. Davis to proceed with further discussion of the professional baseball issue for additional advice so the Board can move to the next step. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. The citizens now have an opportunity to talk to County officials and the media, as far as how they feel about the baseball issue. If the public does not want to get involved with this project, then this Board will clearly not proceed with it. Mrs. Thomas commented that she would support a motion which indicates that essentially this Board wants a feasibility study. She does not believe that any of the County staff has excess time to be spent on this issue. Mr. Tucker commented that he does not envision the staff doing a lot of work other than some preliminary investigation With eX~sting facilities which are known to exist in Virginia. The staff will be looking to the Centerfield Group and others. He referred to Mr. Bowerman's remark that there was another investor in the audience. Mr. Tucker went on to say that there is a third investor who has been talking to pe°ple in this lOCality, and Mr. Tucker does not think County officials can, at this point, limit themselves to one entity or another. He thinks the best thing that can be done now is for the inves- tors to bring additional information to the staff, which can be shared with the Board members, to help them make their decision. He will also consider several comments that Board members had such as the land use issue. This will be a significant issue, and although he knows that Mr. Cooper is an optimistic person, Mr. Cooper has never dealt with land use issues in Albemarle County. Mrs. Thomas stated that if the Supervisors are going to look at this issue, they have got to think of ways to fill the stadium a good portion of the other 290 days of the year. If there is not equal enthusiasm for this by the County Fair Board, the Municipal Band and the University of Virginia, then that would be an important piece of information. The people who want to bring basebalI t° this location need to find out for sure if there is enthusiasm by other groups. She does not think the County staff Should have to d° this research, but she thinks this information should somehow be brought to this Board. Mrs. Humphris concurred with Mr. Bowerman that now the matter can be put before the public for action and interaction. She suggested that when the letters and phone calls begin to be received, the people who are in favor of the baseball project should be asked if they are willing to have this project in their back yard, and if they are willing to pay tax dollars for it, Their position will not be valid unless they can answer yes to both of those questions. February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 000028 (Page 19) Mr. Marshall remarked that there are two issues involved. He said a place will have to be found to put the ball Park where the neighborhood will support it. The other issue relates to whether or not taxpayers' money should be spent for the project. He emphasized that if a way can be found that does not require the spending of taxpayers' money, then he will support the project. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. At 10:56 a.m., the Board recessed, and at 11:11 a.m., the Board recon- vened. Agenda Item No. 8. Consideration of resolution of intent to amend the Scenic Stream Crossing Ordinance. This item was deleted from the agenda. Not Docketed. Mr. Tucker said before the Board moves forward to the next agenda item, he would like discuss the Textbook Fund Appropriation (Item 5.2a) . He noted that Mr. Robert Walters, from the Finance Department, is present and he can briefly describe the appropriation for the textbook fund and how the revenue and expenditures are affected. Mr. Walters explained that in prior years the Textbook Fund was self- sustaining, and the expenditures and revenues went in and out of it. Now the Textbook Fund has a balance of $24,302.25 which has not been appropriated. This request appropriates the $24,302.25 from the self-sustaining fund and transfers it into the General School Fund. It also appropriates the expendi- ture in the General School Fund for $27,302.25. There is an additional $3,000 that is being appropriated as a revenue source, which is for delinquent textbook fees, that is being collected through debt setoffs and other means. The last time he checked it a couple of weeks ago, approximately $2,500 had been collected, and it is estimated that $3,000 will be collected. There really is not a duplication. It is a transfer from the textbook self-sustain- ing fund into the General School Operating Fund, and the funds will be expended from the General School Operating Fund for textbooks. Mrs. Humphris commented that she still does not understand this appro- priation request. She asked why there are two items in the expenditure category and two of them in the amount of $23,302.25 in the revenue category. She wondered why there is not just one shown. The information indicates that the fund balance was $24,302.25, and she can understand the reappropriation of the fund balance. She does not understand, however, why it has to be stated twice in each category. Mr. Walters replied that expenditures and revenues have to be appropri- ated from each fund. Two separate funds are involved, and they are the Textbook Fund and the School Fund. In the Textbook Fund there is a fund balance of $24,302.25 which has not been appropriated. He then suggested that Board members examine the cost center category numbers and the numbers of the different funds. This is a transfer request of funds from the Textbook Fund into the School Fund, and it has to be done this way for bookkeeping purposes. In the past this transfer was not seen going from the self-sustaining funds into the school operating funds, because they were handled as separate individual funds. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that when she was a School Board member there was no good way to get people to pay their texbbook fund amount, if they were not paying. She called attention to the category entitled Debt Setoff Collec- tions. She asked if this is helping with that problem. Mr. Walters responded that the Debt Setoff category is used for textbook funds as well as for collection of taxes. This allows for a list of delinquent tax accounts or delinquent textbook fund rental fees to be sent to the Department of Taxation. The Department of Taxation staff examines the situation of individual taxpay- ers, and if they are getting a refund, there is the ability to divert part of the refund for payment of the delinquent fees. Mr. Bowerman then made motion to adopt the following resolution of appropriation as set out in Form #940047. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940047 FUND: SCHOOL February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FIYNDING FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS EXPENDITI/RE COST CENTER/CATEGOR~ DESCRIPTION 1300163100800100 AHS FOOD SERVICE MACH & EQUIP 1340093010930001 TEXTBOOKS TRANSFER TO SCH FUN 1211461101602000 TEXTBOOKS 1310460211600000 NATURE GRANT MiSC SUPPLIES 1310463324601300 LEARNING GRANT MATERIALS/SUPPLIES 1310463366580500 LANGUAGE/SPEECH STAFF DEVELOPMENT TOTAL AMOUNT. $ 11,319.49 24,302.25 27,302.25 150.00 810.00 1,908.00 $ 65,791.99 REVENUE 2300151000510~00 2340051000510100 2200016000161203 2200051000512012 2310424000240273 2310433000330112 2310424000240276 DESCRIPTION AHS FOOD SERVICE FUND'BALANCE $ TEXTBOOK FI/ND BALANCE TEXTBOOKS TRANSFER/TEXTBOOKS NATURE GRANT LEARNING GRANT LANGUAGE/SPEECH TOTAL $ AMOUNT 11,319.49 24,302.25 3,000.00 24,302.25 150.00 810.00 1,908.00 65,791.99 Agenda Item No. 9. Update on Revenue Projections. Mr. Tucker said preliminary revenue projections for the next fiscal year are provided by the Department of Finance in October with updated estimates available in January after tax bills are finalized and a full six months of data has been collected. January revenue projections, particularly this year, reflect potential funding changes at the state level as reflected in the state's proposed budget. The three attachments show the state budget cuts, the impact on County general fund revenues and community agencies, as well as adjustments to the proposed budget allocation in order to adjust to a reduced level of available revenues for ~he next fiscal year. Mr. TuCker said the first sheet shows the proposed state budget reduc- tions and their potential impact on the County's general fund revenues, as well as state funding reductions to several community agencies. The debate over the BPOL taxes is not over, making it difficult to calculate the impact, if any, on the County's FY 1995-96 revenues. Being conservative, BPOL revenues have been adjusted downward from the October projection to reflect FY 1994-95 or current year levels, a reduction of $174,500. Based on current state budget estimates, 599 funds have been reduced by $87,450. However, strong sentiment exists that some, if not all of the 599 funds may be restored by the General Assembly. The most significant impact is