1991-10-16October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on October 16, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris and Mr. Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: Mr. Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
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 was no one present to bring a matter to the Board's attention.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain,
seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.4a, and to accept the
remaining items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Item 5.1. Memorandum dated September 30, 1991, from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: letter from Augusta County stating con-
cerns about draft proposals of the VACO/VML Joint Annexation Task Force. It
is recommended that the Board authorize the Chairman to send a letter of
support to the Virginia Association of Counties supporting Augusta County's
position set out in a letter dated August 27, 1991. (Mr. Bain said he had
read all of the information forwarded to him by staff since the Board's
meeting on October 9, 1991. He thinks a lot of work needs to be done on this
subject, but he will support the sending of a letter.) By the vote recorded
above, the Chairman was authorized to forward a letter.
Item 5.2. Approval of Program Design for Albemarle County Housing
Rehabilitation Project (CDBG FY'91). The following memorandum from Mr. Robert
W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, dated October 8, 1991, was received on this
subject:
"Issue: Board approval of the budget and program design for the
County's Housing Rehabilitation Project.
Background: State guidelines require the submission of a budget and a
program design for all Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funded
projects.
Discussion: The (on file) documents represent the refinement of all
program elements initially submitted with our application package in
March, 1991. Both the budget and program design are in accordance
with state reporting formats and are consistent with previously
submitted information on this project request. This housing rehabili-
tation project:
completely rehabilitates 36 substandard dwellings;
will put dwellings in compliance with building code;
will meet HUD minimum property standards;
requires recipients be at or below 80 percent of the area
median income, residents of the County and owners of the
property, and;
limits CDBG funds to a maximum of $25,000 per dwelling.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Recommendation: Approve the attached budget and program design for
the Albemarle County Housing Rehabilitation Project (CDBG - FY 91)."
By the above recorded vote, the following Program Design was approved:
I. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE
The purpose of the Albemarle County/Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) housing rehabilitation project is the complete
rehabilitation of 36 currently substandard dwelling units.
II. PROPERTY STANDARDS
Ail units rehabilitated as a part of this program will be brought
into compliance with HUD Section 8 Minimum Property Standards.
III. ELIGIBLE INCOMES
In order to be eligible for rehabilitation under this program,
homeowner's income must be at or below 80 percent of the area
median income as set forth by the HUD Section 8 income guide-
lines.
IV. SELECTION CRITERIA
It is Albemarle County's intention to serve families or individu-
als requesting rehabilitation services who meet all of the
following program requirements:
A. They must be a resident of Albemarle County.
B. They must own their home or have a Life Estate.
C. They must be income eligible according to Item III.
D. A code violation must be present in the structure.
Applications for assistance are received and ranked by the
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) on an on-going
basis. Applications that qualify according to the above criteria
will be prioritized on the Waiting List based on the following
weighted factors:
4
The presence of a deficiency that places the occupant
in imminent danger.
4
The lack of sanitary facilities or an approved sanitary
disposal system.
3
3. Persons with disabilities.
3
Persons without shelter or housing due to fire or other
unforeseen accidents.
5. Low income (50 percent of median or below.)
2
6. Families with children. (Minor children in household.)
7. Elderly applicants.
8. First-come, first-served.
9. Overcrowded conditions.
It is realistic to note that when working with rural homeowners a
number of factors may influence job readiness and preparation.
Among these, but certainly not limited to, are factors such as
the status of the property title, the applicant's credit status,
the complexities of County regulatory processes and the level of
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
3
client participation. These situations affect when actual
construction may begin, however they do not necessarily delay
active participation by the Outreach Staff and in all probability
increase the time involvement on such a case.
In order to ensure that all eligible homeowners in the target
area are aware of the availability of assistance through the
Albemarle County Housing Rehabilitation Program, notices will be
sent to each household. Additionally, Public Service Announce-
ments are periodically aired by the local television and radio
stations, newspaper articles will be published, and civic organ-
izations will be contacted. Finally, as AHIP is an ongoing
housing rehabilitation program, outreach by paid staff is contin-
ual throughout all parts of Albmmarle County.
ELIGIBLE PROPERTIES
STRUCTURAL
No structure shall be considered for rehabilitation through this
program if 30 percent of all structural members comprising the
floor structure, the bearing wall structure, and the roof struc-
ture are suspected to require replacement. This determination
will be based on suspected structural replacement, not on act~m]
replacement found to be necessary once rehabilitation has been
authorized. Floor, bearing wall, and roof structure within a
building, are defined as the "structural members" comprising
these systems. In computing the total floor, bearing wall, and
roof area, the following are excluded:
Curtain or partition walls that are not bearing a structural
load;
B. Ceiling joists that do not also serve as floor joists;
C. Porches on exterior stairs;
D. Additional habitable or space required; and
Any decayed portion of the structure that can be removed
without replacement.
FINANCIAL
Determination of Financial Feasibility and Maximum Cost Restric-
tions: Proposed rehabilitations shall be thoroughly studied by
A/tIP to determine financial feasibility. No structure will be
deemed eligible for rehabilitation if the estimated rehabilita-
tion costs exceeds the estimated replacement cost (or the cost of
purchasing a comparable property) by more than 20 percent.
CDBG construction funding will not exceed $25,000 unless an
exception is granted by Department of Housing and Community
Development (DHCD) staff.
VI. REHABILITATION FINANCING
Families receiving rehabilitation assistance through Albemarle
County's Housing Rehabilitation Project will be expected to pay
as much of the rehabilitation cost as is reasonably possible.
The AtLIP Outreach Staff will make this determination on a case-
by-case basis after thoroughly examining each family's financial
situation. As a "rule-of-thumb", families will be expected to
encumber no more than 35 percent of their gross monthly income on
total housing related expenses. Exceptions to this rule-of-thumb
may be made, however, if extenuating circumstances exist (i.e.,
very large family, very low income, unusually high medical
expenses).
Financing of rehabilitation costs for this project may include
one or more of the following:
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Low interest Charlottesville Housing Foundation Home Im-
provement loans--Loans made to client families at below
market interest rates by a local lending institution. Loans
are made according to normal bank lending criteria and are
secured by the Charlottesville Housing Foundation. Loans
for more than $2500 are secured by a Deed of Trust. Unse-
cured loans can be issued for less than $2500. Please see
Attachment #1 for a detailed description !(on file).
Be
CDBG deferred/forgivable loans--All CDBG funds in this
project will be issued as deferred/forgivable loans and
secured with a Deed of Trust. Repayment of loans made after
rehabilitation so long as the client remains in the home.
If at any time during the first five years, the client sells
the home or transfers the title to an ineligible person,
repayment in full of CDBG funds will be required. Commenc-
ing with year six, the loan will be forgiven at a rate of 20
percent per year so long as the client remains in the home.
Again, if the client sells or transfers the title to an
ineligible person, payment of the balance due will be
required.
Other Available Grant/Loan Programs--The Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program is an ongoing rehabilitation program
which constantly monitors resources available for rehabili-
tation financing. As other resources become available
during the grant period, they will be combined with CDBG
funds to further reduce the cost of rehabilitation to low
and moderate income families. Resources used in the past by
AHIP are:
1. USDA Farmers Home Administration Loans and Grants,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of
Community Services Discretionary Grant Funds,
3. Albemarle County Grant Funds,
e
Virginia Housing Partnership Single-Family Rehabilita-
tion and Energy Conservation Loan Funds.
D. Family Resources/Savings.
VII. MAXIMUM AMOUNT PER UNIT
As required, no more than $25,000 in CDBG funds will be expended
on rehabilitation costs on any one project unless prior author-
ization has been obtained from DHCD.
VIII. PROCUREMENT OF SUBCONTRACTS
For subcontracts over $500 necessary to complete CDBG rehabilita-
tions, the following procedure will be used:
Based on the response received from solicitation of subcontrac-
tors in the local newspaper, AHIP will develop a bidders list.
From this list, AHIP will solicit a minimum of three bids for
each subcontract necessary to complete each rehabilitation.
Requests for bids will include detailed specifications and a
deadline for submission of bids. Subcontractors will be awarded
contracts based on timeliness of the bid and lowest cost.
Upon accepting a bid proposal, AHIP's estimator will prepare a
contract outlining specific job requirements (i.e., start date,
contract amount, payment schedules). This contract will be
signed by both the contractor and AHIP and a copy will be re-
tained in the AHIP office file.
MATERIAL PURCHASES AND "SMALL PURCHASE" PROCEDURE
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
On a quarterly basis, AHIP staff will solicit material prices
from at least three local suppliers. The solicitation will list
the "most used" materials by AHIP on rehabilitation projects.
The supplier issuing the lowest cumulative price list will be
used for the bulk of AHIP's materials purchases.
However, small material purchases (items under $500) and special-
ty items will not be subject to the above procedure.
IX. COMPLAINT AND APPEALS PROCEDURE
When a homeowner, applicant or contractor has a complaint regard-
ing the Albemarle County Housing Rehabilitation Program, the
following procedure will be adhered to:
Upon receipt of the complaint, the AHIP Director will assess
the complaint and determine if further action is necessary.
If the Director determines the complaint is not valid,
he/she will contact the complainant by letter and explain
AHIP's position.
In the letter responding to the complaint, the AHIP Director
will inform the complainant if they are not satisfied with
the explanation they should:
Contact the chairperson of the AHIP Executive Committee
in writing within ten working days. The AHIP Director
will supply the chairperson's name and address;
The letter should outline what the complaint is, when
the incident occurred, and what they feel a fair
resolution would be.
Within ten working days of receiving the complaint, the
chairperson will convene a meeting of the full Executive
Committee to decide if further action is required. The
Executive Committee will discuss the complaint and:
Determine the complaint is valid and inform the compla-
inant of a proposed resolution in writing immediately;
Determine the complaint is not valid and inform the
complainant in writing of the committee's rationale.
