Loading...
2002-04-17April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 17, 2002, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins, Mr. Dennis S. Rooker and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Ms. Diane LaSauce was present to speak as a County citizen and as a representative of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (RSWA) Citizens Advisory Committee (She handed in a statement which is summarized herein. A copy of the full statement is on file in the Clerks Office). She said the RSWA has = reduced revenue projections for 2003 and has proposed cutbacks on services in a number of areas, namely, reducing service hours at the McIntire Road Recycling Center, including eliminating Sundays altogether, and discontinuing the collection of glass, plastic, phone books and textiles. A survey taken in 1998 showed that weekends are the busiest time at the Center with the per hour usage on non-rainy Sundays at 75 vehicles per hour, almost 25 percent higher than on weekdays. Second, the RWSA has proposed cutting the Household Hazardous Waste days from two per year to one per year. At the 2001 Fall Hazardous Waste Drop-off residents disposed of a total of sixty-one 55-gallon drums of household hazardous waste. Finally, RSWA proposed offsetting costs of the current recycling services by charging recyclers a $1.00 fee at the McIntire Center. Since recyclers are currently going to a lot of trouble to be environmentally responsible citizens, can they be asked to pay for that privilege? Ms. LaSauce said the Citizens Advisory Committee thinks the many services provided by RSWA are critical to the community. No one wants Central Virginia to become a dumping ground for materials currently managed by the Authority. The CAC hopes that both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville will continue to fund their share of these services. Ms. Thomas said this is a matter that can be discussed while the Board is working on the budget. Mr. Dorrier said he thought this was something staff was to look at and make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Tucker said it was sent to the Board members by E-mail. Mr. Rooker asked if there is a recommendation. Mr. Tucker said no. He thinks staff sent an A@ analysis to the Board earlier in the week by E-mail asking for comments from Board members regarding these changes. He said the recommendations were released before any review by the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board. Now that the RSWA Board has looked at the recommendations, he thinks the City and the County will probably reinstate most of these items. Some hours of operation may need to be changed. He does not support the dollar fee, and he has talked to the City Manager and they feel some changes can be made. Ms. Thomas said this is an item that would usually be discussed during budget work sessions, but she asked if anyone had comments to make at this time. Mr. Martin said he would rather wait until after the Board had received a report to discuss this item. Mr. Rooker said the question will be whether the Board has to authorize any additional money. Mr. Tucker said he had indicated in his E-mail that the County may have to wait until the end of year 2002 or the beginning of the next calendar year to see what revenues are available. There will probably be some savings in expenditures by the RSWA, and an adjustment can be made at that time. The RSWA budget will be approved, and they will be asked to look for savings, thus the County will be able to do a reduced transfer to the RSWA. He does not see this as a major problem. Ms. Thomas said there is still the Blue Bag Program for households in the County, but is it still true that all of the trash haulers in the County are required to offer recycling. Mr. Tucker said there is an ordinance in the Code which makes that requirement. Mr. Rooker said he would not want to see the Household Hazardous Waste days cut. He thinks that could have a significant environmental effect on the area. Mr. Dorrier said a 1998 survey was mentioned by Ms. LaSauce. He asked if the recent Citizens Survey by the County included the same type of questions as the 1998 survey. Mr. Tucker said yes. Ms. A@ Thomas said the 1998 survey went out with water/sewer bills, so it had a very high rate of return. _______________ April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve Items 5.1 and 5.2 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept Item 5.3 for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. __________ Item 5.1. SP-2001-065. Mosby Mountain Stream Crossing (Sign #82). Request to allow earthen fill and culvert crossing in the floodplain. Znd R1 & FH. TM90,P1B. Loc on Rt. 