a reduction of $327,800 in state funds for the administration of our Department of Finance, which reflects 82 percent of total revenues PreviOuslY received from the state to support this office. The impact of these reductions is a potential loss of $607,050 from general fund revenues. The second sheet shows the impact of the state budget reductions, which are fortunately offset by some additional state social service revenue, as well as several increases in local revenues. A reduction of $179,000 in overall property taxes reflects a projected increase of $310,000 in real estate taxes over the October projection coupled with a revised downward projection of $500,000 in personal property taxes. Offsetting the reduction of the BPOL in local taxes is a projected increase in sales tax revenues and utility taxes. The increase in other local revenues of $193,500 reflects an increase in building permit related fees, increased interest on investments, and other minor increases in fees, rents and recovered costs. Mr. Tucker said offsetting the net reduction of $255,862 in revenues shown on the second attachment, is a proposed change in the proposed alloca- tion of revenues approved by the Board in November. This change would eliminate $250,000 previously set aside in a capital project/debt service reserve fund, which had been established as a reserve for unanticipated capital needs or increased debt service related to school projects, particu- larly the new high school facility. The ability to establish such a reserve fund was predicated on the October projection of revenues, which made such a reserve fund possible for the first time. The impact of not being able to establish this reserve account in the next fiscal year will mean a potential increase of approximately $40,000 in the annual debt service payment from an average annual increase over the five year period of approximately $225,000 to $270,000. Mr. Tucker said the state budget reductions and revenue projections are presented for the Board's information. To offset the net revenue loss of $255,862 staff recommends foregoing the capital project/debt service reserve at this time. Should the revenue picture improve at the state level, this reserve account could be reestablished. Mrs. Thomas inquired if the revised downward projection of $500,000 in personal property taxes is related to the letter that all Board members received indicating that someone had not received a tax bill for his airplane. She asked what is causing this downward projection of personal property taxes. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, explained that the additional revenue projections were made before the second billing for personal property for 1994, and they represented what was actually available at that point. It February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) ~ (Page 21) really has no effect on collections. It is a second review of this year's tax collections. He noted that the staff had been overly optimistic about next year's projections. Mrs. Thomas asked if Mr. Breeden is indicating that these projections do not represent a decrease in collections, but, instead, they represent a decrease in projections. Mr. Breeden responded that the projections are a decrease in what the staff had anticipated for next year. Based on the first tax billings for last year, the staff made a projection. However, after the bills were reviewed for the second half of the year, it was felt that there was a need to adjust the projections downward. Mr. Martin asked if there will be a depreciation of old personal property instead of some new purchases of personal property. Mr. Breeden said it will be a combination of both. There may be a decrease in the second half of the year as far as purchases of new vehicles are concerned. In talking to some of the dealers around town, they are starting to see some decrease in sales, and they are not quite as optimistic about what will happen for this coming year. Mr. Marshall wondered if the way vehicles are taxed has anything to do with the decrease in sales, etc. He has had some complaints from one or two car dealers. Mr. Breeden replied that he does not think any major changes have been seen in the buying habits. If the concern to which Mr. Marshall referred is due to the proration situation, the dealers were the primary ones who advocated it, because their December car sales were always affected. Mr. Marshall commented that the dealers think that the proration situation is part of the problem. Mrs. Humphris pointed out that the media reports now that the reason for the decrease in car sales is because the prices are too high. Mr. Breeden agreed. He said, too, that the interest rates are increasing. Because of the impact of both of these things, people are becoming more conservative. Mr. Bowerman asked how the downward projection of $500,000 was derived. Mr. Breeden said this $500,000 is probably offset to a large extent by an increase in the staff's projection relating to real estate taxes. Mr. Martin called attention to program reductions of $188,655. Mr. Tucker responded that these program reductions were provided for the Supervis- ors' information. These are state reductions. Mrs. Thomas asked if anything that is shown in this report makes up for these reductions. Mr. Tucker answered, "no." However, this does not mean that these agencies won't come to the localities asking for funds. Mrs. Thomas mentioned that she is distressed about giving up the $250,000 in the capital projects/debt service. It seems to her that this is the sort of thing politicians are always accused of doing, which is that they are putting off until the next year an increase of $40,000 every year in the annual debt service payment, rather than to start developing a reserve fund now. It would be difficult to develop the reserve fund now, so she is not criticizing the staff for suggesting this proposal. However, this is exactly the sort of thing she believes people have in mind, when they criticize politicians for not being able to make long range planning. She noted, though, that she cannot think of an alternative. Mr. Marshall commented that the budget can always be cut. Mrs. Thomas said that raising taxes Would also be an alternative. Mr. Marshall said he will not support raising taxes, but he would support cutting the budget. Agenda Item No. 10a. Work Session: FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Tucker said at the Board's public hearing on January 11, 1995, there were quite a few comments about various projects. There were some requests that projects be moved forward to be funded in this next fiscal year, and there were other requests suggesting that certain projects be eliminated. The total FY 1996,96 through FY 1999-2000 CIP reflects $60.4 million, approximate- ly $1.0 million less than the $61.4 million funding in the prior five-year CIP. This overall reduction is a result of eliminating the FOrest Lakes/Hollymead dam, the Carrsbrook Road Extension, the Forloines Study for a golf course, and all of the jail projects that are now being incorporated into the $16.0 million expansion project to be funded outside of the County's CIP possibly in FY 1997-98. By deleting these projects, the revised CIP plan now funds the three outdoor recreation projects at Greet, Red Hill and Scottsville Schools. It also increases the overall contribution to Crozet Park by $50,000 and funds it over a two-year period, $50,00© in FY 1995296 and $100,000 in FY 1996-97. Mr. Tucker explained that there is an additional result of eliminat- ing these projects which increased the funding for the contingency/reserve account in the amount of approximately $431,525. He commented that this is mainly over the last two years of the plan when there are unanticipated projects that may be needed. A list of the school projects has been provided and highlighted which can be funded by VPSA bonds, as well as some of the projects which can be handled with split billing funds of $15.0 million in FY 1996-97. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is satisfied with the proposed changes, the overall five year plan can be approved. The actual approval and appropriation of the CIP for FY 1995-96 may be done in the March or April, a timeframe that February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~l (Page 22) will allow the Board further review of the CIP budget in conjunction with the operating budget. Mrs. Humphris asked for an update on'the Western Albemarle High School track. Mr. Tucker responded that the track is already funded. It is his understanding from Mr. Reaser, Director of Building Services, that the project will be done either this spring or during the summer. Mrs. Humphris then said she had received a note from Karen Powell, a School Board representative, relating to the Forest Lakes/HollYmead Dam Road. She then read the note which described the dangerous situation for residents who have to back onto Hollymead Drive from their driveways and are requesting that traffic to and from the school be alleviated. She thought this was something to think about when the dam road is considered. Mr. Martin said he has talked to Ms. Powell and other current residents who live on Hollymead Drive, as well as previous residents, who have moved because of this situa- tion. He would like to move the $315,000 for the Forest Lakes/Hollymead dam road out of the proposed CIP with the understanding that it would be brought back to the Board in the context of the Meadow Creek Parkway is considered. When Sutherland Middle School was first discussed, there was already a traffic problem on Hollymead Drive. It was known that traffic would be drastically increased, but a lot of attention was paid to this area because the "T" connectors were being considered, which would alleviate the problem. If the "T" connectors are not going to be considered, then he thinks the dam road needs to be reviewed in that context. Rather than having this project as an isolated venture, or suggesting that the developer is Promoting it, he thinks it should be put into the context where it belongs and brought back with the rest of the Meadow Creek Parkway information. Mr. Tucker suggested that Mr. Cilimberg communicate this to the develop- er, because Mr. Kessler has already earmarked the funds to which Mr. Martin referred. If the idea is that this matter .is being postponed until more information and analysis is available on the Meadow Creek Parkway, then Mr. Kessler needs to know that, so he does not shift those funds elsewhere. Mr. Cilimberg commented that from time to time road projects are shown in the CIP, which are taken from this Board's priority list. Some of these projects will be funded by the state. They are listed in the Comprehensive Plan which is part of the decision making process for future CIPs. The Carrsbrook Extension is another road that is shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Until there is a decision to remove these projects, staff feels it is neces- sary to have a schedule to get some of them done, i.e., the proposed connector road between Route 20 and Avon Street. Mr. Martin said this whole matter has been bothersome to him because he has received complaints about the Board not being farsighted. The same person, however, will indicate that a project was scheduled so far ahead of time that he or she did not know about it. There are problems either way, because if plans are made ahead of time, then people do not find out that the plans have been in existence. After original plans have been made, if they have to be altered, then the citizens will say that this Board is not being farsighted. He wondered if there would be some way the roads could be built and kept open before people move into a community. He knows this is virtually impossible, but these roads create a lot of problems. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She went on to say that she does not remember any discussion about increasing the contribution to Crozet Park by $50,000. She asked for someone to comment on this matter. Mr. Tucker said this matter was brought up during the public hearing. Also, the Supervisors received a letter from the Park Board requesting additional funds. This is one way to take care of that request, but it is open for the Supervisors' discussion. Mrs. Humphris said she thinks this matter needs to be discussed, because $50,000 is a lot of money. Mr. Perkins said he talked to the President of the Crozet Park Board, because the situation was also confusing t© him' and he is a membe~ of the Park Board. The Park Board is seeking funds to help install a pool in the ground during midsummer. The cost approximately $300,000. The Park Board has $100,000, so an additional $200,000 is needed. The original proposal was for the County to give the Park Board $100,000 in $20,000 installments over a five year period, which would not help with the expense of the pool. He added that $200,000 is really needed, so the Park Board needs a grant of $100,000, and a loan of $100,000 to be paid back over the next ten years. This will get the $300,000 up front so that the pool can be built within the next several months. In addition, the Park Board needs any technical help from the County that it can get, particularly relating to contracting for the pool. The County has the experience of working with contracts and awarding bids, etc. It would be more of a partnership than for the Park Board to just start getting bids. He reiterated that the Park Board needs and wants $100,000 up front and a $100,000 loan to be paid back over the next ten years. Mrs. Humphris remarked that the Supervisors are back again to talking about the precedent that this loan would set and the experience that this Board has had such as the YMCA loan which happened before she came on this Board. The matter is still ongoing, but the County luckily escaped from that situation. Mr. Perkins said there is no question that this will set a precedent because other communities, such as Earlysville and Scottsville, are interested in having a pool, too. He thinks this situation will lay the 000082 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) ground rules which would imply that if an organization has a certain amount of money, then it can also expect a certain amount of money from the County. Mr. Tucker remarked that Mr. Perkins' comment explains the thoughts of the staff on the issue. It would be easier to fund this request, if it could be spread over a couple of years, with $50,000 being funded during the next fiscal year and $100,000 being funded the following year. He understands that the Park Board wants to move forward as quickly as possible, but the President of the Park Board also said the project could possibly be postponed a year. The staff's thinking was that the Park Board cOuld obtain the $50,000 toward the end of the next fiscal year, and the next $100,000 could be received during the early part of 1996-97. This would provide the Park Board with 50 percent of its need. The Park Board already has $100,000, so its members would still have to raise or get a loan for an additional $50,000 to bring the amount of money to the desired $300,000. He agreed that whatever is done with this situation will set a precedent for the other areas which may request some funding for pools or other facilities. Mr. Bowerman asked if these facilities would be open to the public. The key distinction is that the pool or faCility will be open to the public and that it would not be just for a specific community or neighborhood. Mr. Tucker responded that it is his understanding the pool would be open to the public. Mr. Marshall reminded the other Board members that the County is in the recreation business. Mr. Bowerman said the COunty is in the capital recre- ation business. The County tries to cover its operating costs, but for years, more money has been spent than collected in use fees. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Perkins has pointed out that this is a better approach, but there are a lot of different scenarios. This is the scenario the staff proposed, but this issue can certainly be examined further. Mr Perkins remarked that the project can probably be postponed for another year, but the operating costs for the old pool are very expensive. Mr. Tucker said he understands this is part of the reason the Park Board wants to move forward with the pool project. Mrs. Thomas asked if a pool will be installed at Highlands. Mr. Tucker answered, "no." Mrs. Thomas noted that Highlands is the development which is bringing the most growth into Crozet. She wondered if the Park Board has approached the Highlands developer about the proposed pool. Mr. Perkins said it is his understanding the Park Board members have talked to Hunter Craig, the developer. Mrs. Thomas commented that the Crozet citizens sometimes want to remain rural and not grow at all, but at other times they want to say that they are growing, and they need this type of urban amenity more than any other communi- ty in the County. She suspects this particular community is growing, and this would be a well used pool. She said good public relations on the developer's part would be to play a major role in the community pool. Mr. Perkins pointed out that the one difference between this location and other places in the County, is there is already an existing pool. However, the existing pool is showing its age, and it needs to be replaced. He understands that some of the Park Board members have inquired about a new technology relating to a new type of liner which can go in old pools. There is the possibility that the old pool could be rejuvenated and rebuilt, but there have been no cost figures prepared. He is sure the Park Board members will continue to look into this matter, and if there is significant savings, they would certainly be willing to handle the project in this manner. Mr. Marshall remarked that he will supPort this request in the same light that he is supporting the Red Hill, Greer and Scottsville recreational projects. They represent recreation for all of the citizens in Albemarle County. The people in Charlottesville can come to Scottsville and play on the playground