In the event the committee determines the complaint is
not valid, the person making the complaint will be
provided with the name, telephone number and mailing
address of the Community Development Block Grant
Program's Community Representative so that they can be
contacted if the problem is still unresolved; or
Determine that further information is required and
arrange a meeting with the complainant and AHIP staff
in order to come to a final resolution. If the commit-
tee decides against the complainant, the information in
Item 2 will be supplied.
X. PROGRAM INCOME PLAN
Any Program Income derived as a result of Albemarle County's CDBG
1991 Housing Rehab Grant will be recycled by AHIP into other
rehabilitations for low income County residents. As stated in
Item VI.1. above, all CDBG funds will be secured with a de-
ferred/forgivable Deed of Trust (please see above). Any funds
recovered as a result of this process will be returned to AHIP.
AI{IP will maintain a separate account for these funds in order to
ensure the funds will be utilized in accordance with this Program
Design.
Item 5.3. Appointment of Governing Board for Albemarle County Housing
Rehabilitation Project (CDBG FY '91). The following memorandum dated October
8, 1991, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, was received:
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
"Issue: The Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program now
requires the appointment of a Governing Board for housing rehabili-
tation projects.
Background: The state approved block grant funding to rehabilitate 36
dwellings in five target areas in Albemarle County for FY 91-92 and FY
92-93.
A Governing Board is now required that would have the primary function
of overseeing all program activities to assure adherence to the
state's program guidelines.
The Board must be made up of appointees by the Board of Supervisors
but they cannot consist solely of residents of the project area nor
can they be beneficiaries of the program.
Discussion: Based on these guidelines, the Board could appoint a
Governing Board comprised of:
- a subcommittee of members of the Board of Supervisors; or
a committee of citizens and/or staff; or
the AHIP Board of Directors; or
- any other composition the Board of Supervisors chooses.
I believe the objective of efficient program management and oversight
of the program administration can best be met by the appointment of
the AHIP Board of Directors as the Governing Board for the Albemarle
Housing Rehabilitation Program. They are familiar with the state
guidelines and essentially perform the required functions already.
This recommendation is supported by staff and the AHIP Executive
Director.
Recommendation: Appoint the AHIP Board of Directors as the Governing
Board for the Albemarle Housing Rehabilitation Program."
By the above recorded vote, the Albemarle Housing Improvements Program
Board of Directors were appointed as the Governing Board for the Albemarle
Housing Rehabilitation Program.
Item 5.4. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and the Regional Jail for the Month of September,
1991, approved as presented by the vote shown above.
Item 5.4a. Memorandum dated October 8, 1991, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilim-
berg, Director of Planning and Community Development, entitled "Glenmore PRD
Amendment to Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area," was
received as follows:
"Property: The property consists of +1141.7 acres described as Tax
Map 79D, Parcels 6 and 7, Section 3; ~ax Map 93, Parcels 59 and 60;
and Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 and 11. The property, bordered by U. S.
Route 250 East on the north and by the Rivanna River on the south and
west, comprises the majority of the Rivanna Village, a designated
growth area in the Rivanna Magisterial District.
Request: To schedule a public hearing for amendment to the Albemarle
County Service Authority jurisdictional area for public water and
sewer on the above referenced parcels.
Background: Provision of public water and sewer was at the center of
consideration for the Rivanna Village and, more specifically, approval
of the Glenmore PRD (ZMA-90-19). Public water and sewer were both a
condition for development in the Village and proffered in ZMA-90-19 to
be provided at the expense of the applicant (Frank Kessler). During
the review of ZMA-90-19 the applicant submitted a letter to request
inclusion in the jurisdictional area. This letter was included in the
staff report as an attachment. The staff report stated:
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
'The applicant has submitted a request to the Board of Super-
visors for inclusion of Glenmore into the Albemarle County
Service Authority jurisdictional area for a public water and
sewer service. The Board in its action on this request can
adequately address this matter.'
However, this item was not specifically addressed in the action nor
was it listed on the Board's agenda as a separate item. In order to
definitively resolve this matter, staff recommends the Board state a
resolution of intent to forward this request to public hearing. This
public hearing is recommended to be held at your November 6, 1991
meeting."
By the above recorded vote, the Board set a public hearing for November
6, 1991, to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service
Authority to include Tax Map 79D, Parcels 6 and 7, Section 3; Tax Map 93,
Parcels 69 and 60; and Tax Map 94, Parcels 2 and 11, for water and sewer
service.
Item 5.5. Copy of Revised 1989 Statement of Assessed Values for Local
Tax Purposes for Railroads" from the Virginia Department of Taxation, received
as information.
Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated October 8, 1991, from Ms. Amelia M.
Patterson, Zoning Administrator, addressed to Mr. Hamilton Pace entitled
"Official Determination of Number of Parcels - Section 10.3.1, Tax Map 63,
Parcel 45F," received as information.
Item 5.7. Copy of Planning Commission's Minutes for October 1, 1991,
received as information.
Item 5.8. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road
Apts.) for the Month of September, 1991, received as information.
Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: An Ordinance to amend and reenact
the Code of Albemarle by the addition of Article XIII in Chapter 8 in order to
impose a Tax on Meals. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and
October 1, 1991.)
Mr. Tucker explained that this is a public hearing on the meals tax
ordinance. He noted that the ordinance is several pages long and basically
provides for its enforcement. He said that the proposed tax is four percent
and is projected to raise approximately $1.4 million annually. He pointed out
that there is a provision in the ordinance for a discount of three percent of
the amount collected by the seller that can be deducted to offset any adminis-
trative collection costs. He stated that the revenue from the meals tax is to
be used for reduction of school debt and school construction only. He said
that the Department of Finance is charged with the enforcement and collection
of the meals tax. He told the Board members that if they adopt the ordinance,
it will be subject to the referendum passing on November 5. He added that the
staff is suggesting an effective date of February 1, 1992, for the ordinance,
and this date should be a part of the approval.
Board members had no questions for Mr. Tucker, so Mr. Bowie opened the
public hearing. Mr. Bowie pointed out that the item before the Board is the
meals tax ordinance. He said that whether or not there should be a meals tax
is not the question at this public hearing.
Ms. Helen Snook, President of the League of Women Voters of Charlottes-
ville and Albemarle County, read a statement which said that the League of
Women Voters traditionally advocates responsible fiscal management that
provides adequate funding for needed services and a sound policy that distri-
butes the financial burden without imposing unfairly on low income residents.
The League believes that the meals tax meets this criteria. She added that it
is obvious to everyone who looks at the financial growth in Albemarle County
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
8
that school construction will be a major drain on County resources in the
coming years. The League supports the proposed meals tax as the best alter-
native available to meet this obligation. At the same time, the League
continues to urge the County to undertake long range fiscal forecasting and
planning. She commented that within that process there should be a systematic
review of earmarked and dedicated funds to assure the best possible use of all
available money.
The League further suggests that the Fiscal Resource Advisory Committee
be reappointed as a standing committee and that it be given a clear charge.
She noted that the more the citizens understand and react to the fiscal
problems and the opportunities facing the Board of Supervisors, the more
responsive the final budget will be to the needs and concerns of the taxpay-
ers. She said that the County is faced with some difficult choices in the
coming budget year, and the League will help with the efforts to win voter
approval of the proposed meals tax recognizing that it offers only partial
relief for the County's fiscal problems.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Donal Day encouraged the Board to reject
the proposed ordinance. He believes that the ongoing debate over the meals
tax has such a narrow focus that the opportunity to address the question of
tax fairness which will speak to long term financial help for the County will
be missed. He thinks that the concern should be focused on the question of
tax equity no matter how the money is to be spent or how much revenue a
particular tax might raise, and he believes that it must be determined whether
or not the taxes levied in Albemarle County are fair. He went on to ask if
the residents of the County contribute taxes in the proportion for which they
are able. He said that only a little research is necessary to verify what is
already known.
Mr. Day said he does not think the proposed meals tax is fair. In his
opinion, the wealthiest County residents pay a substantially smaller fraction
of their incomes in local taxes which is in sharp contrast to the benefits
that this society allows them. He said that in America the rich get richer
and the poor get poorer and this trend is continuing in Albemarle County. He
added that the tax policies play a certain role in establishing and maintain-
ing the relative impoverishment of the broad spectrum. He noted that the
apostle of free enterprise, Adam Smith, said: "The subjects of every state
ought to contribute toward the support of government as nearly as possible in
proportion to the respected abilities." He said that the logic is that the
more one has, the bigger one's stake in the social order and, therefore, that
person should bear more of the expense of maintaining and protecting the
order. He added that tax justice means simply taxation according to the
ability to pay.
Mr. Day said that it is critical to a productive debate that the public
have an understanding of who bears the burden of the existing taxes before the
question is considered of adopting new ones. There are many taxes in the
County and some, such as personal property, get more attention than others.
He went on to say that, without exception, each and every tax that the County
levies falls more heavily on those least able to pay. He pointed out that
this is in sharp contrast to the tax relief programs in the County which favor
almost exclusively the wealthiest.
Mr. Day said as a first example, he looked at the consumer utility tax
which is set at 20 percent of the first $20 of the consumer's phone and
electric bills. He said that it is virtually impossible for a poor family to
escape a $4.00 tax each month. He said that a $20 electric bill implies the
consumption of only 300 kilowatt hours. He pointed out that a wealthier
individual using perhaps 20 times as much electricity faces the same $4.00
tax. He said that the burden of the consumer utility tax is much greater to
those with limited income. He then spoke about the County vehicle stickers.
