1982-02-17February. 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
February 17, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
St. John.
County Executive, Guy~B. Agnor, Jr. and CoUnty Attorney, George R.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: PropOsed Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement.
(Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on February 3 and
February 10, 1982.)
ANNEXATION AND REVENUE
SHARING AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, acting through its Board of
Supervisors, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, acting through its City Council:
SECTION I. PURPOSE.
This agreement arises out of the annexation statutes found in Title 15.1 of
the Code of Virginia. The Board of Supervisors recognizes that .those statutes
permit the City to initiate court 'proceedings to annex County territory; however,
the Board believes annexation to be ineffective as a solution to the social and
financial problems of cities, and generally opposes the concept of annexation on
philosophical grounds. The City Council believes that annexation has been his-
torically effective as a method for cities to increase their tax bases and provide
for effective delivery of urban services and that the City would be justified in
asking to annex parts of the County at this time.
In spite of these philosophical differences, the City Council and the Board
of Supervisors realize that their jurisdictions have much in common and that the
interests of their citizens often extend across jurisdictional boundaries. They
are proud of many instances in which their two governments have cooperated to
serve the interests of those citizens, and they share the hope of a future filled
with more cooperative measures, perhaps ultimately resulting in the combination
of the two jurisdictions into one.
Whatever the merits of annexation might be, an annexation suit initiated by
the City at this time would threaten the spirit of cooperation now existing between
the City and County governments. It would involve great expenditures of time and
money, and it would introduce an element of uncertainty into the political and
governmental processes of both jurisdictions which both the City Council and the
Board of Supervisors would prefer to avoid.
Recognizing all of these circumstances, the Board of Supervisors and the City
Council have sought through negotiations to find a solution which would lessen the
City's need to annex'County territory and thereby permit the County to proceed with
its planning and other governmental processes free of the threat of annexation.
Both bodies believe that the revenue and economic growth sharing plan described in
this agreement is an equitable solution, which permits both jurisdictions to share
fairly in the property tax revenues created by future economic growth in the community
regardless of whether that growth occurs in the City or County.
SECTION II. REVENUE AND ECONOMIC GROWTH SHARING PLAN.
A. Agreement to Contribute and Share.
Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. Section 15.1-1166, for as long as this agreement
remains in effect, the County and City agree annually to contribute portions of
their respective real property tax bases and revenues to a revenue and economic
growth sharing fund as described in this Section. Each agrees to transfer to
the other the net amount determined by applying the calculations described in
this Section to the fund so created.
B. Determination of Contributions to Fund.
The City and the County will each annu-ally contribute to the revenue and
economic growth sharing fund, from their respective real property revenues, thirty-
seven cents for each one hundred dollars of value of locally assessed taxable real
property, improved and unimproved, within their respective political boundaries.
The city manager and county executive, or their designees, shall meet in the
month of January in each year in which the agreement is in effect to determine the
amount each jurisdiction will contribute to the fund in the ensuing fiscal year.
The sum of the contributions of the City and County shall constitute the "fund"
as referred to below.
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
In each year that this agreement is in effect, the assessed values used to cal-
culate the respective contributions shall be those reflected on the land books of the
two jurisdictions for the most recent year for which population and true tax rate
figures are also available, as provided in Subsection D. However, for any year
in which one jurisdiction conducted a general reassessment and the other did not,
the contributions of both jurisdictions shall be based on the assessed values for
the most recent year in which both conducted a general reassessment, plus subsequent
new construction and less subsequent demolitions in both jurisdictions.
C. Determination of Distribution of Fund.
After computing the total contributions to the fund, the designated officials,
using the steps set forth in Subsection D, shall determine the distribution of the
fund for the ensuing fiscal year. This determination shall be used by the two
jurisdictions in the preparation of their budgets and for fiscal planning purposes.
The distribution of the fund and the resulting net transfer of funds shall be
made initially on January 31, 1983, and on each January 31 thereafter that this
agreement remains in effect.
D. Procedure for Computing Distribution.
The procedure to compute distribution of the fund requires the determination of
the following figures:
Population of the City
population of the County
True Real Property Tax Rate of the City
True Real Property Tax Rate of the County
The population figures shall be determined by official United States Census
figures for years in which a census has been takenJ For years between censuses, the
population figures shall be the final population estimates of the Tayloe Murphy
Institute of the University of Virginia.
~rue real property tax rates shall be as determined by the Virginia Department
of Taxation.
In the event the Tayloe Murphy Institute or the Department of Taxation ceases
to make such determinations, the city manager and county executive shall jointly
select another source for such figures.
The distribution shall be computed as follows:
Step 1.
Compute ~elative population indices for both jurisdictions by
dividing each jurisdiction's population by the sum of the popula-
tions for both jurisdictions.
Step 2.
Compute relative tax effort indices for both jurisdictions by
dividing each jurisdiction's true real property tax rate by the
sum of the true real property tax rates for both jurisdictions.
Step 3.
Compute a composite index for each jurisdiction by averaging the
relative population index and the relative tax effort index for
the respective jurisdictions.
Step 4.
Multiply the composite index of each jurisdiction by the total
contributions to determine each jurisdiction's share of the fund.
Step 5.
Compute the net transfer by finding the difference between each
jurisdiction's contribution and its share of the distribution.
Each time the contribution and distribution are computed the Computation shall
be based on the assessment, population and true tax rate figures for the most recent
year for which all three such figures are available.
EXAMPLE
This example shows how such a computation woUld be made for the Fiscal Year 1983
(July 1, 1982-June 30, 1983), using the figures for 2he most current year for which
all three elements are available, 1980.
Contributions to Revenue and Economic Growth Sharing Fund Total Assessed Values
of Taxable Property (Jan. 1, 1980):
Charlottesville:
Albemarle :
$651,387,930
$1,229,123,396
These multipled by 37 cents per $100 of valuation, yield the following respective
contriubtions.:
Charlottesville : $2,410,135
Albemarle : $4,547,759
Total Contributions: $6,957,894
Distributions .(based On 1980 populations and true tax rates for 1980):
Step 1. Relative Population Indices:
Jurisdiction
Population
Charlottesville 39,916
Albemarle 55,783
Totals 95,699
Index
.5829
1.0000
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Step 2.