if they so desire, and they can go to Crozet and swim in that pool. Mrs. Humphris noted that she is a swimmer and she thinks that pools should be available to everybody. However, her point is that if it is the Board's wish to appropriate this money to the Park Board, then it should be established clearly the precedent that is being set. One of the factors that needs to be known is that the site is already there and the parking is already there. The water and sewer is already there, and that is an important part of the equation. The Park Board has raised a great deal of the money on its own, and this is an important aspect. She emphasized that this Board needs to lay down the ground rules before it takes the step of providing public tax dollars for public pools. Mr. Tucker said this can be done. He does not think it would require this Board to have to delay the project, although there is no urgency. He emphasized that the criteria, to which Mrs. Humphris is referring, can be brought back to this Board by the staff. Whatever this Board decides to do in terms of the funding will help the staff establish how to handle this type of funding. The other criteria such as the fact that the infrastructure has to be there, and the County is not going to be responsible for extending water and sewer lines to a pool wherever it might be, and that the facility has to be open to the public can be established. 0000 3 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) Mr. Martin commented that he does not think this Board has to set strict criteria that would have to be in line in order to fund a pool in different areas of the County. He thinks it is important to underline that the decision being made today is based on certain factors, and they were very important considerations that were undertaken in making this decision. He does not think the staff needs to come back to this Board with criteria that will show what has to be done in the future if someone wants to discuss the possibility of a pool. Mrs. Humphris agreed that these are the considerations which are making this decision possible for the Supervisors. Ms. Roxanne White, Executive Assistant, remarked that the CIP Technical Committee considered whether or not a precedent would be set for funding pools. One of the things the Committee members determined was that this is not exclusively a contribution to the Crozet pool. It is a contribution to the Crozet Park, and the Crozet Park Board can build a pool, or it could do something else with the money. There was approximately $70,000 available in the Crozet Park category in the beginning which was for other kinds of improvements. This is similar to having money available for Scottsville for different types of improvements. The funding was increased by making a contribution to the Crozet Park whether or not the Park Board members want to use it for a pool or for something else. She reiterated that it would be the Crozet Park Board's decision. Mr. Martin asked if the $70,000 in the Crozet Park category was an average yearly amount. Ms. White replied, "no." It is for the whole five year period, and it is for different kinds of improvements. Mrs. Humphris asked if this category receives a $20,000 yearly amount. Ms. White said does not think this funding has been on a regular basis. She said there were certain projects that needed to be done throughout the years. Mr. Tucker explained that this money has been used for mowing, repairs and fencing, etc. Ms. White said, now, they are opting to use some of this money for a pool, instead of the other projects. Mrs. Thomas inquired if it would be harmful to just give the Park Board a portion of what it is requesting. She wondered if the pool would be postponed for a year, if this CIP would be followed. She asked if Mr. Perkins could speak to the effect of what would happen, if this proposal is followed. Mr. Perkins replied that $250,000 would build something, but the estimates for a pool are approximately $300,000. He does not know if the Park officials could borrow the $50,000, but that amount of money cannot be raised in such a short period of time. There is already a covenant between the Crozet Park and the County that the money can be used only for recreational purposes. Mr. Martin said it would seem that the developer of Highlands might be interested in helping with this pool, because of the expansion of his develop- ment in the Crozet community. Mrs. Thomas stated this might avoid people from being opposed to that expansion. Mr. Perkins reiterated that the Park Board President has talked to Hunter Craig, but he is unsure of the outcome. Mrs. Thomas said she feels this proposal is the best that this Board can do at this time. She regards this as a significant step forward in this Board's support of that facility and that community. Mr. Perkins said his suggestion of less money than is now proposed might be the best solution. Mr. Martin suggested the Supervisors approve this proposal and the Park Board could look more thoroughly into getting bids. A decision will then be made based on bids, as well as other negotiations within the community. The Park Board officials would have the option of coming back to this Board, and the Supervisors could consider changing the proposal. Mr. Perkins responded that Mr. Martin's suggestion is fine with him. Mrs. Thomas then mentioned the jail projects which are being removed. She said this assumes that there will be an authority, and the authority will float bonds. The County will have to pay debt service on those bonds. She noted that if the jail projects were funded in the CIP, there would be no debt service payments. Once again, more money will be paid in the future in order to not put money in the CIP today. Mr. Tucker said the County does not have the $16.0 million in the CIP for these jail projects. The only funds in the CIP for the jail were for the HVAC and kitchen upgrades. The full expansion in the CIP is not what was taken out. Ail of the jail items that were taken out are not significant in the $16.0 million scheme, although they are important items. They were taken out because they will be included in the $16.0 million upgrade from a borrow- ing standpoint. The difference is that all of this money will be borrowed, instead of a "pay as you go" system. Mrs. Thomas' point relates to the problem if the authority project does not move forward, and the $16.0 million is not borrowed. He said this matter would have to then be revisited, and the amount for these projects would have to be put back into the CIP. Mrs. Thomas said the money will be borrowed for these items, whether or not there is an authority, and interest will have to be paid on the money. These particular projects are being put into the large bond issue. Mr. Tucker concurred that the staff is assuming these jail projects will go into the larger bond issue. February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) O000~4 (Page 25) At this time, Mr. Martin offered a motion to accept the Capital Improve- ment Program, as presented with changes proposed for FY 1995-96 through FY 1999-2000, underlining the fact that the removal of the Forest Lakes/Hollymead dam road will be brought back to the Board in the context of the Meadow Creek Parkway even though it is being removed from the CIP at this point, and that the Board will follow through with staff's recommendation for the Crozet Park of $50,000 in FY 1995-96, with $100,000 in FY 1996-97 for the pool with the idea in mind that the Crozet community will negotiate with others and submit bids, and if that formula needs to be changed, they have the opportunity to come back to this Board. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ALBEMARLE COUNTY FY 1995-96/FY 1999-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECTED EXPENDITURES: TOTAL CURRENT PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR RE~tJEST 1995-96 1996-97 ~NIMISTEATION &COUETS: County Office Building ADA Renovations Computerized Assessment System Health Department CLinic Wing Replace Voting Machines General Government Computer Upgrade County Office Building Maintenance/Repairs Joint Security Comp[ex Renovations: a. ADA renovations b. Kitchen/Laundry/Canteen c. HVAC/electrica[ upgrade d. Intake Center StJBTOTAL 233,950 233,950 130,630 103,320 52,160 51,160 225,000 225,000 150,000 75,000 75,000 0 1,022,500 511,250 431,250 80,000 80,000 0 330,000 330,000 109,000 221,000 110,000 111,000 600,000 600,000 65,000 535,000 155,000 140,000 164,791 164,791 0 164,791 45,921 118,850 357,555 89,389 35,250 89,389 0 0 211,567 52,892 0 52,892 0 0 661,596 165,399 0 165,399 0 0 2,362,438 567,062 ~ 567,03~ ~ ~ 6,169,397 Z,939,733 921,130 2,053,823 518,081 421,010 FIRE, RESCUE ~ SAFETY: Police Department Radio Receiver System Computer System Police Satellite Facility flCZC 2000 Upgrade Fire/Rescue Building/Equipment Fire P~nper Replacement E-911 Building SUBTOTAL 501,183 501,183 246,000 363,851 0 0 139,457 139,457 0 139,457 70,000 56,242 947,573 947,573 0 947,573 0 0 15,000 15,000 0 15,000 0 0 1,400,000 1,400,000 150,000 1,250,000 250,000 250,000 325,000 325,000 0 