He noted that a person driving a $1000 jalopy must pay the same $25 fee as the
person driving th~ $25,000 sports sedan. In addition, the personal property
tax, which is most onerous to those who do not own their homes, is insensitive
to one's ability to pay. Again, the personal property tax strikes without
regard to income or wealth, although an attempt has been made to partially
lift this burden from elderly and disabled people of limited means through the
tax relief program for the elderly and disabled. He pointed out that this tax
program cost the County less than $79,000 this year. He thinks that it is
important to compare this to the property tax relief that extends its genero-
sity at the other end of the income spectrum. He said that it costs a whole
lot more.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
9
Mr. Day believes that land use assessment is responsible for the need for
this meals tax and that is one of the reasons he believes the meals tax should
be rejected. He noted that the County's land use assessment program will cost
the County $4.2 million in 1991 which is more than fifty times the total sum
of all tax relief extended to everyone else in the County. He said that while
the goals of land use assessment are laudable, they have done little to stem
the development of land in Albemarle County. He commented that if one used
the example of $4000 an acre as the cost of land in Albemarle County today and
used the example of mortgaging 80 percent and $100 for every $10,000 financed,
it will be found that a $4000 acre of land will cost a person $32 a month in
mortgage payments. He pointed out that if the full taxes are paid on that
acre, they will be $29 per year. He noted that paying the full rate for land
in Albemarle County increases the current purchaser's mortgage by seven and
one-half percent.
Mr. Day thinks that it is important to point out that in 1988 in Albe-
marle County, almost 30 percent of the adjusted gross income for the County
was greater than $100,000 a year. This is in contrast to the statewide
average of 8.6 percent. From tax return information, he found that the
average income of the top eight percent of persons filing tax returns in
Albemarle County had an average income of $172,000 and this percentage was
more than 37 percent of the total adjusted gross income in 1988. These
figures are an indication of the distribution of wealth in this County. He
pointed out that a recent study by the Citizens for Tax Adjustments, a Wash-
ington, D.C. public interest group, reported that in Virginia families with
average incomes of $14,000 paid 11.8 percent of their income in State and
local taxes, while those in the top four percent with average incomes of
$194,000 paid six and one-half percent. It is, therefore, reasonable to
believe that the case in Albemarle is much the same and is only different
because of a higher concentration of income than the state average. It is
apparent to him why there is a fiscal crisis in Albemarle County when there is
such a concentration of wealth and income. Localities will always have fiscal
problems when they continue to place the tax burden on those least able to
pay. "One cannot get blood from a turnip." Again, he thinks that the meals
tax is a bad idea.
In summary, Mr. Day said he thinks that this ordinance should be rejected
because the meals tax is a short term solution to a long term problem. He
said that if this ordinance is adopted, and the meals tax is approved by the
voters, it is an endorsement of every other tax the County levies, and the
meals tax is just another in a long list. He added that support for this
meals tax allows the Supervisors to escape their responsibility to radically
reform the land use assessment program which has created the need for addi-
tional revenue. He went on to say that support for this meals tax ignores the
demonstrable fact that there is a wealthy minority in this County that escapes
its fair share of the tax burden all the while owning more that its fair share
of land. He said that the decade of the 1980's was a decade of a widening gap
between the rich and the poor, and a decade of fewer choices for lower and
middle income people. He added that County government should take every step
not to increase the financial burden of the majority. In his opinion, the
meals tax and this ordinance fails to meet any criteria of fairness. He
respectfully requests that this Board entertain his arguments and those others
presented tonight and not adopt this ordinance. He added that he does not
intend to vote for the meals tax on November 5 and would encourage everybody
else to reject it for the reasons that he has just stated.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Kevin Cox stated that any public discus-
sion or public hearing on an ordinance that this Board does not have the power
to pass is a joke. He believes that this public hearing tonight is not a
joke, but a public relations scam designed to impress the public with this
Board's sincerity and good intentions that the plan is to spend the money on
schools and education. He said that there is good reason to fear that the
public will not believe this after watching years of squabbling between this
Board and the School Board, eighteen laid off teachers this past year and
continued education cuts from this Board. He thinks that this Board has a
long way to go before it proves its sincerity about its support for public
education. He added that this Board wants to be billed as a supporter of
education to get the meals tax ordinance passed.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
10
Mr. Dave Flynn stated that the percentage of tax that will be given back
to the merchants for collection is not very much, but he would not care what
it was, he would still object to the meals tax. He said that there are people
in the restaurant business who will have to change their register systems if
the meals tax passes. He pointed out that the percentage from the meals tax
will not pay for the changes in the register system even in the next four or
five years, especially in prepared food places that must have two tax systems.
He said that the meals tax will be defeated again, and he is letting the
Supervisors know that ahead of time. He added that the citizens of the County
are living with effects of past Supervisors and the meals tax will not begin
to salvage the problems that will be faced in the future. He thinks that
consideration should be given more seriously to the problems at hand and the
abuses in other areas of government than this desire to impose another tax on
the citizens. He feels that he is speaking "on deaf ears", but the Super-
visors will realize on November 5 that the people have spoken again, and they
do not want this tax because it is unjust and unfair.
Mr. Flynn said this ordinance is nothing but a ploy and the fact that the
school system is mentioned in the ordinance is utterly ridiculous. He noted
that the members who will come after this board of supervisors will be able to
do anything they want to with this money. Even though the school system's
budget is justifiable, there is no such thing as designating money to go into
any particular area of the budget, especially when the budget is as large as
the one in the school system. He stated that this ordinance would be more
plausible if the Supervisors would be honest with the people and admit that
they are seeking new and additional revenues, and not try to "hoodwink" the
citizens into believing that the money from the meals tax will go to the
school system.
Next to address the Board, Mr. Greg Davis said he does not like the
implication that funding for the schools is dependent upon people buying meals
because it implies that the only source of funding for schools is taxes. He
believes that the County can pay for its schools through other funding sour-
ces. He pointed out that the Virginia lottery passed because the funds were
supposedly earmarked for schools and look where those funds are going.
Mr. Richard Huett stated that he understands that the revenues raised by
the meals tax are to be earmarked for the school system. He said that this
tax will affect the older people considerably, and he suggested that instead
of targeting all of the monies to schools, that a portion of the proceeds be
targeted toward the elderly and less fortunate. He thanked the Supervisors
for their time, and he said that he knew that the Supervisors' hearts were in
the right place.
Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Bowie closed the
public hearing.
Mr. Bowie commented that the ordinance is designed to determine what will
be done with the money, if the meals tax passes. He asked if Board members
had comments to make.
In response to Mr. Flynn's comments, Mr. Bain asked if three percent is
the maximum that the statute will allow to be returned to the restaurant
owners. Mr. Tucker answered "yes".
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to
adopt the fOllowing Ordinance, as advertised, to amend and reenact the Code of
Albemarle by the addition of Article XIII in Chapter 8 in order to impose a
Tax on Meals, to be effective February 1, 1992, contingent upon voter approval
in the November 5, 1991, referendum. Roll was called and the motion carried
with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Way.
(The adopted Ordinance is set out below:)
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
0 R D I N A N C E
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BY THE ADDITION OF
ARTICLE XIII, IN CHAPTER 8
IN ORDER TO IMPOSE A TAX ON MEALS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia:
1. That Chapter 8 of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended by the
addition of Article XIII, entitled "Tax on Meals" as follows:
_ARTICLE XIII
TAX ON MEALS
Section 8-64. Definitions.
For the purpose of this article the following words or phrases
shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section:
Caterer. A person who furnishes meals on the premises of anoth-
er, for compensation.
Director. The Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle and
duly designated deputies, assistants, inspectors, clerks or other
employees.
Meal. Any prepared food and drink, including alcoholic bevera-
ges, offered or held out for sale for the purpose of being consumed by
an individual or group of individuals at one time to satisfy the
appetite. Ail such food and drink shall be included, whether intended
to be consumed on the seller's premises or elsewhere, whether desig-
nated as breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper, or by some other name, and
without regard to the manner, time or place of service.
Purchaser. Any person who purchases a meal.
Restaurant. Any place in the county from which or in which meals
are sold, including but not limited to places of business known as
bars, cafes, cafeterias, coffee shops, clubs, delicatessens, diners,
dining rooms, eateries, grills, lunch counters, restaurants or snack
bars.
Seller. Any restaurant or caterer selling meals, or the person
operating such business.
Single-Meal Platter. Any prepared food ready for human consump-
tion served or packaged in such a manner as to be consumed by a single
individual.
Section 8-65. Levy of Tax.
In addition to all other taxes and fees of any kind now or
hereafter imposed by law, a tax is hereby levied and imposed on the
purchaser of every meal served, sold or delivered in the county by a
restaurant or caterer. The rate of this tax shall be four percent of
the amount paid for the meal. There shall be no tax if the total paid
is less than thirty-three cents; on larger amounts a fraction cent of
tax due shall be rounded to the next higher cent.
Section 8-66. Pavment and collection of tax.
In every case the tax shall be collected by the seller and paid
by the purchaser at the time the charge for the meal becomes due and
payable, whether payment is to be made in cash or on credit by means
of a credit card or otherwise. The seller shall add the tax to the
amount charged for the meal, and shall pay the taxes collected to the
county as provided in this article.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
12
Section 8-67. Collections in trust for county.
Ail amounts collected as taxes under this article shall be deemed
to be held in trust by the seller collecting them, until remitted to
the county as provided by this article.
Section 8-68. Reports and remittances.
The Director of Finance shall require all prospective sellers of
meals licensed to do business in the county to register for collection
of the tax imposed by this article. Every seller shall make a report
for each calendar month, showing the amount of charges collected for
the meals and the amount of tax required to be collected. The monthly
reports shall be made on forms prescribed by the Director and shall be
signed by the seller. The report shall be filed with the Director on
or before the last day of the calendar month following the month being
reported. Each report shall be accompanied by a remittance of the
amount of tax due, made payable to the Director of Finance.