Relative Tax Effort Indices:
Jurisdiction True Tax Rate Index
Charlottesville .91510 .--~
Albemarle .49848 .3526
Totals 1.41368 1.0000
Step 3. Composite Indices:
Jurisdiction
Composit'e~Index
Charlottesville .5323
Albemarle .4677
Total 1.0000
Step 4. Actual Distribution:
Multiply Composite Indices by amount of Total Contributions
($6,957,894) to obtain the following distribution of the pooled
amount:
Jurisdiction
Charlottesville
Albemarle
Total
ComPosite Index
· 5323 x $6,957,894=
.4677 x $6,957,894=
Distribution
$3,703,687
$3,254,207
$6,957,894
The net transfer of funds which will result from this formula is the difference
between each jurisdiction's contribution and its distribution. The 1980 figures
yield the following net transfer from Albemarle to Charlottesville from this example:
Distribution:
Contribution:
Net Transfer:
City
$3,7o3,~87
-2,41o,135
+$1,293,552
County
$3,254,207
-4,547,7'59
-$1,2'93,552
As can be seen from this example, the contribution of each jurisdiction will
rise or fall as the tax base rises or falls, and the distribution will increase or
decrease as a combination of relative populations and relative tax rates.
E. Limitation on Distribution.
The contributions, distributions and the net transfer of funds for fiscal year 1983
shall be as shown in the example in subsection IID above. In all subsequent fiscal
years, the amount transferred to either jurisdiction for any year shall not exceed
one tenth of one percent (.1%) of the total locally assessed value of taxable real
estate used to compute the contribution of the other jurisdiction for that year.
F. Disputes About Computations.
In the event the city manager and county executive cannot agree with regard to
any computation made under this agreement or any figure to be used in such computa-
tions, they shall jointly select a person knowledgeable about government finances to
resolve the dispute.
SECTION III. ANNEXATION.
During the time this agreement is in effect, the City will not initiate any
annexation proceedings against the County, with the exception that the City may, if
it chooses, petition for annexation of that property presently owned by the City,
adjacent to its corporate limits, known as Pen Park. A plat of the Pen Park property
is attached to this agreement and marked as Exhibit A. If the City decides to
petition for annexation of Pen Park, the County agrees that it will not oppose that
annexation. The City further agrees that while the agreement is in effect it will
oppose any petitions filed by County residents or property owners seeking to have
territory annexed by the City.
SECTION IV. DISCRIMINATORY TAXES.
The County and City agree that, except for ad valorem property taxes, taxes on
restaurant meals, transient lodgings or admissions to public places or events and
other general or selective sales or excise taxes, neither jurisdiction will, during
the life of this agreement, impose or increase any tax that would affect residents
of the other jurisdiction if the other jurisdiction is not legally empowered to
enact that tax at the same rate and in the same manner. This provision is speci-
fically intended among other things to ensure that neither jurisdiction will enact
a so-called "commuter" or payroll tax unless the other jurisdiction has the legal
authority to do so.
SECTION V. CONSOLIDATION STUDY.
The City COuncil and Board of Supervisors agree that immediately after the
approval of this agreement pursuant to Section VII they will appoint a committee to
study the desirability of combining the governments of the two jurisdictions, or some
of the services presently provided by them, either in a consolidation as provided in
Va. Code Section 15.1-1131, or in some other manner _for which special legislation
might be requested.
The study committee will be comprised of two members of City Council, two members
of the Board of Supervisors, the city manager and the county executive. Each governing
body shall select the members to represent it on the committee. The city and county
attorneys will attend the meetings of the committee and advise it~ but will not be
voting members.
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
The committee will begin meeting as soon as possible after its appointment and
will make a preliminary report to the Board Of Supervisors and City Council within six
months after its first meeting to set forth the manner in which it thinks the study
should proceed, including a request for whatever staff or other assistance it anti-
cipates will be needed. The City Council and Board of.Supervisors agree to act on
the preliminary recommendations within thirty days after receiving them.
A full public report of the final conclusions and recommendations of the study
will be made to both governing bodies not later than January 30, 1983. However, the
Board of Supervisors and City Council may jointly agree to extend this time ~imit.
SECTION VI. DURATION OF AGREEMENT.
This agreement will remain in effect until:
A. The City and County are consolidated or otherwise combined into a single
political subdivision; or
B. The concept of independent cities presently existing in Virginia is altered
by state law in such a manner that real property in the City becomes a part of the
County's tax base; or
C. The City and County agree to cancel or change the agreement.
SECTION ~II.~ ~APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT.
This agreement shall be effective when it has been signed by both jurisdictions,
following the adoption of resolutions approved by majority votes of the City Council
and Board of Supervisors after publication of notices and public hearings, as
required by Va. Code Section 15.1-1167, and in the case of the County, following
approval by the qualified voters of the County in a referendum conducted pursuant
to state law.
SECTION VIII. SEVERABILITY.
The provisions of Sections II and III of this agreement are not considered
severable, and any determination by a court of competent jurisdiction that the revenue
and economic growth sharing plan or the City's agreement not to initiate or support
annexation petitions (except for Pen Park) is valid shall cause this entire agree-
ment to be null and void. Ail other provisions are considered severable, and a
determination that any of them is invalid shall not affect the remaining provisions.
SECTION IX. BREACH OF AGREEMENT.
If either party deems the other to have breached any provision, it shall so
notify the other in writing, and the party deemed to have breached the agreement
shall have 60 days to remedy the breach. In the event remedial action has not been
taken within the 60 day period, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to seek specific
performance of the agreement in the circuit court of the City or County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the City Council has authorized the Mayor to sign this
agreement by a resolution adopted , 1982, and the Board of Supervisors
has authorized its Chairman to sign it by resolution adopted , 1982, and
pursuant to the results of a referendum of the qualified voters conducted
, 1982.
Mr. Fisher said that over two years ago, City Council had approached the Board of
Supervisors saying that it wanted to begin negotiations on the question of transferring either
land or money from the County to the City or the City would proceed with annexation in court.