325,000 250,000 0 1,028,000 128,750 ~ 340,800 340,800 ~ 4,356,213 3,456,963 396,000 3,381,681 910,800 306,242 HZGIII~YS & TRANSPORTATION: Forest Lakes/Hottymead Dam Road Zan Road Extension Carrsbrook Road Extension Revenue Sharing Road Projects Meadow Creek Parkway to Rio Road, Bicycle/Pedestrian Path Route 250/Route 616 Turn Lane Hydraulic Rd/Rio Road Bicycle Path/sidewalk Avon Street/Route 20 Znterchange Study Greenbrier/Hydraulic Street Lights Greenbrier Drive Ext. Sidewalks Ivy Road Street Lights Old Ivy Bicycle Path and Sidewalk Route 29 Underground Power Lines Landscaping Route 29 StJBTOTAL 315,000 315,000 0 315,000 0 0 557,000 557,000 0 557,000 0 0 359,500 359,500 0 359,500 0 0 5,000,000 2,500,000 0 2,500,000 500,000 500,000 55,000 20,000 0 20,000 0 20,000 110,000 100,000 0 100,000 0 10,000 226,000 96,500 43,000 53,500 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 19,250 19,250 0 19,250 0 0 62,500 27,500 0 27,500 0 0 31,900 31,900 0 31,900 0 0 125,000 53,500 0 53,500 0 0 9,051,449 9,051,449 0 9,051,449 0 0 68,500 18,500 ~ 18,500 3,000 2,000 16,031,099 13,200,099 43,000 13,157,099 503,000 532,000 0 0 0 0 140,000 0 0 0 0 140,000 363,851 0 0 15,000 250,000 0 628,851 0 0 0 500,000 0 90,000 0 0 1,750 27,500 2,900 53,500 0 3,000 678,650 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 0 27,850 0 500,000 0 0 53,500 50,000 17,500 0 29,000 0 0 ' 6,500 684,350 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 ~50,000 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,000 504,000 TOTAL FY gS-~ 103,320 75,000 80,000 221,000 535,000 164,771 0 0 0 1,179,091 363,851 126,242 0 15,000 1,250,000 250,000 340,800 2,345,893 0 27,850 0 2,500,000 20,000 100,000 53,500 50,000 19,250 27,500 31,900 53,500 0 18,500 2,902,000 PROJECTED L~XPEND][TIJRES (CofltinL~l): LIBPJ~IES: Crozet Replacement BuiLding Central Library Recarpeting Reconstruct/Expand Gordon Avenue Library/Parking Hain Frame Computer Upgrade New Library Branch Study/Land Purchase Haintenance/Rep[acement Projects SUBTOTAL PARKS & RECREATION: ADA CompLiance at Parks ADA CompLiance on School PLaygrounds Red Hit[ ELementary Recreation Zmprovements Greet Outdoor Recreation [mprovements Outdoor Recreation Project CompLetion Natnut Creek Park Improvements Towe Park Recreation Xmprovements Rivanna Greenway Access and Path Northern Park Improvements Swin~ning Beach PLayground Structures Northern Area ELementary School Recreation Scottsvi[te Com~Jnity Center Outdoor Improvements Crozet Park Contribution HiLton/Chris Greene/Hint Springs Security Haintenance/Rep[acement Summary Narren Ferry For[oines Study SUBTOTAL EDU~TIOIi (~E#EEAL ~0t/~): PVCC Social Science BuiLding UTILITIES IHPROV~NENTS: Keene LandfiLL CLosure County Haster Drainage Storn~ater Projects SUBTOTAL CiP CAPITAL PROJECTS/DEBT SERVICE RESERVE: TOTAl. GENERAL FUND CIP EXPENDITURES: ALBEMARLE COUNTY FY 1995-96/FY 1999-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TOTAL CURRENT ~ROJECT COUNTY PRXOR REQUEST 1~5-96 1~6-97 3,390,000 3,390,000 0 3,390,000 0 0 40,000 20,000 0 20,000 0 0 170,000 85,000 0 85,000 0 0 535,000 293,447 0 293,447 0 0 147,500 147,500 0 147,500 0 0 290,000 162,500 ~ 162,500 40,000 28,500 4,572,500 4,098,467 0 4,098,&&7 40,000 28,500 441,500 387,001 275,000 275,000 67,000 67,000 77,000 77,000 49,600 49,600 t31,000 131,000 246,800 143,144 350,000 350,000 635,000 635,000 30,000 30,000 71,500 71,500 118,925 118,925 72,000 72,000 30,000 30,000 179,230 172,230 20,000 20,000 25,000 25,000 2,819,555 2,656,600 226,445 160,556 96,250 178,750 0 67,000 0 77,000 0 49,600 0 131,000 0 143,144 0 350,000 0 635,000 0 30,000 0 71,500 0 118,925 0 72,000 0 30,000 0 172,730 0 20,000 0_ 25,000 322,695 2,332,205 5,171,059 138,686 76,351 62,335 2,540,808 2,540,808 570,000 510,000 250,000 250,000 3,360,808 3,300,808 1,790,808 750,000 255,000 300,000 ~ 25o,ooo 2,045,808 1,300,000 1997-98 0 0 42,500 293,447 0 40,000 375,947 0 0 0 0 0 30,000 30,000 1~-00 0 0 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 80,278 80,278 0 0 0 89,375 89,375 0 0 0 67,000 0 0 0 0 77,000 0 0 0 0 0 49,600 0 0 0 0 75,000 31,000 25,000 0 0 143,144 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 50,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 635,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71,500 63,525 0 55,400 0 0 50,000 100,000 0 0 0 10,000 20,000 0 0 0 77,000 27,000 23,000 34,000 11,7'50 20,000 0 0 0 0 559,178 639,397 159,400 59,000 968,230 62,335 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 50,000 50,OOq 50,000 50,000 50,000 110,000 260,000 210,000 310,000 410,000 0 0 0 0 0 112,025 42,~80,631 2~,7'89,13~ 3,804,984 26,385,590 2,703,394 2,299,174 2,266,850 159,000 2,351,848 2,888,230 TOTAL FY 95-00 0 0 42,500 293,447 0 163,500 160,556 178,750 67,000 77,000 49,600 131,000 143,144 350,000 635,000 30,000 71,500 118,925 150,000 30,000 172,750 20,000 750,000 300,000 250,000 1,300,000 1,815,5~5 12,48g,496 PR~IECTED EXPEBBIYIJEE$ (Cefltinued): EDlY_~TIOIi: New High Schoot Wwestern Albemarle High School BuiLding Renovations ALbemarLe High School Phases II, III Restoratioin Woodbrook Renovation/Addition CaLe Addition Stony Point Renovations/Addition BrownsviLLe Renovation/Addition Crozet Addition Hurray High Renovation Northern Area ELementary School Red HiLL Expansion VHF Underground Storage Tank RepLacement CATEC ADA CompLiance Maintenance and RepLacement BurLe¥ Roof RepLacement ADA Structural Changes/MisceLLaneous SchooLs Instructional TechnoLogy for School Division Administrative TechnoLogy for School Division VehicuLar Maintenance FaciLity Reconfiguration Security Systems, ALL SchooLs TOTAL EDUCATION PROJECTS: GRAND TOTAL CIP EXPEIJOITURES: PROJECTED RESOIJRCES: CIP Fund BaLance General Fund Transfer E-911 Fee Revenue State Funds (Rivanna) Stormuater Fund BaLance Virginia PubLic School Authority (VPSA) Bonds SpLit BiLLing MisceLLaneous Revenues/Interest TOTAL CIP RESOURCES: ALBEMARLE COUNTY FY 1995-96/FY 1999-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TOTAL CURRENT TOTAL PROJECT COUNTY PRIOR REQUEST 1995-96 1996-97 1~97-98 1998-99 1999-00 FY 95-00 23,020,350 23,020,350 0 23,020,350 2,400,000 7,800,000 12,820,350 0 2,897,500 2,897,500 0 2,897,500 943,650 8/,3,650 80,000 1,030,200 1,815,000 1,815,000 0 1,815,000 1,007,000 539,000 20,000 249,000 1,950,550 1,950,550 0 1,950,550 200,000 1,750,550 0 0 758,000 758,000 0 758,000 78,000 680,000 0 0 1,118,000 1,118,000 0 1,118,000 70,000 1,048,000 0 0 1,299,470 1,299,470 0 1,299,470 100,000 1,199,470 0 0 794,890 794,890 0 794,890 80,000 714,890 0 0 920,000 920,000 0 920,000 95,000 0 70,000 755,000 325,000 325,000 0 325,000 0 0 0 25,000 300,000 300,000 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 360,000 360,000 0 360,000 0 0 180,000 0 28,000 14,000 0 14,000 0 14,000 0 0 6,880,100 6,880,100 0 6,880,100 1,358,300 2,566,800 611,850 1,864,150 305,000 305,000 165,000 140,000 140,000 0 0 0 1,098,800 1,098,000 300,830 1,098,000 186,485 186,485 425,000 0 3,785,250 3,785,250 127,000 3,658,250 1,080,000 939,000 605,070 544,480 372,500 372,500 22,500 350,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 784,400 784,400 329,900 454,500 0 17,500 294,000 143,000 129,640 129,640 84,740 44,900 44,900 ~ ~ ~ 48,942,450 48,927,650 1,029,970 48,198,510 7,855,335 18,369,345 15,176,Z70 4,680,830 91,4;;G,081 78,716,786 48,34.9,54 7&,584,100 10,556,7'29 20,668,519 17,528,118 6,927,680 0 23,020,350 0 2,897,500 0 1,815,000 0 1,950,550 0 758,000 0 1,118,000 0 1,299,470 0 794,890 0 920,000 300,000 325,000 300,000 300,000 180,000 360,000 '0 14,000 479,000 6,880,100 0 140,000 0 797,970 489,700 3,658,250 70,000 350,000 0 454,500 O_ 44,900, 1,818,700 4,704,930 60,~87,976 240,794 249,174 201,848 196,850 188,230 1,076,896 2,300,000 2,300,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 3,000,000 12,600,000 340,800 0 0 0 0 340,800 0 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 7,503,335 2,969,345 14,676,270 4,080,830 1,118,700 30,348,480 0 15,000,000 0 0 0 15,000,000 121,800 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 521,800 10,556,729 20,648,519 17,528,118 6,927,680 4,706,930 60,387,976 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 000035 CPA-94-04. Economic Development Agenda Item No. 10b. Work Session: Policy. Mr. Cilimberg said the Supervisors have received a great deal of information regarding the development of the Economic Development Policy. The Planning Commission members have put a lot of hard work into this policy. They deliberated on this matter during several meetings, and they have held a public hearing. Last night the Commission finalized the and has made its recommendation to this Board. The staff has provided to Board members the total policy document inCluding the analysis and findings. A lot of data was considered regarding the contributing factors in the local and regional economies at the beginning of the document, and an introduction section was provided, as well as a section on goals, objectives and strategies. Last night the Commissioners' focused on the section pertaining to goals, objec- tives and strategies. Mr. Cilimberg then distributed the goals, objectives and strategies information as recommended by