Section 8-68.1. Discount.
For the purpose of compensating sellers for the collection of tax
imposed by this article, every seller shall be allowed three percent
of the amount of the tax due and accounted for in the form of a
deduction on his or her monthly return; provided, the amount due is
not delinquent at the time of payment.
Section 8-69. Penalty and interest.
If any person whose duty it is to do so, shall fail or refuse to
make the report or remit the tax required by this article within the
time and in the amount required, there shall be added to the tax by
the Director a penalty in the amount of ten percent of the tax, or a
minimum of ten dollars, if such failure is for not more than thirty
days duration, and thereafter interest shall be payable on such
overdue tax and penalty in the amount of ten percent per annum. In no
case shall the penalty exceed the amount of tax due.
Section 8-70. Procedure when tax not reported or collected.
If any person whose duty it is to do so shall fail or refuse to
collect the tax imposed under this article and make timely report and
remittance thereof, the Director shall proceed in such manner as is
practicable to obtain facts and information on which to base an
estimate of the tax due. As soon as the Director has procured whatev-
er facts and information may be obtainable, upon which to base the
assessment of any tax payable by any person who has failed to collect,
report or remit such tax, the Director shall proceed to determine and
assess against such person the tax, penalty and interest provided in
this article, and shall notify the person by registered mail sent to
his or her last known address, of the amount of such tax, penalty and
interest. The total amount thereof shall be payable ten days after
the date such notice is sent.
Section 8-71. Preservation of records.
It shall be the duty of every person liable for collection and
remittance of the taxes imposed by this article to keep and preserve
for a period of two years records showing all purchases taxable under
this article, the amount charged the purchaser for each such purchase,
the date thereof, the taxes collected thereon and the amount of tax
required to be collected by this article. The Director shall have the
power to examine such records at reasonable times and without unrea-
sonable interference with the business of such person, for the purpose
of administering and enforcing the provisions of this article and to
make transcripts of all or any parts thereof.
Section 8-72. Duty of person going out of business.
Whenever any person required to collect and remit to the county
any tax imposed by this article shall cease to operate or otherwise
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
dispose of his or her business, the tax shall immediately become due
and payable, and the person shall immediately make a report and
remittance thereof.
Section 8-73. Advertising payment or absorption of tax prohibited.
No seller shall advertise or hold out to the public in any manner
directly or indirectly, that all or any part of a tax imposed under
this article will be paid or absorbed by the seller or by anyone or
that the seller or anyone else will relieve any purchaser of payment
of all or part of the tax.
Section 8-74. Tips and service charges.
Where a purchaser provides a tip for an employee of a seller and
the amount of the tip is wholly in the discretion of the purchaser the
tip is not subject to the tax imposed by this article, whether in cash
to the employee or added to the bill and charged to the purchaser's
account, provided, in the latter case, the full amount of the tip is
turned over to the employee by the seller.
Any amount or percentage, whether designated as a tip or a
service charge, that is added to the price of a meal by the seller,
and required to be paid by the purchaser, is a part of the selling
price of the meal and is subject to the tax imposed by this article.
Section 8-75. Exemptions.
The following classes of meals shall not be subject to the tax
under this article:
(a) Meals furnished by restaurants to employees as part of their
compensation when no charge is made to the employee.
(b) Meals sold by public or private elementary or secondary
schools to their students or employees.
(c) Meals purchased by agencies of federal, state or local
governments or by officers or employees thereof while on official
business.
(d) Meals furnished by a hospital, medical clinic, convalescent
home, nursing home, home for the aged or handicapped or other extended
care facility to patients or residents thereof.
(e) Meals furnished by a college fraternity or sorority to its
members.
(f) Meals furnished by a non-profit charitable organization to
elderly, handicapped or needy persons in their homes or at central
locations.
(g) Meals sold by a non-profit educational, religious, charit-
able or benevolent organization on an occasional basis as a fund-
raising activity.
(h) Meals or food sold from coin operated vending machines.
(i) Any other sale of a meal which is exempt from taxation under
the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act, or administrative rules and
regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(j) Food or beverages sold by grocery store delicatessens and
convenience stores except for prepared sandwiches and single-meal
platters.
Section 8-76. Enforcement.
(a) It shall be the duty of the Director to ascertain the name
of every person operating a restaurant in the county, liable for the
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
collection of the tax imposed by this article, who fails, refuses or
neglects to collect such tax or to make the reports and remittances
required by this article. The Director may have issued a summons for
such person, and the summons may be served upon such person by any
county police officer in the manner provided by law.
(b) In the event the purchaser of any meal refuses to pay the
tax imposed by this article, the seller may call upon the police
department for assistance; and the investigating officer may, when
probable cause exists, issue the purchaser a summons as provided by
law.
Section 8-77. Violations.
Any person violating or failing to comply with any of the provi-
sions of this article shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a
Class 3 misdemeanor punishable as provided in Section 1-6 of this
Code. Conviction shall not relieve any person from the payment,
collection or remittance of the tax as provided in this article. Each
violation or failure shall be a separate offense.
Section 8-78. Use of Proceeds.
The proceeds of this tax shall be used exclusively for service of
debt incurred for public school construction or for new construction
of public schools.
2. This ordinance shall be effective on and after February 1, 1992,
if approved by the voters in the referendum to be held on November 5,
1991.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-91-48. Joseph T & Sandra A. Maney. Public
Hearing on a request for a home occupation-Class B for TV & Video repair in an
accessory structure on 3.3 ac zoned RA. Property on N side Rt 842 approx 3/4
mi SE of Rt 616. TMg0,P74B. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress
on October 1 and October 8, 1991.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with a single
family dwelling and a detached garage and a shed. Several other
dwellings are visible from the site.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to use a portion of the
existing garage for the repair of video equipment such as televisions
and VCRs. No employees are proposed and no change in the appearance
of the garage is proposed. Customers would deliver and pick up the
equipment.
Staff Comment: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states:
'The board of supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right
to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special
use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by board of supervisors that such use will not be
of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character
of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use
will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional
regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with
the public health, safety and general welfare.'
Staff has received one letter of objection of this request and a
petition in support of this request. The on-site activity (the repair
operation) will not have any impact as it occurs indoors. The primary
impact this use will have is due to traffic generated by the activity.
Determination of exact traffic figures is very difficult. The appli-
cant has stated that the limiting factor on trip generation will be
the number of items he is able to work on daily. The applicant
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
15
believes that on average the maximum number of pieces he can repair is
four per day. He also anticipates that individuals will bring more
than one item per visit. This would result in approximately two
visits per day or four vehicle trips per day. Staff opinion is that
this use could generate between four to eight vehicle trips per day
(assuming one item per customer) for deliveries and an equal number to
pick up repair items resulting in eight to 16 vehicle trips per day.
Route 842 is a gravel road which had 65 vehicle trips per day in 1990
according to the Virginia Department of Transportation. Customer
traffic would represent between ten and 20 percent of total traffic
volumes on the road. The applicant has indicated he may seek a
contract with an electronics store. This may reduce traffic as items
for repair would be delivered and picked up in a single trip by a van.
It is the opinion of staff that the increased traffic may be a detri-
ment to adjacent properties. However, the other activities occurring
on site would not impact adjacent property. This use would not
directly conflict with other uses permitted in the district. However,
a commercial use is not in keeping with the general intent of uses
permitted in the district.
Staff has reviewed the provisions of Section 5.2 which governs Home
Occupations. Section 5.2.2.1(d) states: 'No traffic shall be gener-
ated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be
expected in a residential neighborhood and any need for parking
generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off
street.' As has been stated earlier in this report, this use will
generate additional traffic. In the opinion of staff this traffic
volume would be greater than that normally expected from a single
family dwelling. Therefore, this use would not be in harmony with the
provisions of Section 5.2.2.1(d). Ail other provisions of Section 5.2
can be met by the applicant.
Summary: It is the opinion of staff that this use will result in an
increase of traffic on a gravel road which would be inconsistent with
provisions of Section 31.2.4.1.
Provisions exist for the establishment of this use in a commercial
district. Based on these comments, staff is unable to support this
request. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following condi-
tions of approval:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
There shall be no change in the outside appearance of the build-
ing or premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such
home occupation other than one sign;
2. There shall be no sales on the premises; and
Use shall comply with the performance standards set forth in
Section 4.14."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1,
1991, unanimously recommended approval subject to the three conditions in the
staff's report and added the following fourth condition: "There shall be no
employees other than the applicant."
Mr. Bowie asked if a condition on the hours of operation was considered.
Mr. Cilimberg replied "no." Since this is an inside use, staff felt that it
would primarily occur at the convenience of the applicant.
Mrs. Humphris asked if a sign is usually used for a home occupation. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that a sign is allowed, but he does not believe that this
applicant is proposing to use one.
At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing. He stated that he and
the other Board members had received a postcard addressing this issue. He
said that comments were sent back to him as though he had sent the card. He
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
16
added that he has no idea who sent it. He then asked if the applicant would
like to speak.
The applicant, Mr. Joseph Maney, stated that he has worked extensively
with the Planning Commission and they have agreed on a set of conditions for
approval of his request. He has no problem with the conditions and said he
would be glad to answer any questions Board members may have. There were no
questions for Mr. Maney.
Mr. James Chapman, a neighbor of Mr. Maney's, said he is proud to have
Mr. Maney in the area. Mr. Maney moved here from Florida and has shown
himself to be a dear friend. He feels that Mr. Maney's television and ¥CR
shop would be an asset to the whole community. Mr. Chapman said that he has
talked to a lot of people in the Keswick and Cismont areas, and they have no
problem with the business. He noted the postcard that Mr. Bowie mentioned and
said that the card refers to traffic. He does not think the traffic will be a
problem because heavy trucks travel on gravel roads all throughout the county.