Discussions began with a negotiating team composed of Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta, Mr. Fisher,
the County Executive and the County Attorney. When Dr. Iachetta's term on the Board expired
at the end of 1981, he was replaced by Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. The negotiating team has
arrived at the agreement which is presented for public hearing tonight. The agreement that
the negotiating team presents to the other members of the Board of Supervisors and to the
public tonight is based on the following conclusions: (1) If this agreement is not consummated
the City of Charlottesville will probably take steps to annex parts of Albemarle County, its
people and its tax base. (2) The cost of annexation, both in money and in prolonged conflict,
may well exceed the cost of this agreement. (3) If this agreement is not consummated and
there is an annexation, ~that annexation will not end the matter since the Michie legislation
permits annexations at ten year intervals. (4) The protection of present and future tax
bases is of value to all county taxpayers in all future years. (5) There is no commitment to
consolidate the two areas, only that a study be conducted of the idea. (6) The limitation on
cost to the taxpayers is known and predictable in this agreement. (7) Disruption of school
systems is unlikely to benefit anyone.
Mr. Fisher said that the concept of sharing revenues is new to the state of Virginia. If
it is accomplished in the manner outlined in the agreement, there will be no more annexations
of Albemarle County by the City of Charlottesville. The growth which is occurring in the
County will generate a permanently enlarged tax base for the County. The City will share in
some of the revenues generated by the growth in the County but will have no responsibility
for services in the County. Citizens now living in the County will remain permanent citizens
of the County. Mr. Fisher said that the tax rate on real property in the County will rise by
ten cents on each one hundred dollars of assessed value in the first year of the agreement.
The cost of funding the agreement in future years is expected to decline slowly to eight cents
per one hundred dollars during the next ten year period and to continue to decline beyond that
time. Mr. Fisher said that while there is no commitment to combine services or to consolidate
the two localities into one locality, ~here is a commitment to begin~preliminary study to see
if there are any advantages to pursuing such a course. If the preliminary study shows that
there are advantages in either combining services or in consolidation, those recommendations
would have to be taken up at a later date and would be subject to public hearings; also, if
there is to be a consolidation, by a referendum in both localities.
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then explained the following chart:
CHARLOTTESVILLE
REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
FY 83 (EXAMPLE):
ALBEMARLE
CITY TAX BASE X .0037
FUND
CONTRIBUTION
= $2.4m
$3.7m =
DI STRI BUTION
$6.9m TOTAL
$6.9M X .53
$6.9m X .47
CONTRIBUTION
$4.5m =
DISTRIBUTION
= $3.2m
COUNTY TAX BASE X .0037
NET TRANSFER = $1.3m
Mr. Fisher explained that the City of Charlottesville would set aside an amount of money
equivalent to thirty-seven cents on its tax base which would be a total of 2.4 million dollars.
Albemarle County would set aside an amount of money equivalent to thirty-seven cents on its tax
base or 4.5 million dollars. This 6.9 million dollar fund would exist only as calculations on
a sheet of paper. There is no actual transfer of cash. The 6.9 million dollars would then be
distributed back to the localities as per the above chart. Fifty-three percent of the money
(3.7 million dollars) would go back to the City of Charlottesville. The remainder of the money
or forty-seven percent would be distributed back to the County for a total of 3.2 million
dollars. The County's loss is the same amount of money as the City's gain, or 1.3 million
dollars. If the Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement is approved by the voters in a
referendum, then on January 31, 1983, a check will be written by the County and sent to the
City for 1.3 million dollars. The contributions of the two localities will always be thirty-
seven cents on their respective tax bases. The number will not change since it is a negotiated
number. The City's tax base will change with time as will the County's. The tax bases will
show the effect of inflation, of growth, of demolitions, and in the event that there is a
serious depression or decline in property values, that will also be reflected in both tax
bases. Mr. Fisher said this is an indication of the wealth of the community adjusted for its
growth and for the inflation that is taking place. The distribution formula will change from
year to year.
CALCULATION OF COMPOSITE INDEX
FOR DISTRIBUTION
Calculate Relative Population Index:
Charlottesville: 40,000
40,000 + 56,000
Albemarle:
56,000
40,000 + 56,000
CalcUlate Relative Tax Effort IndeX:
'Charlottesville: .92
TOTAL
.92 + .50
= .42
.58
1.00
.65
Albemarle: .50 = .35
.92 + .50
TOTAL
1.00
Calculate Composite Index (Average of Above Two):
Charlottesville: .42 + .65
2
Albemarle:
· 58 + .35
= .53
.47
TOTAL 1.00
~February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said that in 1980 the City of Charlottesville made a proposal for revenue
sharing with the County that was quite different from this proposal being presented tonight.
The City felt that the revenues from a pooled amount of money should be distributed back to
the two localities on the basis of the localities' relative tax rate. Since the City's tax
rate was higher than the County's, the City would have received a bigger percentage of the
total amount of money.
Mr. Fisher said that in the summer of 1981 the County made a counterproposal to the City
for sharing sales tax revenues in which the share would have. been distributed not on the basis
of tax rates but on the basis of population. The County's population is larger than the City's
and that distribution would have favored Albemarle County. What has been done in this proposal
is to take the average of those two factors. Mr. Fisher said that in the example given above,
using approximate population figures for 1980, it gives Charlottesville forty-two percent and
Albemarle County fifty-eight percent. In No. 2 above, the relative tax effort index is calcu-
lated using not the published tax rates but the true tax rates developed by the State. The
State gives Charlottesville's true rate at about ninety-two cents and Albemarle's at about
fifty cents. Mr. Fisher indicated No. 3 above, the basis on which the revenue sharing agreemen~
is calculated, which gives Charlottesville fifty-three percent and Albemarle forty-seven per
cent. What this index does is to effectively say that the needs of the communities are based
partly on the number of people in the community and partly on how hard the community is taxing
itself to meet the needs of those people. These two factors are given equal weight. With
Albemarle County's population growing faster than Charlottesville's, the County's relative
population will continue to rise rapidly. It is also probable that as the area urbanizes, as
it has been doing for the last twenty years, Albemarle's percentage of the relative tax effort
will go up in relation to the City's. This means that in future years Albemarle County's
share of the distribution can be expected to increase slowly with time. The negotiating team
expects it to exceed fifty percent within a few years and climb gradually toward sixty percent
over the next decade. Mr. Fisher said he would now turn the meeting over to the County
Executive to explain how the negotiating team made its comparisons of numbers, the numbers on
which the decision to recommend this agreement was made.