the Commission. He noted, for the Board, the more significant changes from last night's meeting. There were also some changes in some of the wording of the objectives and strategies, and the biggest additional discussion occurred regarding the strategies related to recognizing the County's place in the regional economy. The Commission took a couple of straw votes last night, and one of these votes related to the reference to the regional economic development partnership. It was decided that the Commission would not make a recommendation regarding this partner- ship. The Commissioners are not saying they are for-it or against it, but they felt that the partnership is a bit beyond where they feel comfortable in stating regional cooperation and recognition. One strategy was dropped under Objective Five, but the remainder of the changes were in some context the way that the statements were presented in the original Supervisors' packets of information, and substantively they did not change a great deal. At the end of the meeting last night, Mr. Dotson, one of the Commissioners, asked that Mr. Cilimberg distribute to this Board a memorandum regarding how economic development is currently undertaken in one particular planning district. Reference was made to the Rappahannock Area Development Commission in Frede- ricksburg. He added that the memo is self-explanatory. Mr. Cilimberg said this document begins with the analysis and findings section. There are a couple of sources with which the staff is checking to get some further information about the data provided. He went on to say, however, that the Commission members felt comfortable this was an appropriate section to lay out the facts. Mr. Martin commented that he has read most of the minutes he has been quite pleased with the amount of effort put in by commission members on these particular issues. He was pleased that they were willing to discuss and maintain an open mind on issues which he thought would be sticking points. They did a lot of compromising, and he thought they worked well together. He does have some concerns about the document in front of this Board, but most of the concerns were discussed by the Commission, and there were compromises made as a result of the discussions. He would leave the discussion open to other Board members, because he is comfortable living with the Problems that he has with the docUment simply because he realizes that these problems were a result of compromises that were made. He thinks, this is good in a sense that everyone was able to move forward with these compromises. Mrs. Thomas stated that she thinks this has been an amazing consensus building process. She has been to several meetings, including the one held last night, and she has even noticed a change in the tone of voice that is not always present at such meetings. ~She thinks no one could have predicted that this would have happened, since this group has such strong opinions and basis of knowledge, which was brought to this process. A compromise was reached which still says something, and she noted that a compromise can always be reached on something which does not say anything. She thinks the Commission has developed an analysis of the County's economy and the direction that the County should take, and she predicted that County officials will wonder how they managed without an economic component to the Comprehensive Plan, once it is in place. The staff should get its share of credit, too, for simply following what was being said. There was a great deal of work also involved with the background information, and she thinks the staff shows what a strong economy the County has. She recalled that in 1971 she was appointed to represent Albemarle County on the Planning District Commission, and she has been delighted in the regional approach that the Commission has taken to what is really a regional issue. The County cannot be regional in terms of taxes, etc., but people travel over the County borders for their jobs and purchases. This is a region, and it is recognized in this document more than anything previously that has ever been in the Comprehensive Plan. This is a signifi- cant step that has been taken, and she thinks the Commissioners have taken it very responsibly. Mr. Bowerman remarked that another way to characterize the situation is to say that the seven people agreed on this document rather than coming up with a compromise. Mr. Martin said the Commissioners compromised in order to agree, and he does not necessarily think that this was bad. Mrs. Humphris called attention to Mr. Cilimberg's memo to the Planning Commission dated January 30, and she noted that one of the Commissioners suggested adding a new strategy Number 12 about recognizing that water 0000 9 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) quantity may be a limiting factor for future development. She asked if there was any discussion about this. Mrs. Thomas answered that the word "quantity" was added at the top of Page Four where it reads, ,,preservation of water Quality and Quantity." Mr. Cilimberg stated that Ms. Imhoff had made the recommendation for the new Number 12. A Number 12 was put under Objective One, but it is not the one that was originally recommended. Ms. Imhoff withdrew this recommendation last night, and focused on the addition of the word, ,,quantity," under Objective Four, as one of the impact considerations which has to be realized in any economic development efforts. Mr. Marshall commented that he is particularly pleased with the docu- ment. He has always wanted some sort of economic development policy, and he thinks this is probably better than anything he ever envisioned. He would like to see support for some regional development, because Albemarle County is part of the community as a whole, and the needs of the City of Charlottesville and the less fortunate economic counties surrounding Albemarle should be recognized. He then read the first statement under the "Strategies" section, and he said that he particularly likes this statement because it sums up all of his thoughts on the issue. This brings to mind a visions statement that he got from the Citizens for Albemarle, with which he was impressed, although he does not remember who wrote it. These statements fit nicely together. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she has been tremendously impressed with the amount of work the staff and Commission have done and the exercise which they have gone through in sharing and explaining ideas, as Well as ComPromising on the ideas, but only when they can still maintain the principles in which they believe. It has been an incredible amount of work, and she has been trying to analyze what the Commissioners have done from their meetings and work ses- sions. She kept trying to simplify What everYbOdy was hoping to accomplish, and she finally decided that there are three major elements being dealt with in the economic development policy. They are economic development, education and the environment, and they all work together. She pointed out that education is the key component in everything, and protection of natural and man-made resources is a key component in economic development, and economic development is a key component in having a top notch system of education and maintaining the natural and man-made environment. In her final analysis she will be trying to see if that is not really the way economic development works. Most particularly is the recognition that all of these things depend on the County officials' willingness to provide the best in education that is possible for all of the citizens of all ages relating to basic education, job skills and continuing education throughoUt the lives of the work force. The economy is going to be constantly changing from now on and changing rapidly. If this policy is going to work, it will have to be recognized that everyone, public and private, will have to understand the investment that it will require in education to provide jobs for people in this community. Mrs. Thomas stated that there is one point which she would like a response from the County Executive's staff, because the Commission naturally knows the planning staff best and its capabilities. LaSt night, the Commis- sioners made a change in Number Seven on the first page which indicates that the Department of Planning and Community Development would be the contact point for information about the County. There has always been one person in the County Executive's office who has played that role, and this has been known in the Chamber of Commerce and throughout the development community. She asked if this matters, and she wondered if Mr. Tucker should argue against this change. She does not think the Supervisors would be second-guessing the Commissioners, if a change was made. She stated that there would just be an additional contact person. Mr. Cilimberg responded that in the beginning the staff's recommendation was to designate one contact, and the Commissioners' first recommendation initially was the County Executive's office. He recalled that this was in the draft