He does not think that traffic has ever hurt a road. He does not feel that
this Board should deny Mr. Maney's request because of a few additional vehi-
cles a day on a road.
A person who did not identify h~mmelf said that he has a business in his
home and it has worked out well for himself and his neighbors. He lives in a
rural area and he reminded Board members that the American farm is a home
business and somewhat commercial in nature. He also mentioned that business
in a home allows a family to stay closer together which builds a stronger
family relationship. He then asked who sent the postcard. No one responded.
Since there was no one else who wished to speak, Mr. Bowie closed the
public hearing.
Mrs. Humphris said that after she read the staff report and the minutes
of the Planning Commission, she was surprised at the Planning Commission's
action to recommend approval this request. She believes the final decision
should relate to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. She considers this
application a commercial enterprise. She feels this use would be detrimental
to adjacent properties because it is not in character with the district, it is
not in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance for rural
areas, and it belongs in a commercial area. She was disappointed in the
Commission's action and thinks that approving this application would be a
mistake. She thinks it is a mistake to approve something based on popularity
votes. She added that there is no way to know who will own this property in
the future, therefore, she will oppose SP-91-48.
Mr. Bain commented that he thinks it is important to consider the type of
home operation. Mrs. Humphris said she has no problem with a home occupation
as long as it does not bring in additional traffic to the area.
Mr. Bowie said he also supports home occupations, but with this applica-
tion, he has a problem with the traffic.
Mr. Bowerman said he also is concerned with the increase in traffic.
said that although the number of vehicles might not be significant, the
additional traffic does make a substantial difference in this neighborhood.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to
deny SP-91-48. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-91-04. Forest Lakes Associates. Public Hearing
on a request to rezone 356.8 ac from RA, R-1 & PUD to PUD (Deferred from
October 2, 1991).
Mr. Cilimberg said he hopes the Board has had a chance to review the
material it received on this request. He then distributed the following
letter dated October 16, 1991:
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
"Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning and Community Development
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Wayne:
I would like to make the below listed changes/clarifications with
reference to the proffers relative, to ZMA-91-04, Forest Lakes South
as listed in Ron Keeler's letter of September 20, 1991.
Proffer #1: Please add ', or other items in the Albemarle County
Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project (Forest
Lakes South) or to other items not normally included in C.I.P. direct-
ly related to this project (Forest Lakes South).'
Proffers #7 & 8:
!
agrees
Please change "We agree" in each to 'The owner
In addition to the above, I would like to reaffirm our willingness to
work with staff to provide an alignment for a connection to Timberwood
Parkway/Meadow Creek Parkway once its alignment has been determined by
future study.
Finally, I would like to comment on the 10% figure included in Proffer
#4 relative to the number of units constructed within ten (10) years.
As we have indicated, we would expect 560 units for Forest Lakes South
based on the density of development of Forest Lakes North, but have
proffered 1200 maximum units to allow flexibility to respond to market
conditions as may be required. Thus, the 10%, or 120 units as applied
to the 1200 unit proffer, amounts to 21% of the expected density of
560 units. We are willing to increase the 10% to 20%, or 240 units,
which represents 43% of the expected total of 560.
Please advise if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED)
Stephen N. Runkle"
Mr. Bowie expressed confusion about Proffer #4 and then asked about the
percentage of dwelling units. Mr. Cilimberg said in response to concerns
expressed about the number of dwelling units, the applicant agreed to change
the percentage from ten percent to 20 percent, or 240 units, which would
require that this many units be developed over the ten year period to insure
the permanence of their zoning.
Mr. Cilimberg then explained that Proffer #1 indicates that this money
will be provided for schools or other Capital Improvement Plan projects
related to the Forest Lakes South project or other items not normally included
in the CIP, but directly related to this project. He added that this insures
that the money can be used, but there is some discretion as to how it can be
used.
Mr. Bowie asked if a debate could arise as to what "directly" or "indi-
rectly'' means in relation to the project. Mr. St. John answered that there is
always the chance of a debate on what is or is not related to a project. He
said that there could be an argument on any of the proffers, but this language
closely tracks the section of Code that governs what can and cannot be done
with proffers. He thinks that if the applicant is in agreement, the word,
"directly," should be omitted from the sentence. He again said that the
possibility of any argument in the future cannot be omitted.
Mr. Bain asked Mr. St. John to explain Proffer #2 which reads in part:
"Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albe-
marle County or its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for
such public use facilities as the County My select, a parcel of approximately
five acres .... " Mr. St. John replied that the proffer refers to the site for
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
a fire station, police, etc. This proffer directly relates to the history of
this property. There is a company which owns the mineral rights on this
property so all deeds and contracts relative to this property include this
language. This language can only be eliminated through legal means. He does
not think the County's position is jeopardized in any way. Mr. Bain asked if
the property is subject to items of record affecting the title now. Mr. St.
John replied "yes."
Mr. Cilimberg then mentioned Proffers #7 and #8 and said the changes were
made to clarify the language as to who is agreeing to the proffers. He
pointed out the paragraph regarding Timberwood/Meadow Creek Parkway which
states that the applicant intends to work with the County if, at some point,
an alignment is established or designated within the property of this rezon-
ing. He thinks this can be easily carried forward, not only as a proffer, but
as a condition of the PUD. In addition, the proffers can carry agreements on
how the developer will carry out the project. He said that this is allowed by
County ordinances and the State Code for planned developments.
Mr. Cilimberg then called attention to Proffer #1. He explained that the
language would probably have to be clarified in this proffer so that the
proffers can be broken down into three sections and referenced in a manner so
that there is no confusion. He does not think that any change would involve
the intent of the proffer. He said that he has already taken care of this and
can provide the Clerk with the rewording of Proffer #1.
Mr. Bowerman called attention to the final paragraph in the letter of
October 16 relating to Proffer #4 and the required percentage of dwelling
units. He asked if this is interpreted as either 120 or 240 units represent-
ing the ten percent. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the ten and twenty percent
are based on the maximum number of 1200 units that can be built in the develop.
ment.
Mr. Bowie asked if there was a 20 percent stipulation in the proffer,
then the developer could build 43 percent at the lower level. Mr. Cilimberg
said if the developer could only build 560 units, he would have to build 240
of the 560 units.
Mr. Bowerman asked what would happen if within a ten year period, the
developer had only built 200 homes. Mr. Cilimberg responded that the develop-
er would lose his zoning and the County could then downzone the property.
Mr. Bain said the carrying capacities of the growth areas have been
discussed considerably by the Board as they relate to the Comprehensive Plan.
He cannot think of one place in the Urban Area where growth has exceeded the
growth stipulated in the Comprehensive Plan. This project gives him concern
because the developer expects to have no more than 560 units spread over the
entire acreage which equates to approximately two and one-half dwelling units
per acre. He thinks this will force the Board to expand the growth areas
close to where other growth areas are located. He knows that developers,
particularly with major developments, have to look at the market, but he also
thinks that there are times when a developer can lead the market in terms of
what is being provided. This developer has pulled in development at Forest
Lakes from all areas of the County. He would like to see the Board hold
Forest Lakes to the recommended capacity. He went on to say that 800 units
would be less than four units per acre, but, nonetheless, it would be at the
top of what is included in the Comprehensive Plan for that whole area of
Forest Lakes South. He would like to encourage the developer to build 800
units there to keep growth in that area. This would also prevent the deve-
loper from building 250 units on another 175 to 200 acres at a later time. He
stated that the history of development around the County in the growth areas
compared to recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan needs to be considered.
He is concerned that this sort of development is "eating" up land more quickly
than anticipated.
Mr. Tucker pointed out that the staff has always encouraged planned
developments and m~ny developers try to meet this demand from a planning
perspective. The problem Mr. Bain has identified is noticed when property is
zoned R-6, R-10, R-15, etc., and then the market changes and only three units
are built on an acre of R-10 zoned property. He said the staff is trying to
encourage more innovative and creative planning, and he hopes the County will
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
19
not be too restrictive in providing a trade-off. He added that, with Forest
Lakes, there is major planning involved and some creative designs with the
interior streets. There are proffers to consider and to some extent flexi-
bility has to be provided. He knows that it is difficult with a property the
size of Forest Lakes to try to develop it and forecast the market when the
buildout will be years into the future. Mr. Tucker said he agrees with Mr.
Bain that it is a problem when property is developed at a lower density.
During the next five-year review of the Comprehensive Plan, some additional
growth areas will need to be provided elsewhere. He thinks that if this type
of planning is encouraged, then some flexibility will have to be given from
the market standpoint. He pointed out that the developers are putting them-
selves on the line in terms of financing such things as streets, land, etc.,
for years into the future. He added that property no bigger than 10, 15 or 20
acres and zoned R-10 and R-15 can be purchased by a developer and developed at
a much lower density.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that it would be hard to insure that 800 units
will be constructed in Forest Lakes.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the flexibility has to be maintained because
the market will determine what will be built. He thinks a developer will
build what can be sold. His concern, however, is the availability of low- and
moderate-income housing. This has been discussed considerably and is addressee
in the Comprehensive Plan, but little has been done, and it is still a problem
in this community. He wondered what kind of response the Charlottesville
Housing Foundation would get if it wanted to buy 50 lots in the Forest Lakes
development for low- and moderate-income hoUSing.
At this time, Mr. Bowie opened the public hearing and asked if the appli-
cant was present.