Mr. Agnor said that the~cost estimates projected for the proposed agreement and for the
two potential annexation areas include a number of assumptions made by the County's staff and
its consultants. These estimates were made using historical data such as County financial
records and records of annexation cases in this community and other areas of the state. The
negotiated agreement formula includes such things as the locally assessed real estate tax base,
the population and the true tax rate on real property. The tax base was examined for
trends, expansion from growth and expansion of value from the market assessment process. The
projected tax base data includes an annual growth factor from new construction of 2.2 percent
and an annual inflationary factor of eight percent for the County. The population estimates
were based upon projections of the State Department of Planning but were adjusted slightly by
the County Planning staff to reflect recommendations in the County's Comprehensive Plan and
also in the City's plan. The County's population is projected to increase two percent per
year while the City's population is projected to decline over the ten year period by about
six tenths of one percent.
Mr. Agnor said the third factor in this negotiated formula, the real estate tax rate, was
~lso.~examined from historical information and adjusted incrementally to reflect the dependency
of the County and City to finance increases in annual budget operations. Both the City and the
County's tax rate are projected to increase at a cost of one cent per year over the ten year
period of time on which projections were made.
Mr. Agnor said that two potential annexation areas were examined. One, a thirty-two squar~
mile area, and two, an area of approximately ten square miles. These areas were examined by
the County's staff and its consultants as to the impact annexation would have on the County's
operational budget should an annexation be successful. The loss of revenues was estimated
to be greater than the reduction of expenditures. Historically, annexations throughout Virgini~
have been designed to acquire for the city or the town, major areas of industrial and commercial
tax revenues. The County's operational cost did not diminish proportionately to the revenue
losses because the major portion of the County's annual budget is for operation of the school
system. In the ten square mile area, revenues were estimated to decline as a result of
annexation by sixteen percent while expenditures would decline only five percent. In the
thirty-two square mile area, revenues were estimated to reduce by forty-six percent while
expenditures would reduce by only nineteen percent. Mr. Agnor said that if an annexation suit
were successful, the reduced tax base in the County would have to finance all expenditure needs
Tax rate adjustments would increase almost annually, because the smaller revenue base would
not increase as rapidly as the expenditure side of the budget. Mr. Agnor said that the
historical studies made, the estimates of budgetary changes, as well as the projections for
a ten year span of time were prepared using the knowledge and experience of the County staff
and the knowledge and experience of the consultants who were employed to study these statistics
H~th~n~t~r~ed~the meeting over to Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom said that if this negotiated agreement is accepted by the Board of Supervisol
and the County citizens, it will be the first time in more than two hundred years that County
boundaries will be permanent. It is the belief of the negotiating team that this stability
will benefit the citizens of the County. Mr. Lindstrom said that it is almost impossible to
know what a city will request and receive from an annexation court. The City of Charlottesvill~
has identified on numerous occasions two particular areas of interest. The smaller area
contains approximately ten square miles and was proposed by the City in its November 1980
proposal to be ceded to the City as a settlement of differences under the Michie legislation.
The second area contains approximately thirty-two square miles and encompasses almost all of
the residential areas that surround the City in the urban/suburban area of the County.
Mr. Lindstrom said the ten square mile area takes in most of the commercial properties
to the north of the City. It also takes in Carrsbrook, Ivy Farms, Colthurst, Farmington,
Flordon, Ednam Forest, Bellaire, then to the south of the City past Lake Reynovia, to Monticell¢
on the east, Key West on the northeast and then back northward to take in Northfields and
Westmoreland Subdivisions. Mr. Lindstrom said that although the negotiating team does not
concede that these areas could be won by the City, the team recognizes that the results of
an annexation suit are decided by judges who do not live in the area and have little familiarit
with this area. The negotiating team believes that the successful annexation of any part of
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
the County by the City, in addition to the political, financial and psychological cost of
defending a major law suit, will have two additional impacts. The first of these impacts
would be on the County citizens who would be transferred against their will into the City.
It was because of a desire to avoid transferring these persons that revenue sharing was
approached as a solution to the problem. There are also other ramifications~when land is
annexed. There would definitely be a need for redistricting of the County's magisterial
districts and a need for new elections. This would obviously have an impact on the school
system by redistricting of school boundaries.
Mr. Lindstrom said that the second major impac~ would be on the citizens remaining in the
County. It is a mistake to assume that a loss of land and people ~hrough annexation would not
impose a significant cost on the citizens remaining in the County. Mr. Lindstrom said that the
County's staff and consultants had been asked to make an objective estimate for'a ten year
period of the comparative cost of the settlement that is being suggested tonight as compared
to the annexation of the ten square mile area and also the cost if the County were to lose the
thirty-two square mile area that the City has identified. In calculating these costs, the
money that the County might expect to receive during the first five years after a court-ordered
annexation from the City has been taken into consideration.
tOTAL NET COSTS
(In Millions of Dollars)
COMPARISON OF NET COSTS TO COUNTY
REVENUE SHARING VS. ANNEXATION
82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90
REVENUE SHARING PROPOSAL $1.29
ANNEXATION:
10 Square Mile Area $0.02
32 Square Mile Area $2.41
REVENUE SHARING PROPOSAL
ANNEXATION: 10 Square Mile Area
32 Square Mile Area
90-91
$1.45 $1.44 $1.61 $1.71 $ 1.89 $ 2.01 $ 2.22
$0.31 $0.63 $0.96 $1.33 $ 5.30 $ 5.73 $ 6.19
$3.21 $4.07 $5.00 $6.01 $14.65 $15.83 $17.09
91-92
Total Ten Years
$ 2.36 $ 2.61 $ 18.59
$ 6.68 $ 7.22 $ 34.37
$18.46 $19.94 $106.67
ESTIMATED INCREASES IN REAL ESTATE TAX RATE
82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88
Po Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal
To Offset Annexation Loses: 10 Square Mile Area
32 Square Mile Area
To Finance Revenue Sharing Proposal
To Offset Annexation Loses: 10 Square Mile Area
32 Square Mile Area
10¢ 10¢ 10¢ 9¢ 9¢ 9¢
-0- 2¢ 4¢ 6¢ 7¢ 27¢
28¢ 34¢ 40¢ 46¢ 51¢ $1.16
88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92
Ten Year AveragE
9¢ 9¢ 8¢ 8¢ 9.1¢
27¢ 27¢ 27¢ 27¢ 15.4¢
$1.16 $1.16 $1.16 $1.16 77.9¢
Mr. Lindstrom brought everyone's attention to the 87-88 Fiscal Year which would be the
fifth year after a court-ordered annexation of land when the cost to the-County increases
tremendously. These are costs which would have to be compensated for through the tax rate.