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) across from Southwood Estates Mobile Home Park. Samuel Miller Dist. By the recorded vote set out above, and for some unspecified reason, this item was removed from the agenda. __________ Item 5.2. Resolution to accept offers to sell conservation easements under the ACE Program. It was noted in the staffs report that ACE regulations require each landowner who desires to sell a = conservation easement to submit a written offer to the County to sell the easement for a fixed price, subject to the terms and conditions contained in a proposed deed of easement negotiated by the parties. The regulations also require that if the Board accepts the offer it must do so in writing and only after an action by the Board authorizing acceptance. The Board is not required to accept an offer to sell a conservation easement. Either the Albemarle County Public Recreational Facilities Authority ("PRFA") or the Virginia Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") will be co-holders of the easements. The County has received offers to sell conservation easements for the following properties: Owner(s) Tax Map-Parcel Numbers Price Co-holder Henley 40-22, 40-29 $282,000 PRFA Lawson 37-11, 37-11B $300,000 PRFA Powell 87-64, 99-59, 99-60A $400,000 VOF ($150,000 paid by County/$250,000 paid by VOF) Young 35-26, 35-26B, 35-26C, 35-32A, 35-43 $404,200 VOF With one exception (Lawson), the terms and conditions of the deeds of easement have been finalized between the easement holders and the landowners. The Lawsons seek permission from the County and the PRFA (the two easement holders of their easement) to establish up to three greenhouses in an unobtrusive location on their property, each having a footprint of approximately 6000 square feet. A standard provision in all deeds restricts any farm structure to a footprint not greater than 4500 square feet unless the easement holders consent in writing to a larger footprint. At its March 21, 2002, meeting, the ACE Committee recommended that the Board accept the proposed Lawson modification. The PRFA considered the modification at its April 11, 2002, meeting. The VOF has requested that the County enter into a cooperative agreement establishing the roles and responsibilities of the parties where they are the co-holders of a conservation easement. This agreement is required by the VOF when its Open-Space Lands Preservation Trust Fund monies are used to purchase all or part of the easement. Staff recommends that the Board: 1) Adopt a resolution accepting the landowners' offers to sell conservation easements to the County for the prices specified and subject to the terms and conditions contained in the proposed deeds of easement (for Lawson, to include the revisions described herein; for Young and Powell, to include any final revisions required by the VOF), and to authorize the County Executive to sign the final deeds of easement for each of the properties; and 2) Authorize the County Executive to sign the cooperative agreement with the VOF. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution, accepting the staffs recommendations. == RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS TO SELL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS UNDER THE ACE PROGRAM WHEREAS, the County has received offers to sell conservation easements under the ACE Program from the owners of the following properties: Tax Map 40, Parcel 22; Tax Map 40, Parcel 29 (Henley) Tax Map 37, Parcel 11; Tax Map 37, Parcel 11B (Lawson) Tax Map 87, Parcel 64; Tax Map 99, Parcel 59; Tax Map 99, Parcel 60A (Powell) Tax Map 35, Parcel 26; Tax Map 35, Parcel 26B; Tax Map 35, Parcel 26C; Tax Map 35, Parcel 32A; Tax Map 35, Parcel 43 (Young); and WHEREAS, each owner offered to sell conservation easements on the respective properties to the County for a fixed purchase price, subject to terms and conditions set forth in the proposed deed of easement enclosed with the County's invitation to offer, and in the case of the Lawson properties, as modified to allow up to three greenhouses, each having a footprint of approximately 6,000 square feet. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby accepts April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) the offers to sell conservation easements described above, or as modified by the requirements of the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, and authorizes the County Executive to execute all documents necessary for completing the acquisitions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors hereby directs the County Attorney to send copies of this resolution to the owners of the properties identified herein, or their contact persons. __________ Item 5.3. Letter dated April 10, 2002, from C. Kemper Loyd, PE, Environmental Engineer Senior, Department of Environmental Quality, to Sally Thomas, Chairman, re: Reissuance of VPDES Permit No. VA0028398, Avionics Specialties, Inc., for existing municipal discharge resulting from the operation of sewage treatment plant serving a manufacturer of avionics instruments. Sludge from this facility will be pumped and hauled to Moores Creek Regional STP for final treatment and disposal. This letter was received as information. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article V, Law Enforcement, to repeal the requirement of a national criminal records check for concealed handgun permits. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and April 8, 2002.) Mr. Tucker said the County Sheriff has requested that County Code 2-502 be repealed or ' amended to remove the requirement that he conduct a national criminal records check on each concealed handgun permit applicant. The only identified benefit of this check is that it can be the basis to revoke a concealed handgun permit. It can also be used to prosecute an applicant for perjury if it is revealed that the applicant falsely completed an application, has a criminal history not reported by the CCRE, or has false identities or aliases. It is not known if this check is a deterrent to false applications. The Sheriff has said it rarely reveals any unknown criminal history. It is the Sheriffs opinion that the cost of the records check = ($24.00 per applicant) outweighs its value. Mr. Tucker said the Sheriff told him earlier today that there still would be a national records check. He asked Mr. Davis to explain. Mr. Davis said under State law the Sheriff will continue to do an electronic records check. It is called a National Criminal Records Check, but it is a data base that contains Virginia convictions, and information from states which have reciprocity with Virginia. It may not include all 50 states. Adoption of this ordinance will eliminate the taking of fingerprints and sending them for a national records check which would capture any criminal convictions which have been reported to the FBI. The records check required by law would continue to be done, but it is the secondary check that would be eliminated. Mr. Dorrier asked how often there is a problem with concealed weapons. Sheriff Robb said, to his knowledge, there have been no problems with concealed weapons in the County. What he wants to do is be in compliance with State law. It is hard for his office to conform to the existing ordinance and still be in compliance with State law. He said Virginia has a data based called Virginia Criminal Information Network (VCIN). The FBI has a national data base called National Criminal Information Center (NCIC). He said the original intent of the NCIC was to make it a nationwide data base, but it is all voluntary. States can agree to provide and use information but only under stringent rules and regulations. Virginia is a member of NCIC. When law enforcement makes a query into that data base, if a state which has contributed to that data base has a criminal record related to a certain subject, it will kick out that information electronically. The instant criminal records check now being done under the Federal Brady Bill is being done using the NCIC system. Sheriff Robb said the check made by someone in Virginia who wants to purchase a gun, is through the VCIN system, which is the system he uses to establish someones credibility to carry a concealed = weapon. The system is not foolproof. So far, they have had no trouble, but it is very difficult for his office to be in compliance. They are presently fingerprinting everybody and the fingerprints are sent to the Circuit Court Judge because he is the one who issues the permit. The Sheriff only offers the Judge advice based on the information which can be secured as to whether someone is or is not entitled to that permit. The Judge makes the decision and issues the permit. If the advertised ordinance is not adopted, and the Sheriff submits fingerprints through VCIN to NCIC, or to the FBI, then the time frame will be at least six to eight weeks to get an answer. The cost would be in excess of what his office is permitted by law to charge, and the time frame would exceed what State law permits. Ms. Thomas asked the dollar amount of the fee. Mr. Davis said the total fee which can be charged is $50.00. Of that, $10.00 goes to the Clerk of the Court, $35.00 is the local law enforcement fee which the Sheriff charges, and $5.00 goes to the State Police for running the records check. In order to do the criminal records check based on fingerprints, that fee which the County is charged is $24.00. That comes out of the $35.00 fee for the Sheriff, so the net effect is that his office is not being compensated enough for the amount of time it takes for these investigations. Sheriff Robb said some people are very difficult to fingerprint. Sometimes the fingerprints cannot be read, and are returned to the Sheriff. That procedure can take over six weeks, and the fingerprints have to be taken again. In the meantime, the permit is being held up and it cannot be held up under the law for April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) more than 45 days. Ms. Thomas asked if there have been many times when the 45-day limit could not be met. Sheriff Robb said no. A@ Mr. Rooker asked how many people get a permit, and then the national criminal records information is received which contradicts the CCRE information. He asked if there have been any cases where a permit was revoked. Sheriff Robb said no. A@ Mr. Davis said the permit can be issued after the electronic records check. That can be done instantaneously so the 45-day limit is not an issue, if that is relied on. The ordinance does not require that the national records check be completed before the permit is issued. What the Sheriff has indicated is that it does not catch anybody because people with criminal records tend not to apply for a permit. Mr. Rooker asked if Judge Peatross has seen this ordinance. Sheriff Robb said he has seen it and expressed no concerns. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin to adopt An Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article V, Law Enforcement, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 2-502, Concealed handgun permits. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Ms. Thomas said she had received five E-mail messages about this ordinance. Four of them were from people who live out of the area who asked that the Board adopt the ordinance. The other was from a local person who urged that the ordinance not be amended. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. ORDINANCE NO. 02-2(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE V, LAW ENFORCEMENT, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article V, Law Enforcement, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-502, Concealed Handgun Permits, as follows: CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE V. LAW ENFORCEMENT Sec. 2-502 Concealed handgun permits. As a condition for issuance of a concealed handgun permit pursuant to Virginia Code 18.2-308, and in order to determine the suitability for a concealed handgun ' permit, any applicant for such permit who resides in the county shall be fingerprinted by the sheriff and shall provide personal descriptive information. (Ord. 97-10.1(1), 8-6-97, 10.1-4; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-2(1), 4-17-02) ' _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Adopt FY 2002-03 County Operating Budget and Capital Budget, and Approve FY 2002-03 to FY 2006-07 Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Tucker said the FY 2003 Operating and Capital budgets total $211,956,025, and reflect the inclusion of additional funds beyond those included last year in the initial adopted budget. The FY 2003 Capital budget and the amended FY 2002-03/FY 2006-07 Capital Improvement Program were both increased by $1,000,000 to provide funds for the Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) program in FY 2003. The Board also proposed to increase the County vehicle decal fee by $2.00, increase the E-911 surcharge to $2.00 per month per phone line, increase parks and recreation entry fees by $1.00, and establish a Court Security Fee of $5.00 per conviction. Mr. Tucker said that in addition to those items included in the Board's Proposed FY 2003 budget, following the public hearing held on April 10, 2002, the Board requested that the additional amount of April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) $3000 be provided to fund the SOCA Latino Outreach program (the full amount requested of the County); and the additional amount of $1982 be added to the funding for the Shelter for Help in Emergencies (SHE) for a new total of $75,313 (the full amount requested by SHE). The additional $4982 will be taken from the Board's remaining Contingency Reserve Fund which would then be funded at $152,182. Mr. Tucker said the proposed amended FY 2002-03/FY 2006-07 Capital Improvement Program totals $110,177,000. It includes a total of $10,426,000 for Administration and Courts projects, $22,805,000 for Public Safety projects, $8,324,000 for Highways and Transportation projects, $6,463,000 for Library projects, $150,000 for Human Development projects, $11,493,000 for Parks, Recreation, and Cultural projects, $450,000 for Utility Improvement projects, $1,000,000 for ACE projects, $2,775,000 for Stormwater projects, and $46,291,000 for School Division projects. Mr. Tucker said if the Board has no further additions or deletions to the FY 2002-03 Operating and Capital budgets, staff requests adoption of the budget resolution, and adoption of the amended FY 2002- 03/FY 2006-07 Capital Improvement Program. Ms. Thomas said since the Board did not actually vote on the request by SHE or the SOCA Latino Outreach program, she asked if there was a consensus to fund these items as listed. Mr. Tucker said there was a consensus. Mr. Martin said he looked for a figure for the operating budget and could not find a single figure. Also, capital costs are shown in two different sections. He thinks that when people ask the Board members the total of the budget, the number for the operating budget should be readily available. Mr. Tucker said because of the new GAS-B34 accounting regulations, staff had to include all funds in the total budget. That makes it look like the budget is ballooning this year, but it is due to these new accounting regulations. Mr. Martin said he concluded that the operating budget is about $193,000,000. Mr. Tucker said it is about $195,000,000. Mr. Martin said he thinks that is the number that people will use when comparing the budget to past years. He thinks that figure should be more obvious. Mr. Rooker said he had asked for something from the School System breaking out what they recommend as cuts in their budget. He never got that information. Mr. Tucker said the Superintendent has not submitted that list to his School Board yet. Whenever that goes to the School Board, this Board will receive a copy. Part of what is happening is that they have found some additional revenues. Those numbers still continue to move, so their revenues are actually improving. Ms. Thomas asked if the same