Representative the applicant, Mr. Steve Runkle said it is difficult to
answer questions which have been raised since there are variables which affect
the answers. He first answered Mr. Perkins question relating to low- and
moderate-income housing. He said that the answer would be "yes" if the
housing could be structured in some way that would permit those homes and
residences to be integrated into the whole community. In his judgment, the
programs that are available to help provide subsidization do not allow for
this type of situation. Mr. Perkins asked if this would depend on how the
grant was written. Mr. Runkle answered that he does not know. He said that
this is not an area in which he has worked, but he has helped develop the
management side of low- to moderate-income housing.
Mr. Perkins remarked that there should be some flexibility. If the State
is interested in providing low- and moderate-income housing, and it wants the
counties to do the same, then there has to be some flexibility in the State's
program. Mr. Runkle responded that the best result would be one that allowed
the low- and moderate-income families' homes to be interspersed among other
homes rather than kept separate. Then, a person would not be able to tell one
product from another. The difference would be that the subsidy would be
applied on an individual basis. He has suggested this type of situation
previously, but it is his understanding that because of the various sources of
funding, it is impossible to do. He agrees that flexibility should be achiev-
able because it would provide the best result, but he does not think he knows
how to achieve this flexibility in terms of dealing with the appropriate State
and Federal agencies. He went on to say that if the County wants to approach
that independently, then he thinks the flexibility would be great.
Mr. Bowie asked if the County, with help from the State or Federal
governments, came up with a way to finance ten percent of the houses for
moderate income families, would the applicant work with the County to accom-
plish this ten percent. Mr. Runkle answered that he does not think the nature
of the product would necessarily change. He added that certain products would
be subsidized for individual users, but he does not think that the cost to the
County or the funding would be any different. He said that the only diffe-
rence would be that the houses would all be located together, and there would
not be a separate designated area with a block of money to develop it for low-
to moderate-cost hoUSing.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
2O
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Runkle is saying that within a block there might be
ten $125,000 homes, but one of those homes might be subsidized by a certain
program. Mr. Runkle indicated agreement.
Mr. Bowie asked if this kind of arrangement would be acceptable to the
developer. Mr. Runkle answered "yes." He added that in Forest Lakes North,
there will be a townhouse area with units that will probably cost from $90,000
$115,000. He said that while this is more than the $65,000 target figure the
County used at Crozet Crossing, if the same amount of money was taken and used
to subsidize a $90,000 townhouse, probably as many users could be satisfied.
He stated that another advantage would be that these low income houses would
be spread among the other houses.
Mr. Runkle said other issues that have to be considered are design
criteria, market conditions, road requirements and guaranteeing the mainte-
nance of private roads. He pointed out that these types of issues diminish
the potential of increased density. He added that on land such as Forest
Lakes South, there are also topographic, wetlands and soil condition issues
that significantly impact the achievable density. He thinks that there will
be a significant shift in the type of product offered if 800 units are con-
structed because a lot of them would then have to be apartments. He added
that in today's market he can yield as much economically out of R-15 property
by building townhouses on the property at seven units an acre as he can by
selling it to an apartment developer who could build 12 or 15 apartments on
it. He added that, from an economic standpoint, he would like to get 800 or
1200 units constructed, but he does not think realistically that will happen.
He pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan stipulates 1800 to 2000 units
maximum. He said that bonuses for affordable housing could be considered, but
the bonuses are meaningless when the numbers get to the point that they cannot
be supported.
No one else wished to address ZMA-91-04, so Mr. Bowie closed the public
hearing.
Mr. St. John suggested that the wording for Proffer #1 be changed to
indicate that the money proffered will be "reasonably related" to the Forest
Lakes project instead of "directly related" because this is the exact language
of the Code. Mr. Runkle agreed to the change in language in the first proffer~
Mrs. Humphris said she is satisfied with the request given the comments
made and changes suggested.
Mr. Bowerman suggested that Proffer #4 be changed from ten percent to 240
units, if Mr. Runkle is agreeable to the change. Mr. Runkle stated that it
would probably be less confusing and he agreed to the change.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that Proffer #4 could state that: "In the event
that at least 240 dwelling units as stated in Proffer #1 have not been built
Mrs. H~mphris then offered motion to approve ZMA-91-04, Forest Lakes
Associates, with Proffers included as V-1 and ¥-2 in booklet entitled "Forest
Lakes So~thRezoning Application" dated J~me 17, 1991, amended August 13,
1991, signed by Frank A. Kessler, General Partner; Proffers in letter dated
September 17, 1991, addressed to Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, signed
by Stephen N. Rankle; and Proffers in letter dated October 16, 1991, addressed
to ¥. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Plm-ning and Co.-..-,-ity Development, signed
by Stephen N. Rumkle, and as amended verbally and agreed to by Mr. R~mkle at
the Board's meeting on October 16, 1991. Mr. Bowermm- seconded the motion.
Mr. Bain said he would support the request, but it will be the last one
that he will support without the Board making a decision on how to solve the
density problem, how important it is and what the Board and staff can do on
developments in the growth areas to meet the carrying capacity that has
already been established. He said that this issue needs to be addressed so
that when an application comes before the Board, the issue can be considered
from a different approach.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks the Board needs to take a hard look at the
Comprehensive Plan when it is next reviewed.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
21
Mr. Perkins commented that he does not think that capacity is being lost
when houses are being built on property. He said that the inner circle where
people need to be will be the area that should have apartments even though
some single family homes may have to be destroyed to build them.
Mrs. Humphris asked if "floors" can legally be established. Mr. Cilim-
berg replied that floors could be established in the PUD for some areas of the
development.
With no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried with
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
(The approved Proffers are set out below:)
The development of the residential portion of the property shall
not exceed 1200 dwelling units, provided, however, that once the
density exceeds 800 dwelling units, the owner shall contribute at
the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for each dwelling
unit in excess of 800 units the sum of $1000.00 per unit to an
escrow fund to be established by Albemarle County to either
expand the capacity of Hollymead Elementary School or to con-
struct a new school in the northern area of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, or other items in the Albmmmrle County
Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.) related to this project
(Forest Lakes South) or to other items not normally included in
C.I.P. reasonably related to this project (Forest Lakes South).
Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift
to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record
affecting title, for such public use facilities as the County may
select, a parcel of approximately five (5) acres as shown on the
Application Plan for Forest Lakes South made by Clower Associ-
ates, Inc., provided the owner may require reasonable visual
screening/buffering of the five (5) acres.
Except for the five (5) acres described in Proffer 2 above, the
development of the property will be limited to those uses allowed
by right under Section 20.3.1 and Section 20.4.1(2) of the Zoning
Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia. Further, under Section
20.4.1(2) of the Ordinance, the uses permitted by right under
Section 23.0, Commercial Office (CO), will be limited to Section
23.2.1 (1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (9) and (11). To be exclud-
ed from use by special use permit under Section 20.3.2 of the
Ordinance are Sections 20.3.2 (3) and (7). To be excluded from
use by special use permit under Section 23.2.2 of the Ordinance
are Sections 23.2.2 (1), (2), (4), (7) and (8).
In the event that at least 240 of the dwelling units stated in
Proffer 1 have not been built and a certificate of occupancy
issued within ten (10) years from the date of the final approval
of this Zoning Map Amendment, then the undersigned applicant
agrees to waive its rights under Virginia Code Section
15.1-491(al).
o
No lot within the property will front on or have direct access to
any roads within the Hollymead PUD.
Residential Areas 7 and 8 as shown on the Application Plan for
Forest Lakes South made by Clower Associates, Inc., will be
developed with single-family detached dwelling units.
The owner agrees to provide recreational facilities in accordance
with Section 4.16 for multi-family areas remote from the central
recreational area.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
22
The owner agrees to reconstruct and extend Powell Creek Drive
from Hollymead Drive to the Forest Lakes Spine Road provided the
necessary right-of-way exists or can be obtained at no cost to
Forest Lakes Associates.
(The Board recessed at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened at 8:45 p.m.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Audit Committee Report: Recommended Budget Guidance
for FY 1992-93 Budget.
Mr. Perkins summarized the following report from the Audit Committee,
dated October 10, 1991:
'tI .
Background: Through a series of Board actions in 1987 and 1988,
the Audit Committee has been tasked with developing initial
budget guidance for the Board's consideration in giving such
guidance to the County Executive. Again this year, the Audit
Committee has worked continually and closely with the Director of
Finance, with input from the County Executive, in developing this
report.
II.
Methodology: This report is based on unaudited figures. The
audit will not be completed, as in prior years, until December,
which is far too late for initial budget guidance. The balance
of this report deals with an analysis of certain financial
information used in the development of initial budget guidance.
III. 1990/1991 Performance: Last year, actual revenues were under
budget estimates, but actual expenditures were also less than
budgeted. Enclosure 1 (on file) gives the details, but total
'savings' after reappropriations including the use of carry-over
funds is $1.2 million. Without using carry-over funds, it is
$662,618. Since one cent on the Real Property tax rate equals
$297,136 in revenue, the break-even tax rate for operations in
1990-91 was 71.77 cents. In establishing tax rates for 1991-92,
the Board of Supervisors set 72 cents for real property, which
appears to be correct.
IV.
Fund Balance Status: Enclosures 2 and 3 (on file) give the
current status of both the operating and school fund balances.
In previous reports, it has been pointed out that at least $8.0
million of operating capital from the end-year fund balance is
required to provide cash flow protection for the period of July
through December. However, with the inflation rate over the past
two years, $8.0 million is no longer sufficient. To protect the
county, at least $8.5 to $9.0 million is required. With balances
of $9.4 million shown in the General Fund and $190,449 shown in
Schools, these fund balances can provide only limited funds for
either operations or the CIP. The County does have sufficient
reserves to fund its cash needs until the next tax receipt cycle.