The County's staff and consultants expect the Revenue Sharing proposal for ten years to cost
18.59 million dollars. It is projected that if the County did not settle with the City, but
lost the ten square mile annexation area in court, that the aggregate cost for ten years would
be 34.37 million dollars. Finally, the cost to the County if the thirty-two square mile area
were lost through annexation would be 106.67 million dollars. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said that the negotiating team had a great deal of trepidation about the
size of some of the projections. However, they are based upon an objective analysis and the
team was concerned that if it did not show the public what the City might possibly win in an
annexation court, the public might believe the Board was trying to pull the wool over its eyes
and the public relying on those figures would vote against the Revenue Sharing proposal. These
figures are designed to give the public the best estimates of what the City might ask for and
what they might possibly win in court.
Mr. Lindstrom said the next portion of the chart explains what might happen in terms of
the tax rate. He emphasized that the numbers shown are not cumulative numbers. In the first
year there would be a ten cent tax increase to finance the revenue sharing proposal. There
would never be another tax rate increase added to finance this proposal above the ten cent
increase. Actually, the rate will be reduced slightly over the terms of the agreement.
However, to offset revenues lost through either the ten square mile area or the thirty-two
square mile area, it would cause a great increase in the tax rate particularly at the end of
the five year compensation period.
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to emphasize that although the formula is fluid, with
the money going either to the City or the County, the County's team insisted and the City's
team agreed to accept a ten cent limit on the revenue sharing proposal. What this means is
that the County would never have to add more than ten cents to the tax rate to fund the
revenue sharing proposal regardless of what the calculations under the formula might indicate.
Mr. Lindstrom then proceeded to explain the cost to real estate property owners under
both a revenue sharing agreement or an annexation as set out in the following chart:
ESTIMATED COSTS TO REAL ESTATE PROPERTY OWNERS (In Dollars)
REVENUE SHARING VS. ANNEXATION
82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87
87-88 88-89 89-90
PROPERTY VALUE $40,000
CoSts to Ail ProPerty Owners:
Revenue Sharing Proposal
Costs to Property Owners
Outside Annexed Area:
10 Square Mile Area
32 Square Mile Area
Costs To Ail Property Owners
Revenue Sharing Proposal
Costs to Property Owners
Outside Annexed Area:
10 Square Mile Area
32 Square Mile Area
$ 40 $ 40 $ 40 $ 36 $ 36 $
$ 0 $ 8
$ 112 $ 136
90-91 91-92
$ 16 $ 24 $ 28
$ 160 $ 184 $ 204
Total Ten Years
$ 32 $ 3'2 $ 364
$ 108 $ 108 $ 616
$ 464 $ 464 $3,116
36 $ 36 $ 36
$ 108 $ 108 $ 108
$ 464 $ 464 $ 464
82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90
PROPERTY VALUE $100,000
Costs To Ail Property Owners:
Revenue Sharing Proposal
Costs To Property Owners
Outside Annexed Area:
10 Square Mile Area
32 Square Mile Area
Costs To Ail Property Owners:
Revenue Sharing Proposal
Costs To Property Owners
Outside Annexed Area:
10 Square Mile Area
32 Square Mile Area
$ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 90 $ 90 $ 90 $ 90 $ 90
$ 0 $ 20 $ 40 $ 60 $ 70 $ 270 $ 270 $ 270
$ 280 $ 340 $ 400 $ 460 $ 510 $1,160 $1,160 $1,160
90-91 91-92
Total Ten Years
$ 80 $ 80 $ 910
$ 270 $ 270 $1,540
$1,160 $1,160 $7,790
Mr. Lindstrom said that the negotiating team recommends this settlement to the Board of
Supervisors and the citizens of Albemarle County believing that it is the best settlement
achievable. A number of people have asked why the County must pay the City anything. Mr.
Lindstrom said the alternative to this revenue sharing agreement is not the status quo. The
Michie legislation makes it very clear what will happen. This agreement is based upon the
best, most objective estimates of the cost of the alternatives and of the cost of litigation.
Mr. Lindstrom says he thinks it is very appropriate that the citizens of the County make the
final decision on this subject. He personally feels that it is the best recommendation that
the team could make. If there were a cheaper alternative, this would not be the recommendation.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this is a solution which offers the County the opportunity to
permanently put to rest one of the most persistent threats to the welfare of the County's
citizens at a reasonable and predictable cost.
At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. The first to speak was Mr. John
from Earlysville who asked what is meant by the true tax rate. Mr. Fisher said this is a
recognition that the appraised value of property is not necessarily its market value. The
County sets the tax rate on real property at sixty-seven cents per $100 and that tax rate
generates a certain number of dollars in revenues. As an example, if a piece of property were
appraised at $40,000, it woUld generate a certain amount of money at 67$ per $100 of assessed
value. However, if that piece of property sold for $50,000, if the County had appraised the
property for $50,000 instead of $40,000, the tax rate could have been lowered to generate the
same amount of revenue. The State of Virginia, studies each locality each year and publishes
a true tax rate whiCh is the rate that could have been charged if all prqperty in the-S~a-t~/~c~!
had been appraised at its market value. Mr. Fisher said it is not a perfect number, but it
is a better number than just using published tax rates. In this agreement, that number was
used so that neither locality could dicker with the appraised values.
?l
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Opal David said she would like to hear more about how the land use tax rate is
affected by this agreement. Specifically, (a) What percentage of land in the County is subject
to the land use tax rate? (b) Was the fair market value of that land used in arriving at the
value of the total county tax base, or was the lower assessed value on which the owners pay
the land use tax rate used? and (c) If the fair market value of that land was used in arriving
at the value of the county tax base, how does this affect the future tax rates of both the
people eligible for the land use rate and those who are not eligible? Mr. Fisher said that
nearly sixty percent of the total land area of Albemarle County is in one form or another of
this deferred taxation. The deferred tax applies only to the land and it is not for any
structures. The ordinance was designed to permit land to continue to be used for agricultural
and forestry uses. The tax base that is used in the calculations in this revenue sharing
agreement is the full fair market value of locally assessed property which means that a farm
under land use tax is considered at its fair market value and not at its use value. Mr. Fisher
said that the land use tax is one of three deferred tax programs in the County. There is also
a tax exemption for the elderly and the handicapped. The City did not want the amount of the
tax base going in the formula to depend on whether there was or was not a land use tax ordinanc~
or whether the County exempted elderly or the handicapped. So both localities agreed to use
the full fair market value of locally assessed real property. The real question is what
happens to the person who owns property and the answer is very simple. If this agreement is
approved, every person paying taxes will pay an amount equivalent to a ten cent tax increase
whether or not the land is taxed on its land use value or its fair market value. Mrs. David
asked if she were not right in saying that landowners who are not eligible for land use tax
are in effect carrying a heavier part of the tax burden in the County. Mr. Fisher said it
is clear that persons owning residential, commercial and industrial property pay taxes assessed
at the full fair market value of the property while approximately sixty percent of the owners
of land in the County are not paying taxes on the full fair market value, but on a lower
assessment.