thing is true for local government. Mr. Tucker said there may be some additional revenues. Staff has learned that the holiday that is done occasionally on state life A@ insurance premiums for employees, may create some revenues. Mr. Martin said one revenue item for the schools is the Big Lotto game; they did not anticipate all the extra revenue they are getting from the past two weeks. A large amount of that money goes to schools after paying out the winners and taking care of their operating costs. The last number he heard was an extra $17.0 million statewide. That was before the last drawing, and that number is not in their projections for this year's income. Mr. Dorrier said since the schools revenues are improving, is the Board locked into the fee rate = change? Mr. Tucker said it depends on whether the Board adopts the ordinances regarding those fees. Staff will not know until June 30 if revenues have increased well enough to offset or delay the increases. He said the next agenda item is a public hearing on the E-911 surcharge, and that change is going forward quickly. Some of the other fee changes will be on the agenda in May or June. Mr. Dorrier said if the revenue picture improves, then the Board might forego increasing fees. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. He said the difficulty now is trying to determine what revenues will be. Normally, staff does not look at that question again until after June 30. In May, there will an ordinance to increase Parks and Recreation fees. The Department needs to get those fees in place before the opening day of the parks on Memorial Day. Ms. Thomas said the Board receives a state report each year which shows that Albemarle Countys = fee collections are much lower than most local governments in Virginia. That is an area where the County has tended to be very generous. She thinks that if an increase is needed in order to cover costs, the County would just be in line with other localities. Mr. Dorrier said if the reason given to raise the fees was to do additional things with the budget, and that reason is no longer there, then perhaps it is not necessary. He said Ms. Thomas made a good point about the County not raising these fees in the past. Mr. Tucker said the County is conservative in that area since it does subsidize the services it provides. At this time, Mr. Martin offered motion to adopt the following resolution approving the budget for the County of Albemarle for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2002. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. BUDGET RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2002 be approved as follows: Administration $ 7,361,018 Judicial 2,711,207 Public Safety 16,943,184 Engineering and Public Works 3,292,369 Human Development (including PVCC) 11,513,037 Parks, Recreation, Culture 4,502,869 Community Development 4,175,992 Refunds 92,100 City/County Revenue Sharing Agreement 6,692,811 Boards Contingency Reserve 152,182 = Capital Improvements Budget 16,250,000 Stormwater Improvements 575,000 Ivy Landfill Remediation 475,000 General Government - Debt Service 970,000 Capital Reserve 4,896,000 Education - School Operations 99,548,862 Education - Self-Sustaining Funds 10,969,386 Education - Debt Service 10,473,482 Special Reserve Fund - Operations 14,032,115 Less: Inter-fund Transfers (3,670,589) TOTAL $211,956,025 __________ Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Rooker, to adopt the FY 2002-03 to FY 2006-07 Capital Improvements Program, as amended, totaling $110,177,000 (described above). Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. Adopt Calendar Year 2002 Tax Rates. Mr. Tucker said that on April 10, 2002, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors' proposed budget for FY 2002-03. A public hearing also was held on the 2002 calendar year tax rates. The tax rates for Calendar Year 2002 must be adopted at the April 17, 2002, meeting, in order that the printing and mailing of the tax bills can occur in a timely manner. The proposed rates are set at $0.76/$100 assessed valuation for real estate, public service and mobile homes for the 2002 tax year, and at $4.28/$100 assessed value for the personal property tax rate, including machinery and tools. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to adopt the following resolution setting the tax rates for Calendar Year 2002. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set the County Levy for the Calendar Year 2002 for General County purposes at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at Seventy-Six Cents ($0.76) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public service assessments; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 15, Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code to amend Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax - E-911, to update the provisions relating to the E-911 tax to be consistent with the Virginia Code and to April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) increase the amount of the tax from $1.39 per month to $2.00 per month for each telephone access line. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on April 1 and April 8, 2002.) Mr. Tucker said the revenues identified to fund the 2003 Fiscal Year budget include revenue generated by an increase in the E-911 telephone service tax. The current tax rate per month for each telephone access line is $1.39. The proposed rate of $2.00 per month will generate revenue which will be used to partially fund E-911 operations at the Emergency Communications Center, including the increased costs associated with fire dispatch services. The E-911 tax revenue can only be used to fund operating and capital costs related to the E-911 emergency telephone system. Because State Code requires that no change in the tax take effect until after 120 days written notice to the telephone companies, the effective date of the ordinance and tax change is September 1, 2002. The proposed ordinance also updates the County Code so that the definitions, collection provisions, and accounting requirements are consistent with State Code enabling authority. After holding the required public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance to amend Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax-E-911, of Chapter 15, Taxation, of the County Code. Mr. Martin asked if there is any way to distinguish between a primary line and an Internet connection. Mr. Tucker said the Code says the tax is based on each access line. Ms. Thomas asked if this tax applies to cell phones also. Mr. Tucker said no. It only applies to A@ land lines at this time. That may change eventually. There will be a system coming in effect soon which will be able to pinpoint where a cell phone is located if a call is made to E-911 from that cell phone. At this time, it is only within certain grid areas. The new system that should be adopted within a year will have the location defined almost exactly to where the cell phone is located. He thinks Albemarle County will be the first county in the state to have that system. At this time, Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker to adopt An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax--E-911, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by amending Sec. 15-1400, Enhanced emergency telephone service tax-Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions, Sec. 15-1401, Definitions, Sec. 15-1402, Collection and payment, Sec. 15-1403, Receipt and disbursement by finance director. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Mr. Perkins asked what percent of costs this $2.00 tax will cover. Mr. Tucker said that on the operational side, it will basically cover one hundred percent. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 02-15(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, ARTICLE XIV, ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE TAX--E-911, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, Article XIV, Enhanced Emergency Telephone Service Tax-E-911, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax-Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions Sec. 15-1401 Definitions Sec. 15-1402 Collection and payment Sec. 15-1403 Receipt and disbursement by finance director CHAPTER 15. TAXATION ARTICLE XIV. ENHANCED EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SERVICE TAX--E-911 Sec. 15-1400 Enhanced emergency telephone service tax--Levy and rate; effective date; exemptions. A. Pursuant to Virginia Code 58.1-3813.1, there is hereby imposed a ' special tax on consumers of telephone service in the amount of two dollars ($2.00) per month for each access line. April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) B. Amounts collected from this tax shall be used solely to pay for reasonable, direct recurring and nonrecurring capital costs, and operating expenses incurred by a public safety answering point in designing, upgrading, leasing, purchasing, programming, installing, testing, administering, delivering, or maintaining all necessary data, hardware and software required to receive and process emergency telephone calls through an E-911 system, including salaries and fringe benefits of dispatchers and direct call-takers in receiving and dispatching emergency telephone calls, and the salary and fringe benefits of the public safety answering point director or coordinator so long as such person has no other duties other than the responsibility for the public safety answering point. C. This tax shall not be imposed on Federal, state or local government agencies or on consumers of CMRS, as such term is defined in Virginia Code ' 56-484.12. D. This tax shall apply to all bills rendered on and after September 1, 2002. (Ord. of 2-6-91; Ord. No. 95-8(1), 7-12-95; Code 1988, 8-59; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. ' 02-15(2), 4-17-02) Sec. 15-1401 Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to this article: (1) . The term "access line" means access by a customer to the Access line total telephone network provided by a local exchange carrier. The levy shall apply to each access line separately. (2) . The term "automatic location Automatic location identification" or "ALI" identification" or "ALI" means a telephone network capability that enables the automatic display of information defining the geographical location of the telephone used to place