copy that the Supervisors received. Last night, at one Commissioner's recommendation, this was changed. He had told the Commission in the beginning that the decision making process would come from the County Executive's office, anyway. He did not think it made any difference, as far as the contact office was concerned. However, the Commissioners wanted the Planning Department as the contact point. Mr. Tucker said at first the staff decided Mr. Huff, the Deputy County Executive, Would be the contact person. This was decided not only because of Mr. Huff's background in economic development, but also because there would be only one name for the Chamber and others to provide to people. This could also be done in the Planning Department. He thinks the Chamber and others were looking to the County Executive's office as having more of a larger perspective, as far as the whole County is concerned, and in trying to discuss issues and matters with a business entity, the information may carry a little bit more weight if it came from the County Executive's office. He does not think the staff has any feeling one way or the other as to whether the contact person should be in the Planning Department or elsewhere. However, the reason the contact person was placed in the County Executive's office originally was because of the workload the Planning staff will be involved in over the next couple of years because of the update of the Comprehensive Plan. This matter can be discussed further, and it can be changed back to what it was original- ly, if the Supervisors feel there is a benefit to keeping the contact person OOOO,40 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) in the County Executive's office. He is not sure of the Commission's total rationale for making this change. Mrs. Thomas suggested that if the document indicates that a single contact point will be designated, it will leave the matter open. She said the community is interested in knowing exactly who it is to deal with, and this statement would make that point. Mrs. Humphris said it seems to be more sensible to leave that to the County Executive's decision making, and it seems as though this point could be left more vague than specific. She agreed with Mrs. Thomas that the informa- tion should state that there will be a designated person, but she does not think that the ComprehensiVe Plan is the plaCe to designate that person. Mr. Marshall asked if the Supervisors need to take a vote on this policy. Mr. Perkins said the Board needs to set a public hearing. Mr. Martin wondered if at the same time, a public hearing could be set concerning the regional partnership. Mr. Perkins said he had a suggestion from Nancy O'Brien, Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, that these two topics be discussed at the same time. Mrs. Thomas commented that she usually likes to put things in discreet packages. In talking with people in the community, their concern is that they really do not want to come to two separate hearings, and they would prefer to have one hearing. However, it would be helpful if there is any way to get people to separate their comments between the two issues. Mrs. Humphris said she can understand that, but she sees a lot of difficulty in having people separate their comments on the Comprehensive Plan and participation in a regional group. They are two rather distinctly different things, and she thinks it will be a confusing public hearing. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Cilimberg made a good point when he said as the Commission discussed the Economic Development Policy, the partnership still entered into the cOnversation, even though that was not part of the discus- sion. He suggested this be taken into consideration when the Supervisors decide on the public hearings. He is sure the partnership will be a part of the discussion. Mrs. Humphris agreed that the partnership issue will be mentioned, but she pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan and a regional partnership are two distinctly different things. She reiterated that it is going to be confusing to discuss both topics at one public hearing. Mr. Marshall commented that he does not see how the two topics can be separated. Mr. Martin concurred that he does not believe the public will be able to separate the two issues. The members of the Pubi~C Wh© are up-to-date on the issues will be able to separate the issues and give the Supervisors informa- tion, but he thinks the general public has information mostly from the press which links the two. He said the Supervisors could probably deal with the public hearing for both issues, but not necessarily vote on them that same night. Mrs. Thomas noted that the Commission members held a public hearing and then they voted at the next meeting[ This allows time to clear up any confusion and to discuss certain things with the staff after the public hearing. The public knows the Board has truly digested what has been said, if the matter is handled in this manner. Probably the best way would be to have the public hearing on both issues and then make two separate decisions the next time this Board meets. Mr. Tucker mentioned that the public hearing could be held on February 15, which is a regularly scheduled meeting date, or a public hearing could be held in the evening of the March day meeting. He reminded the Supervisors that March 8 is the date of the budget public hearing, so if the earlier dates do not work, then March 15 would be the next time that a public hearing Could be held. Mr. Martin said he would like to have the public hearing on February 15. Mr. Marshall remarked that the State Board of Health meets on Wednesday, February 22, so he would not be able to attend the public hearing, if it was held on that date. Mr. Tucker suggested that the public hearing be held on February 15 and that action could be deferred until the Supervisors' March 1 day meeting. Mrs. Thomas said she did not want to have a discussion without Mr. Marshall being present, so she agreed that action could be deferred until March 1. At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to schedule a public hearing on the Regional Economic Development Partnership and the Economic Development Policy on February 15, 1995. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Mr. Martin said he is pleased and overjoyed about the Economic Develop- ment Policy. He remembers three and one-half years ago when this idea was proposed that it was not well received. It feels good that reasonable people with completely different points of view can now agree that the concept of February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) having something more than just a goal with no strategies is important when it comes to economic development. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:26 p.m., Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board go into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsec- tion (1) to discuss personnel matters regarding appointments to boards and commissions; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel on specific legal matters regarding two land use cases, one matter of probable litigation regarding a landfill, and one matter of pending litigation regard- ing an appeal of a personnel matter. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. At 3:04 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, 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. The motion seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify the executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation by Greg Leroy on techniques to ensure public benefits from taxpayers' subsidies for economic development based on experience throughout the nation. Mrs. Thomas said Mr. Leroy is the author of, No More Candy Store v States and Cities Making Job Subsidies Accountable. He is a nationally recognized expert on jobs in development issues and Currently serves as policy consultant for the Grassroots Policy Project. He has served ten years as Research Director for the Midwest Center for Labor Research. He is frequently a consultant on job subsidies especially in plant closing situations; and his consulting'work has also spanned many areas including authorship of a book entitled, The Early Warning Manual Against Plant Closings. He has written another book entitled Intervening with AHing Owners to SaVe Industrial Jobs, as well as a third book called State and-LoCal Initiatives on DeVelOPment Subsidies in Plant Closings. Mr. LeroY has c°nSulted f°r the U~S. Department of Labor in the States of Washington, Illinois, New York and Wisconsin as well as for General Motors, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. There is also a long list of conferences and other media programs of which he has had a part. She then welcomed Mr. Leroy. Mr. Leroy said he appreciated the opportunity to address this Board and to talk to the Supervisors as they finalize their Economic Development Policy. He grew up in Fairfax County, but he has lived in Chicago all of his adult life. He said that he used to come to this area