An unidentified man said Mr. Lindstrom had earlier noted that the tax base would not
increase more than ten cents to fund this agreement. He asked if the ten cents will generate
enough revenue to cover the cost of the agreement and if not, where the money would come from.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had not stated that the "tax base" would not increase but that the
"tax rate" would not increase more than ten cents. If that were not enough money to cover
the cost of the agreement, the County would not pay any more than what the ten cents on the
tax rate would generate. In other words, the County would pay whichever is less. If the
formula generated less than ten cents on the tax rate, that is what the County would pay~
If the ten cents on the tax rate was less than what the formula would require, the County
would pay the ten cents on the tax rate.
The gentleman also asked a question relating to the chart entitled "Estimated Cost of
Real Estate Property Owners". Under a property valued at $100,000 where it shows $910 as
the total cost of the revenue sharing proposal in a ten year period of time, he asked if any
increase in assessment had been taken into consideration to arrive at that $910. Mr. Lindstrom
~aid no. The figures were designed to show what the cost of the agreement itself would be.
Any increase in assessment would mean that the ten cents would generate more because there
would be more $100 worth of value in the pot. Mr. Fisher said if there is inflation, the
$910 would increase; if there were deflation, it would decrease. The gentleman said he felt
the total figures used on this chart are a little misleading. There is another factor which
he did not think had been taken into consideration and that is the cost of interest on money.
The cost of the revenue sharing package is most heavily set up in the first five years against
an annexation. But if an interest rate is compounded on those first five years, the difference
in costs between the revenue sharing package and the cost of a ten square mile annexation
package is a greater amount of money. Mr. Fisher said he did not disagree that the value of
money is critical and should be considered. Mr. Lindstrom said this had been discussed. The
negotiating team recognized that one of the factors that was not built into the cost of an
annexation proceeding was the cost of litigation. That would be a substantial cost which
would to some extent offset the decrease shown after the first five years of the revenue
sharing proposal.
Mr. Henley said he would like. to have some equal time to speak. The Board last week
appropriated about $183,000 and this money went toward working on the revenue sharing proposal.
Mr. Henley said he believes that all of the citizens realize that the Board is not sitting
back and letting the City threaten to annex the County and not doing anything about it. He
also does not believe the City is just sitting back and not doing anything because there is
always a possiblity that this revenue sharing proposal~will not pass. So the City has already
spent money and the County has already spent money on revenue sharing and he cannot see how
an annexation would cost as much as some people are saying it would cost.
Next to speak was Mr. Harold Pillar who asked if the Michie legislation has ever been
tried in the Supreme Court or a State court to see if it is legal. Mr. Fisher said it is
posed for consideration by the State Supreme Court at the present time, but he does know
when the case will be heard. Mr. Pillar said he felt that the revenue sharing proposal might
be a little premature until after the results of that case are known. Mr. Fisher said he
did not know what the Supreme Court would do, but there is a case pending and there is some
likelihood that it could be heard before the referendum. Mr. St. John said he felt it was a
mistake to say that the case pending in the Virginia Supreme Court is going to test the legalit
of the annexation laws. The annexation laws were not changed that much by the Michie legislati
and that is not what is being appealed. Mr. St. John said he did not think there is the
slightest chance the Supreme Court is going to say that the laws giving the City the power
to annex are illegal since they are the same laws that have already been declared legal for
years by the Supreme Court. Also, he did want to contradict the Chairman but he did not
believe there is the slightest chance that the case will be heard before the date set for
the proposed referendum.
Mr. Pillar said he did not see any advantage to the people living in the County sharing
revenue with the City unless they live right in the area that would possibly be annexed. The
people who live in the more remote areas of the County certainly have questions about why the
Board does not just let the City go ahead and annex that area. Mr. Lindstrom said the point
of the charts is to point out that the number shown for the cost to property owners outside
of the annexed area after an annexation of either the ten square mile area or the thirty-two
n
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
square mile area is the amount that would have to be paid by the people who are left in the
County after an annexation occUrs. Mr. Pillar asked what advantage it is to live in the
County over the City. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes that people have chosen where they
want to live and for the Board to just arbitrarily move them without giving them a chance to
vote on the question about where they want to live is somewhat unfair. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Pill
had certainly not heard the pleas that the Board has heard from some of the citizens who live
in the suburban area who are saying "don't throw us to the wolves". Mr. Lindstrom asked if
Mr. Pillar understood the figures to show that even if he lived on the Greene County border
and was no where near the area that might be annexed, that if the area were annexed there is
the poSsibility of his paying higher taxes just because the' County would not have as much
revenue coming in.
Mr. Henley said the Board had a study made of six other counties and what happened to
their tax rates after an annexation. He personally could hardly see any significant difference
in the tax rate. In fact, in some of the counties, the rate went down. He said he feels you
can take figures and do most anything you want to with them.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think it was the Board's purpose to argue with each other
here, but he would like to respond that the annexation that occurred in Harrisonburg was of a
substantially greater amount of land than that referred to in these charts. The negotiating
team was going on the new legislation and what seems to be a tendency by the court to grant
greater areas of land than they have in the past. Mr. Fisher said ten square miles Would
double the size of the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Lindstrom said the annexation in Harrisonb'
was of a fourteen square mile area. He believes.that it was almost the same amount of land
as what Harrisonburg had requested in its petition to the court.