Estimated 1992-93 Revenues and Recommendations: In his memoran-
dum of October 3, 1991 (Enclosure 4-on file), the County Execu-
tive notified the Board that next year's overall revenues are
expected to increase by $2.4 million. Legal commitments, includ-
ing debt service on YPSA bonds and the City Revenue Sharing
Agreement, will use approximately $923,000 leaving $1.5 million
for all other needs. This is one of the lowest increases in
revenues in the past decade. Based on the current budget, these
funds should be allocated 60 percent ($0.89 million) to schools
and 40 percent ($0.59 million) to general government for initial
guidance.
There are many uncertainties as we proceed toward develop-
ment of the 1992-93 budget. We have been told that a reduc-
tion in State revenues of about $1.4 million can be expected
for education alone, but final deductions will not be deter-
mined until the General Assembly meets and sets the budget.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
23
In the work session on the CIP on October 9, 1991, the
County Executive showed that even with adjustments to delay
some projects, we are still $2.6 million short.
Assuming a reasonable inflation rate of four percent, if we
add nothing to this year's budget, no increase in teachers,
no increase in police force, no increase in line items
anywhere in the budget, inflation alone will cost $.940
million for non-personnel costs - just to maintain exactly
what we have.
To sum up the basic picture, the minimum requirements for
additional funding are:
1. reduction in State revenues - $1.4 million
2. shortfall in the CIP $1.8 million
(less debt service)
3. inflation $0.94 million
Total $4.14 million
To fund this, we have (as shown in Section ¥ above) addi-
tional revenues of $1.5 million, leaving a potential short-
age of $2.64 million. These figures, of course, are for a
worst case scenario, but one towards which the Committee
feels the Board should begin planning,
VI.
Meals Tax: On November 5, 1991, the citizens of Albemarle County
will decide whether or not to enact a meals tax. Unfortunately,
much of the information being distributed by the opponents is not
correct. The $9.0 million Fund Balance is not available for
capital or other future needs. It is the cash required to fund
the County from July 1 to December 5, our tax collection date.
To say it is available is akin to a person who gets paid on the
first of the month, balances his/her checkbook on the 15th and
since he/she has half the money left, runs out and spends it all.
At that point, they are bankrupt. The apparent 'extra money'
shown in the Fund Balance is there because our collection date is
Decmmber 5 and the audit takes place on June 30. Even media
reports on the $1.5 million increase in next year's revenues
(discussed in Section V above) was distorted indicating that we
had 'found' $1.5 million, instead of receiving the lowest in-
crease in revenue pro~ections than we have received in recent
years. Considering the figures given ($2.64 million shortage),
it is apparent that if the meals tax does not pass to be used for
School capital projects and School debt, there is little chance
of carrying out the School construction program.
VII. Effect of Prior Years Tax Rate Reductions: Had the real estate
tax rate not been reduced from 77 cents to 72 cents in 1987, the
county would be in a far less flexible position than it is now.
Worse yet, had the five tax rate increases, which were proposed
during the 1980's been approved, the county's tax rate would now
be 94 cents. In either case, all the money would have been
spent, the county would still be faced with the state shortages,
but would have little potential for additional revenue.
VIII.
Actions Recommended for the Current Fiscal Year: Based on the
above, the Audit Committee recommends that the Board direct the
County Executive to take certain actions to insure the largest
possible Fund Balance at the end of the current fiscal year in
both Schools and General Government. In his 'August, 1991,
Financial Report' (Enclosure 5-on file), the County Executive
states that General Government has provided for a five percent
reserve reduction for the current year and the Schools have a 15
percent reserve holdback. While meeting the County's responsi-
bilities may not allow for this entire amount to be escrowed, the
County Executive should take immediate action to insure that as
much as possible is escrowed and set up necessary procedures to
see that it is held in reserve until completion of the 1992-93
budget in the Spring. This directive should apply to both the
Schools and General Government.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
24
While such things as equipment purchases, certain repairs and
maintenance, etc., cannot be deferred indefinitely, the Committee
feels they must be deferred until we ride out the State's fiscal
crisis.
IX.
Next Year's Budget Guidance: As can be seen from all the fore-
going, little definitive budget guidance can be given at this
time. However, there are some general recommendations:
Obviously the budget must be constructed so that only the
minimum essential increase in services (education, police,
fire and rescue) necessary to meet the public requirements
are included;
be
No increases in any other area should be considered unless
it can be shown how it is to be paid;
The School budget - In the past, the Board of Supervisors
has been plagued with a 'fully funded' School budget which
uses all the allocated resources, but does not provide for
growth, new schools, etc. The Committee recommends that the
School budget be considered in the following priorities:
Direct classroom expenses This would include class-
room teachers, teacher aides, classroom materials, etc.
Enclosure 6 (on file) is a list of all the various
positions that are classified as 'teacher' Without
disparaging the worth of psychologists, social workers
and guidance counselors, they are not classroom tea-
chers and should be considered separately;
Special education requirements, gifted education,
preschool, etc;
School overhead and administration, i.e., school
principals, vice-principals, librarians, custodians,
utilities;
4. School transportation, maintenance;
Vocational education, i.e., CATEC and any other educa-
tion program somewhere else;
Other programs. Here would be included all central
office staff, the superintendent, three assistant
superintendents and their staffs, expeditors,
coordinators, etc. It is recommended that anyone in
these positions, even though they may spend most of
their time at the various schools be shown as central
office staff;
Ail general programs such as staff development, local
mileage, etc., etc.
The information in Items 1 - 7 should be shown by individual
schools. While finite allocation details can be worked out by
the County Executive and Superintendent of Schools, this will
allow the Board of Supervisors to fund classroom education and
prioritize the services that will be funded."
Mr. Bowerman asked for an explanation of the "five percent maximum
savings" that is referred to in the report. Mr. Perkins answered that there
are certain purchases that can be deferred from this year. He mentioned as an
example that new school buses could be deferred because they do not have to be
purchased. Mr. Bain stated that the school system is not buying new buses,
but are instead leasing them. He said that is how a lot of money was saved
this year. Mr. Perkins said that some money might be saved now, but it would
eventually have to be spent. Mr. Bain commented that in this fiscal year
money will not be spent on new buses.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
25
Mr. Bowerman asked if there is an estimate of the dollar amount that
could be saved. Mr. Bowie replied that the dollar amount that could possibly
be saved is between $1.0 million and $2.0 million. He pointed out that with
such things as teacher contracts, the Revenue Sharing Agreement and debt
service there is no savings. He said that probably no more than 20 percent of
the total budget is subject to any savings at all. He noted that inflation
only affects 25 percent of the budget because personnel costs are subject to
Board action. He added that this $1.0 million to $2.0 million can be deferred.
but it is not really a savings because it relates to purchases of equipment
throughout the County budget which will have to to be bought sooner or later.
He said that this savings is simply a buildup of money that is saved by
deferring the itmm~ that can be deferred.
Mr. Bo%~ie then mathematically showed the Board how the Audit Committee
arrived at the five percent holdback. He said that $20.0 million is approxi-
mately the General Government's share of the budget, of which 20 percent is
not in fixed costs. He commented that the 20 percent is $4.0 million, and
five percent of that is $200,000. He pointed out that there is not a lot of
money involved in the savings.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if the same scenario is being used in the School
budget. Mr. Bowie replied that the School system's budget was approximately
$60.0 million, and 20 percent of that would be $12.0 million. He added that
there is a 15 percent holdback and the match would be $2.0 million.
Mr. Tucker explained that all of this money could not be held back for
the School system because some employees are on contracts. He said that the
15 percent holdback is basically targeted for the operations section of the
School budget.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he was looking at the potential shortfall of
$2.64 million and was trying to evaluate what effect the holdbackmonies would
have on the shortfall.. Mr. Bowie answered that the percentage holdback would
take care of a good portion of that shortfall. He reminded Board members,
however, that the shortage does not include any growth in the schools or the
Police Department. He said that this is just an indication of where the
County is at this point and this report gives the County Executive and the
Superintendent of Schools a starting point and a general overview of what
might be available. He concluded that right now all that is known to be
available is $1.5 million.
Mr. Perkins then moved acceptance of the Audit Committee Report. Mr.
Bowerman seconded the motion.
Mrs. Hnmphris commented that she feels it is within the County Execu-
tive's duties to bring to this Board a budget recommendation, and although she
is in accord with the budget figures that indicate the money i~.scarce, she is
not in accord with some of the statements that were made in the Audit Report.
She pointed out Section VII on Page 3 of the report, relative to the "Effect
of Prior Years Tax Rate Reductions." She said that what is said in this
report might be true, but she does not see how anybody is going to know this
for a fact. She added that this is pure conjecture of what would have happene
had this Board put into effect those increases during those years. She went
on to say that there is. no way to know where the County would be in terms of
what those funds brought to the County. Therefore, the County might be ahead
of where it is now in terms of what needs to be purchased with future funds.
She then mentioned Section IX on Page 3 which refers to "Next Year's Budget
Guidance" and said that she does not know what this means. She quoted Section
A which states: "Obviously the budget must be constructed so that only the
minimum essential increase in services (education, police, fire and rescue)
necessary to meet the public requirements are included." She then quoted
Section B which states: "No increases in any other area should be considered
unless it can be shown how it is to be paid." She did not understand if the
Committee meant for that to mean without any tax increases.
Mrs. Hnmphris then called attention to the School budget and said that
she is not at all sure it is this Board's place to list priorities for the
School division. She thinks this should be left up to the School Board and
the Superintendent. She is glad that these numbers have been presented at
this time to give the public an idea of how critical the need is for the meals
tax, but she does not support the Audit Committee Report.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Bowie responded that the concept of the report has never been unani-
mous and obviously will not be tonight. He said that the Board did decide in
1987 that it would change the way it operated on the budget, and the Committee
would give the County Executive the initial guidance. He went on to say, in
reference to the recommendations for the School budget, there has constantly
been the problem that whatever the recommendations are for the schools, all of
the money is spent, but the costs of growth are not covered. He said the
Committee is just saying that it would like to know how much of the dollars
goes to the classroom and how much goes to other programs. He noted that Mr.