for field trips to see the University, Monticello and other places. Mr. LeroY then gave the Supervisors the benefit of his knowledge from the research and data he has collected and outlined in his books. His presentation included how this information could be applied in Albemarle County. He applauded the Supervisors for emphasizing forms of development that are not company specific. In his opinion when company specific incentives are offered, it will inevitably raise fairness issues with other companies. He added that doing things that boost the overall business climate such as education and infrastructure avoids the fairness problems. Mr. Leroy also provided the Supervisors with a copy of his book. Mrs. Humphris noted that Mr. Leroy talked repeatedly throughout his presentation about accountability, etc. There was a situation recently where she felt uncomfortable relating to an applicant's resistance to being account- able and providing records. She asked if the Supervisors should be shy about asking for documentation, especially from some of the biggest companies in the world, as far as who these companies are employing, whether or not full-time jobs are involved, how much they will pay their employees, as well as all of the things that are a part of what this County is helping the companies to do. Mr. Leroy replied, "no." If the company representative responds that nobody else has ever asked that question, refer to a couple of chapters in his book which shows that lots of Fortune 500 companies are being put to these tests. The Supervisors, as guardians of the local fiscal base, have a responsibility to make sure they are getting what they expect for their money. This is becoming increasingly common. He does not want to exaggerate the power that County officials will have in that bargaining, because obviously they have to play the game and know as best they can the value of their hand. February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) 0~D0042 (Page 33) When the computerized model is completed, it will also help the County officials understand better the value of their hand and help them bargain more effectively. Mrs. Humphris remarked that she read there was a major movement in the country to try to get all of the states and localities to join in and say that there will be no more incentives because of the Way the Companies are playing the localities against each other and driving up costS. She asked if Mr. Leroy can give the Supervisors information about this issue. Mr. Leroy responded that in August of 1993, the National Governors Association climaxed a debate that it had been having for approximately a year on that issue. Basically, the Governors said they think they are victims of a soft economy, and they do not think this type of thing would be going on if the economy was not so soft. The Governors were also concerned that misrepre- sentations are being made in some cases relating, to what states are offering, as companies try to get more incentives and play one state against the other. The Governors think they should have the right to communicate with each other during that process to make sure everything is legitimate. The reSOlUtion is a cautiously worded document because it is bipartisan, and it was passed after lengthy debate by Governors from all of the regions. The resolution concludes by saying that the Governors would rather not have company specific incen- tives, and it is smarter for everybOdy inVOlved including employers, to spend money on things such as education and infrastructure. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with the accountability issue, but he is not quite sure how the County can get what 'it wants for its money. By Mr. Leroy's own,admission, these fiscal impact models are primitive at this point. He asked if Mr. Leroy knows of anyone who has a good model. Mr. Leroy replied that the Midwest Center for Labor Research in Chicago is currently developing a software PrOgram to analyze the Mercedes deal, and this model would work for other states. He is aware of several other efforts, and he would be glad to mail the SuPervisors the information. The problem is which data base to use for quantifying the upside ripple effects of the new job creation. There are two data bases which he thinks are the most defensi- ble, and they are the Realms Two series, which is generated bY the Bureau of Economic Affairs of the Department of Commerce, and the other is called Implan out of the twin cities, which is also respected and widely used, both for the downside of dislocation and the upside of job creation. Every state's unique tax structure will have to be added, as well as the supplier base. It gets tricky, because there will have to be a lot of fine tuning and scrutiny of all of the assumptions behind each set. Following a brief question and answer session, the Board thanked Mr. Leroy for coming. Mr. Leroy said he appreciated the hospitality. Agenda Item No. 13. Appointments. Mr. Martin made motion to reappoint Mr. Hiawatha Green as the Rivanna District representative on the Equalization Board for calendar year 1995; and to appoint Ms. Jacqueline A. Rice to the Library Board, with term to expire on June 30, 1999. Mrs. Thomas made motion to appoint Marian Schwartz to the Library Board, with term to expire on June 30, 1999. Mr. Marshall motion to appoint Mr. Sanford P. Wilcox to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, to replace Lawrence D. Cabot, Jr., with term to expire on March 31, 1997. Mrs. Thomas made motion to appoint Mr. G. Blair Turner to the Industrial Development Authority as the at-large member with a term to eXpire on January 19, 1999. Mrs. Humphris seconded all of these motions. Roll was called, and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. perkins asked that the Board record show that alth°Ugh he did vote for approval of the Capital Improvements prOgram earlier in this meeting, he opposes the use of Revenue Sharing funds for highway improvement. He believes that the state gasoline tax should be used for this purpose and not real or personal property tax moneys. Mrs. Humphris recalled a letter that was included in the Board members' packets relating to information about China. She was unsure if Mr. Tucker 000043 February 1, 1995 (Regular Day Meeting) (page 34) wanted the supervisors to discuss this matter. Mr. Tucker said he does not have any further information about the letter. Mrs. Thomas remarked that she does not want Albemarle County to drop its connection with the italian cities. She has actually been to the Italian cities with which the County has been associated, because she had an Italian exchange student living in her house. Mr. Tucker responded that he does not think the connection with Italy has been dropped, but he is not sure where it stands now. Mrs. Humphris referred to the china letter, again, and said it would be a marvelous idea, but it would be so expensive to take part in that program. Mr. Tucker concurred. Mr. Bowerman said, as chairman of the Sustainability council, he would like to formally 'invite the Board members to participate in the forum that the 5 in the Auditorium of this building. _ . ' 'n on February 11, .1~9. , ---~ from the university of ~ouncll is host~ g . ion with two p~u~_ _ ~-~litv addresses. .... ~1 ~e an opening seas _ · ..... e~ us~~ ~ There ~ ~^ .'~1 t v to center on the ~u=o ~.a5 s 9:45 virginia, whu w~- _r_ articipate in the discussions on the individual The meeting will be broken down into four sessions from approximately a.m. to 4:30 p.m. peopl? ca~P~=~t ~oals developed by the council for issues. The issues involve l~ u ........ is seeking is objectives this region to undertake. The input that the Council to put with the goals in each of the 16 subject areas. There are 16 subcom- ~ttee chairmen who are inviting between 10 to ~0 individuals from the cifically have expertise or interest community to come to this meeting, who ape ......... ~rnm any member of the in those areas. The rest of the participation c~ ~ .......... certainly . interest in any one of those areas. He said that ublic who has a~ ....... t ' regional economic development, and he ~he supervisors nave an ~=~ in ~ encouraged them to avail themselves of the opportunity to give some input. This will be the first of three forums that the Council will be holding- ' . e forum will start. Mr. Bowerman said Mrs. Humphris asked what t~me %~ ....... ~ ~ome information which g~e~ it will start at 9:00 a.m. .He t~en ~ls~r~u~ --~ ~~ ~he Council to details of the forum. He also thanked Mr. TucKer zor ammo--~ ~ hold the forum in the County office Building. Mrs. Humphris mentioned that her calendar shows that on Monday, February f Su ervisors/School Board budget 13, at 1:00 p.m., there will be a ~%[dt~ ~ior to the School Board's public discussion. Mr. Tucker responded is hearing on the budget, so there will probably be an update on the School Board's budget at that time. He said the time will be either 4:30 p.m. or 5:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. At 3:55 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.