Mr. Don Reid from the Rivanna District asked if the negotiating team believes that if
this agreement is not consummated that an annexation proceeding will take place. Mr. Fisher
said if this agreement is not 'consummated, the City will almost certainly take steps to annex
portions of Albemarle County, its people and its tax base. Mr. Reid asked if that statement'
meant that the agreement is not subject to modification. Mr. Fisher said if the team had
not spent five months negotiating with the City, he believes the County would be in court
right now. He does not believe the City of Charlottesville is willing for the County to reopen
negotiations and begin all over again. Mr. Reid said one 'of the reasons he is present tonight
is because he had read in the Daily Progress that the agreement is still subject to changes,
yet Mr. Fisher's statement indicates that that is not true. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not
believe the Board has ever been invited to write editorials for the Daily Progress. Mr. Re±d
said that if it is not possible to make changes in the agreement, then he will not be able
to support the proposed agreement. Mr. Reid said he believes the City can get out of this
agreement sometime in the future by paying net revenue to the County because the City is not
holding a referendum on the agreement. He asked if the City could pay a net return to the
County and thereby void the agreement. Mr. St. John said the Virginia Constitution treats a
city differently from a county. A county cannot incur an obligation to pay money beyond the
current fiscal year without holding a referendum and without such obligation being approved
by the voters. A city can incur that kind of obligat±on without a referendum of the voters.
This contract says on its face that it is perpetual except that both parties can mutually
agree to terminate the agreement under certain conditions. Except for that, the City cannot
get out of the agreement anymore than the County can get out of it once it is entered into.
Mr. Reid said that unless Albemarle County residents can unilaterally vote themselves out of
the revenue sharing agreement, then he will vote against the referendum. 'He personally cannot
agree to not being able to get out of something that might become distasteful in the future.
He said if there is no possibility of making changes in this proposal, he would urge everyone
to vote against the proposal.
Ms. Elizabeth Samuels, representing the Charlottesville-Albemarle League of Women Voters,
was present. She said the League would like to commend the City and the County for their
successful effort to reach a negotiated agreement as an alternative to a derisive and costly
annexation confrontation. Now that an agreement is before the public it is essential that
the substance and implications of the recommended agreement be fully and accurately understood.
Although the League is not in a position to support the agreement until it has been more
thoroughly studied by League~members, the League thinks that most reasonable people will
accept the fact that the elected representatives would not have put themselves through this
time-consuming and physically exhausting exercise unless they were convinced of its necessity
and usefulness. The League thinks that every citizen has an obligation to evaluate the proposal
not just in personal short-range terms, but in the Context of realistic ~alternatives~and the
long-range economic health and stability of the community.
Mr. Lynn Coffman said he would like to register his strong opposition to the proposed
revenue sharing proposal in the belief that it is not in the best interest of Albemarle County
or of Virginia. Mr. Coffman said it has been suggested that there will be some change in City
County relations whether by agreement or by the courts. He does not necessarilY feel that is
the whole picture. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution requires that no state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen
of the United States nor shall any state depriYe any person of life, liberty or property withou~
due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
law. He thinks that the Michie legislation is in violation of the equal~protection of the law
requirement since it provides full annexation immunity to citizens of certain urban counties in
Virginia, denies full annexation immunity to citizens of Albemarle and twenty-six other non-
urban counties in Virginia. Mr. Coffman said he would strongly urge the citizens of Albemarle
County to defeat this dishonorable, blackmailing revenue sharing scheme and urged the Board of
Supervisors to have the matter brought before the Federal court where it can be examined for
compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution~
Next to speak was Mr. J. Harvey Bailey Who said that he was just exactly the type'~of
citizen the City is looking for. He has no children to educate, he lives on a private road
that will not have to be served by trash removal: he just will be no expense to the C'ity at
all, however his tax rate will not reflect that fact. Mr. Bailey Said County citizens are
being offered a device which Will save the County from the hazards and costs of an annexation
suit. For his part, however, before he reaches an intelligent conclusion as to whether he
should accept or reject the offer, he needs more data and expression of opinion from others as
to the probable cost the County may be forced to pay over an indefinite time for this immunity.
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Also Section 6 of the agreement defines three circumstances by which the agreement may be
terminated. One of these is by mutual agreement. There is no perpetual protection from annex-
ation suggested. If the City and County were to dissolve the agreement, immunity from annex-
ation would dissolve with it. If the County at some future date concludes that operation of
the agreement is contrary to its interests, and if the County could persuade the City to accept
this solution, the County would be in the same position it now occupies less whatever sums of
money have been paid out during the intervening years.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to comment to a couple of the statements made about the
perpetual nature of the agreement. He said there is absolutely no question that if any land is
annexed or transferred to the City, that land will be lost in perpetuity and any revenues that
would have been generated by that land will also be lost in perpetuity.
Mr. Charles T. Lebo was present to speak as president of the Blue Ridge Home Builders
Association. He placed on file for the record a copy of a resolution adopted by the Associatio~
at its Board meeting held on February 10, 1982.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association,
in furthering its long advocated position of encouraging actions by local government
which would through cooperative efforts, stabilize the local economy and thereby
lower the cost of home ownership, does commend the City/County negotiating team for
assuming a leadership roll in the Commonwealth of Virginia by their development of
the proposed Revenue Sharing plan as an alternative to annexation, and, further
resolved that Albemarle County voters are urged to support the proposal in the
scheduled May referendum as an alternative much preferable to the otherwise
inevitable annexation suit.
Mrs. Grace Carpenter, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Chamber of Commerce, was
present. She noted that the Chamber in the fall of 1980 had sponsored the development of a
citizen's committee on City/County cooperation, known as the Five C's Committee. ~he idea of
the committee was to reach a negotiated settlement of annexation issues facing Charlottesville
and Albemarle County. She noted that the committee applauds the efforts of the negotiating
team and emphasized their support of a negotiated settlement. She said that they encourage and
promote a sensible and reasonable culmination of this revenue sharing agreement.
Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres was present to speak as the local coordinator for the Piedmont
Environmental Council. She complimented the City/County negotiating team on the process of
negotiations that has reached this agreement stating that it demonstrates a spirit of compromis
and cooperation instead of a spirit of confrontation and division that a court battle would
cause. She also said the Council feels that this agreement promotes good land use planning
as suggested in the Comprehensive Plan. They also feel the agreement will end disruptive
boundary changes and give the community a future of cooperation and harmony.
Mr. Donald Holden, a resident of Montvue, said he would like to commend the negotiating
team on the agreement. He feels that it is a reasonable solution and he has spoken to a
number of people who also support the agreement. He just wanted to say that he thinks the
team has done a good job.
Mr. John Carter said he was concerned about the perpetual aspect of the agreement. He
wondered how certain items in the agreement would be interpreted fifty to one hundred years
from now. He also felt that paying the money to the City would be taxation without repre-
sentation.