Perkins had already mentioned that the School Board and the Superintendent can
change these priorities if they wish, but he thinks that it is fair to have
the figures clearly exposed in the budget and not hidden away.
Mr. Bain stated that he has made basically the same comments every year.
He thinks that the whole budget is the County Executive's prerogative, and
most of the information comes from him and his staff, anyway. He added that
Mr. Tucker has given the Board the information as the year has progressed,
particularly as it relates to the month of August. He does not think Mr.
Tucker needs this Board's guidance because he knows what he should be doing in
terms of financially managing the County and keeping the Board informed. He
said, again, that the budget is the County Executive's job and his preroga-
tive. He then mentioned the School system's budget and said that last year
this Board commented on what a magnificent job the School system had done with
its budget, and he thinks the School system should establish its own priori-
ties. He said that this Board can put figures into the budget and try to
encourage the School system to go along with those figures. He thinks that
this is probably what the Audit Committee is trying to do, but he does not
think that what has happened has shown any confidence in the School Board. He
reiterated that last year he heard most Board members praise the School Board
for its budget, and he believes that this Audit Committee Report is an insult
to the School Board. He does not support the motion. He does not think the
Audit Committee should be telling the County Executive what to do. He said
that it is the County Executive's job, along with his staff, including the
Director of Finance, to come to this Board with the facts and the needs of the
County. He said that this procedure with the Audit Committee takes it out of
the County Executive's hands.
Mr. Bain stated that last year the Audit Committee indicated that changes
would be made with that Committee, but nothing has happened. He is concerned
about the direction the Audit Committee has taken.
At this time roll was called and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie and Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Humphris.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 10. 1991 Legislative Proposals.
Mr. Tucker provided the Board with a copy of the Virginia Association of
Counties (¥ACo) proposed 1992 legislative program along with last year's
legislative package that the County and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission (TJPDC) put together for the 1991 General Assembly. He said that
the program and policy statements are comprehensive. He added that in many
cases the proposals to the General Assembly become too broad rather than
focusing on specific issues. He said that this information shows a comprehen-
sive look at needs that counties throughout the Commonwealth have identified
through their steering committees at VACo. Mr. Tucker requested the Board to
make any changes it felt were necessary to the proposed program. He pointed
out that there is a short synopsis shown for each major item. He thinks that
any changes need to be made as soon as possible so that VACo can be made aware
of them. Mr. Tucker commented that a meeting with the legislators will be
scheduled in December before the 1992 session of the General Assembly con-
venes.
Mr. Bowie agreed that the information was very comprehensive. He asked
if YACo had narrowed the list down and concentrated on certain key issues.
Mr. Tucker explained that these are the legislative priorities identified by
VACo.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
27
Mr. Bain called attention to Page 2 of the list and read the following:
"¥ACo supports legislation to eliminate the permit application fees for
landfill applications, double liners where soil conditions do not require them
and new closure regulations for old government owned and operated landfills
unless monitoring wells indicate leeching is occurring." He asked what can
the County do given the enormous costs for closure of landfills. He noted
that the cost to close the Keene l.andfill is approximately $1.5 million. He
suggested that Mr. Tucker appoint someone from his staff to monitor the
situation from a managerial perspective. He pointed out that the Waste
Management Agency in Richmond has regulations that substantially exceed
Federal law requirements. He went on to say that this is costing localities a
lot of money.
Mr. Bowie agreed that State regulations are twice those of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). For example, he does not understand why there
should be double liners at the landfill when EPA says that one liner is
sufficient. He will support YACO's legislative proposals.
Mrs. Humphris stated that there are implications throughout the legisla-
tive information of unhappiness with management in the State Department of
Waste Management. She called attention to Page 8 and the section entitled
"Waste management closure plans." She asked how this relates to the County's
problem, and she wondered if this indicates that current legislation would
have to be changed. She wondered if this means that Albemarle County is
subject to the new regulations and will need to support this request for
change. Mr. Tucker replied that is basically correct. He said that the
County is taking the approach with the Keene Landfill that even though it is a
20 acre landfill, the majority of that landfill had been completed and closed
under the old regulations and only about five acres are subject to the new
regulations. He said that it is unknown at this time whether or not the
entire 20 acres will have to meet the new closure requirements. He said that
the closure plan that was submitted to the State involves only five acres, but
he has not been notified that the other 15 acres will be exempt from the new
regulations. Mr. Tucker said he thinks VACo is attempting to address this
issue in its proposals. He also thinks that the Board should support this
because it is a high priority item.
Mr. Bain agreed. He again pointed out how costly it is to close land-
fills. He does not understand the necessity of some of the State
requirements. Mrs. Humphris commented that a lot more information is needed
than is available to justify the State requirements.
Mr. Bowie stated that waste management officials relate everything to
State regulations. He then read the following from Page 8 of the legislative
information: "VACo supports legislation restricting the use of certain
materials in manufacturing and packaging that are not degradable." He said
that if the container is double lined, it does not make any difference.
Mrs. Humphris then called attention to Page 1 under the legislative
priorities relating to growth management. She read: "VACo supports expanded
authority by counties to manage growth by authorizing broader impact fees."
She asked how the impact fees can be broader, if the County cannot have them.
Mr. Bain assumed that jurisdictions that have impact fees can authorize
broader fees.
Next, Mrs. Humphris called attention to Page 3, under the section,
"Economic development highways." She read: "The top priority of the Common-
wealth Transportation Board should be the allocation of highway funds for the
rapid completion of economic development highways." She asked who designates
economic development highways. Mrs. Humphris then read from Page 3, under the
section, "Planning district commissions." She read: "State appropriations
should be increased for all planning district commissions to improve their
abilities to implement economic development programs." She said that she
never knew that this was an objective of planning district commissions.
Mr. Bowie replied that if a county wants money for economic development,
that county sends the request to VACo. He said that what it amounts to is a
"wish list" of every county in Virginia. He added that the General Assembly
designates economic development highways which is supposed to increase econom-
ic development in a place where it is desired.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
28
Mr. Bowie asked if a motion is necessary. Mr. Tucker answered that the
Board should probably focus on the priority of landfill applications. Mr.
Bain agreed and said, also, that the focus should be on solid waste because of
the cost to the localities.
Mr. Tucker said the Board received a resolution from Hanover County
requesting the General Assembly to create a commission to study and review a
possible modification to the Dillion Rule. Hanover County is requesting
localities to adopt the resolution.
Mr. Bain commented that he did not have an opinion one way or the other
about the resolution.
Mr. Bowie said that he would write a letter supporting the resolution, if
it were modified to reflect more recent actions. The other Board members
concurred.
Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: American the Beautiful Grant for
Walnut Creek Park.
Mr. Tucker said the County has received an America the Beautiful Grant
for Walnut Creek Park in the amount of $2100. The grant is to be used for
landscaping around the comfort station and recreational area. He recommends
that the Board accept the grant.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation in the amount of $2100 for an America
the Beautiful Grant for Walnut Creek Park. Roll was called and the motion
carried with the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
Mr. Way.
FISCAL YEAR: 1991-1992
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL GRANT FOR
WALNUT CREEK PARK
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100071000567600
America the Beautiful Grant
Total
$2100
$2100
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100033000330710
Department of Forestry Grant
Total
$2100
$21oo
Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: April 3, April 10 and July 17,
1991.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of April 10, 1991, pages 1-14 and found
them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried with the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and. Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Bain reported on a recent Planning District Commission regional
meeting that he attended. He said that there were probably 75 to 80 people
attendance. There were also planning districts from several other regions
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
29
represented. He thought that the information provided on population growth
was very informative. Most of the comments were that the people did not want
growth to occur in their locality. Someone also made a slide presentation
showing things that were happening because of growth throughout the State. He
commented that there will be ten of these Planning District Commission public
hearings throughout the State during the month of October and early November.
He is uncertain what will happen after the public hearings are completed. It
is his understanding that any recommendations to the General Assembly will not
be known before early December.
Mrs. Humphris said she hopes that the Planning District Commission and
the State legislators listen to what the people are saying. She also thinks
that this Board should not just sit and be a victim, but instead do some
pro-active planning in the direction of the citizen's desires.
Mr. Bain remarked that comments were made at the meeting about directing
jobs to certain areas, and the response was that people will live where they
choose to live. He added that people at the meeting stated that better
planning needed to take place and there needs to be a limit on population
growth.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he had a nomination to the Social Services
Board. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowermm~, seconded by Mr. Bain, to
appoint Mr. George A. Stovall to the Social Services Board to represent the
Charlottesville District, with said term to expire on December 31, 1993. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
Mr. Bowie mentioned a letter Board members received from a citizen
concerning a road name change. He proposes that the Board respond to the
request by informing him of the Board's policy on road name changes and direct
him to the staff person handling road names. Board members concurred.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel. At 9:35 p.m., Mr.
Bowerman offered motion to adjourn into executive session under Code Section
2.1-344.A.1 to discuss personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bain. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerm~, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None,
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:10 p.m. Motion was immedi-
ately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Humphris, to adopt the following
resolution:
C~RTIFIGATIO~OF ~C~TIV~M~TING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeCing on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded
vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of
Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the Albemmrle County Board of Supervisors that such
executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors. hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and
(ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, dis~ussedor
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
October 16, 1991 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
VOTE:
AYES:
NAYS:
30
Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Way.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no furthsr business to come before
the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned.
Chairman