Mr. Harold Pillar said the results of the negotiating team's work are questionable. There
are several things which have not been taken into account. One of these is the interest rate.
He also felt that payment of money under this agreement would be taxation without representatio~
Mr. Leigh Middleditch, Chairman of the Citizens' Committee on City/County Cooperation, was
present. He said the committee was composed of thirty people representing a cross section of
City/County persons. He said that this group is very pleased that a negotiated settlement has
been reached. It is a tribute to the people who were on the negotiating teams. His group
recognized from the beginning that there would be a tax impact on the County if a negotiated
settlement were reached, but it was their view that if that agreement was deemed by the negoti-
ating team to be fair, then they were willing not only to accept the team's view of the
equitable nature, but to support that decision.
Mr. Forbes Reback said he felt that it was in the interest of everyone in the County to
come to these meetings and participate in these discussions.
With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fish~
said he would like to thank all of the persons who had come out and attended this meeting on
a night when the weather was so bad.
Miss Nash said in the beginning she had wanted to fight annexation but that is a big
gamble. She had decided that if there were an agreement which was negotiated and which was
reasonable in itself as compared to an annexation law suit, that there should be an agreement
and she will support the agreement proposed.
Mrs. Cooke said she sat in on the latter part of the negotiations as an observer and
she feels that the best agreement was reached that could be reached between the City and the
County. She will vote to support the agreement as far as presenting it to the voters of'
Albemarle County for their consideration. She would urge all the people in Albemarle County
to thoroughly educate themselves on the agreement as well as the possible ramifications of
annexation. Then, when the citizens go to the polls to vote, vote their conviction.
Mr. Butler said he plans to support the agreement. He said that during the last several
years in which he worked as an extension agent, he had a chance to attend sessions that de~alt
with governmental concerns relating to. annexation and agreements. These sessions proved that
court battles over annexation were an activity that did not serve any particular governmental
purpose. It was an exercise that did not solve the annexation problems for cities or counties.
After becoming a member of this Board and having an opportunity to observe the process by which
the negotiating teams for the City and County worked through their problems in trying to avoid
an annexation suit, he feels that a good agreement was reached although it does not contain all
of the things which would satisfy him. Mr. Butler said that thinking about the whole community
i!he will have to support the agreement as presented tonight.
February 17, 1952 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Henley said he had been willing from the beginning to negotiate~but he has never felt
that the County should negotiate revenue sharing. He feels that if there are going to be two
separate governments, they should develop their own tax bases. He does not feel that one
locality should make a gift to the other just so the~other locality can be viable. The main
problem he has with the revenue sharing agreement is that there were too many assumptions made.
The Board does not know what.the State or the Federal government is going to do. They may
make it almost impossible to live with the agreement. Also, he does not see any incentive
in this agreement to control the cost of government. As the tax rate increases, contributions
decrease. So it is an incentive for both localities to increase the cost of government.
Also the Board has been presenting only two alternatives to the people, annexation or revenue
sharing. There is a third alternative, the right of the County to sue the City for partial
immunity. Nobody has mentioned this and he feels the people need to know this if they are
to make a decision on which way they want to vote. Even the City admits that an annexation
case would be in court for two or three years and every year that the case would be in court
the County would not have to pay the 1.3 million dollars. Mr. Henley said that he feels the
County should be run just like a business and it is not good business to make a gift like
this to the City. Also, the City does not have to show a need for the money. Ail they have
to do is say they are going to annex. The City has a triple A credit rating and the County
has a double A credit rating just because of annexation. Mr. Henley said he does not personall
plan to support the proposed agreement, but he will support sending it to a referendum of
the County voters.
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes there are rational, logical and reasonable answers to
every question that has been raised tonight about the agreement. He believes it is a sound
agreement and the best of a set of very bad alternatives. For that reason, he offered
motion that the Board itself endorse the Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement that was
negotiated and concluded on January 27, 1982. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the motion could include that the agreement be adopted to present
to the voters of Albemarle County for their approval in a referendum. Mr. Lindstrom said
that his motion was that the Board of Supervisors setting in office tonight endorse the
agreement. Although he feels the agreement must be sent to the public for a referendum, he
does not condition his support of the agreement on what happens in that referendum and that
is not his motion. He said he feels that the Board members need to state how they feel
about the agreement. He respects Mr. Henley's position since it is perfectly clear. However,
he believes that the indi'vidual Board members, if they support the agreement, should support
it now, and if they disagree with the agreement, should disagree now. Mrs. Cooke said she
would like to restate what she had said earlier that while setting in on the latter stages
of the negotiations, she felt the agreement that was reached was the very best agreement
that could be reached by the City and the County, however her support of the agreement is to
offer it ~to the people of the County for their approval. Mr. Lindstrom said he would just
like to state that that was not the motion. He will make a separate motion to send the
agreement to the public for a referendum.
Miss Nash called for the question.
recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the followin
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. Henley.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County finds it advisable
to enter into an Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of
Charlottesville that provides for the sharing of Albemarle County's present and
future tax bases;
BE IT.RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1. It is hereby determined that it is advisable for Albemarle County to
enter into an Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottes-
ville that provides for the sharing of Albemarle County's present and future tax
bases, the terms of which agreement are set forth in a document entitled
"Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement," attached hereto as Exhibit A and
made a part of this resolution.
2. The Circuit Court of Albemarle County, or the Judge thereof, is hereby
requested to order an election upon the question of Albemarle County's entering
into such agreement, such election preferably to be held on May 18, 1982.
3. The Clerk of the Board is hereby authorized and directed to cause a
certified copy of this resolution to be presented to the Circuit Court of Albemarle
County.
4. This'resolution shall take effect immediately.
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to authorize the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
to sign the Annexation and Revenue Sharing Agreement as proposed and endorsed by this Board
of Supervisors this evening; the agreement dated January 27, 1982. The motion was seconded
by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Henley. (Mr. Henley said he would vote aye as a means of getting the proposal to
referendum, but he did not want to vote aye and indicate that he was in favor of the agreement.
February 17, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 3. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like
to nominate for the at-large position on the Albemarle County Planning Commission, Mr. Carl V.
Williams, with said term to take effect immediately and expire on December 31, 1983. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mrs. Cooke.
Agenda Item No. 4. Adjournment. At 10:25 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.
~l~a±rman