a wireline 9-1-1 call. (3) . The term "automatic number Automatic number identification" or "ANI" identification" or "ANI" means a telephone network capability that enables the automatic display of the telephone number used to place a wireline 9-1-1 call. (4) . The term "enhanced 9-1-1 service" or Enhanced 9-1-1 service" or "E-911" "E-911" means a service consisting of telephone network features and PSAPs provided for users of telephone systems enabling such users to reach a PSAP by dialing the digits "9-1-1." Such service automatically directs 9-1-1 emergency telephone calls to the appropriate PSAPs by selective routing based on the geographical location from which the emergency call originated and provides the capability for ANI and ALI features. (5) . The term "local exchange carrier" means any "Local exchange carrier" public service company granted a certificate to furnish public utility service for the provision of local exchange telephone service pursuant to Chapter 10.1 ( 56-265.1 et ' seq.) of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia. (6) . The term "public safety "Public safety answering point" or "PSAP" answering point" or "PSAP" means a communications facility equipped and staffed on a twenty-four hour basis to receive and process 911 calls. (Ord. of 2-6-91; Code 1988, 8-60; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-15(2), 4-17-02) ' Sec. 15-1402 Collection and payment. A. It shall be the duty of every seller or provider of local exchange telephone services to purchasers or consumers of telephone service within the county to bill and collect this tax on each telephone line rendered by it. The seller shall report and pay over all taxes collected in any calendar month to the director of finance on or before the last day of the second calendar month thereafter. Provided, however, the seller shall be allowed three percent of the amount of the tax due and accounted for in the form of a deduction in submitting the return and paying the amount due by it for the purpose of compensating the seller for accounting for and remitting the tax. The seller shall upon payment of the tax collected hereunder report to the director of finance the name and address of all purchasers or consumers of telephone services who have failed to pay the tax imposed by this article. B. The seller shall keep complete records showing all purchases of telephone service to consumers in the county, which records shall show the date of service, the date of billing, the date of payment thereof, and the amount of tax imposed hereunder. Such records shall be available for inspection by the duly authorized agents of the county at reasonable times. (Ord. of 2-6-91; Code 1988, 8-61; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 02-15(2), 4-17-02) ' April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Sec. 15-1403 Receipt and disbursement by finance director. Any such taxes imposed by this section shall be accounted for in a separate special revenue fund or accounted for using a cost center and revenue accounting system acceptable to the Auditor of Public Accounts and all such funds shall be used solely for the purposes authorized by this article. (Ord. of 2-6-91; Ord. No. 95-8(1), 7-12-95; Code 1988, 8-62; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. ' 02-15(2), 4-17-02) Sec. 15-1404 Violations, penalties. Any purchaser failing, refusing, or neglecting to pay the tax herein imposed or levied, and any seller violating the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less that twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than one hundred dollars ($100.00). Each failure, refusal, neglect, or violation and each day's continuance shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. of 2-6-91; Code 1988, 8-63; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) ' This ordinance shall be effective on and after September 1, 2002. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. Cancel Board of Supervisors' meeting of May 8, 2002. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to cancel the Boards regular meeting scheduled for May 8, = 2002, because there are no public hearings scheduled for that date. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Approval of Minutes: October 3, 2001 and January 16, 2002. No minutes had been read. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Davis said the Health Department has received complaints from persons who have been in the vicinity of the Chaing House Restaurant at the intersection of Seminole Trail and Greenbrier Drive that a stench is emanating from the former restaurant. County staff and the Health Department have determined that the stench is the result of rotting food left on the premises after the restaurant fire. County staff has been asking the owners to remove the rotting food since April 15. Mr. Davis said Albemarle County Code 13-302 provides that the Board may have the refuse ' removed from private property by the Countys own employees or its agents, if it is deemed to be = necessary. In order to do so, the County must first send a notice to the owner of the property to remove the refuse within a specified time. This afternoon, John Jones hand delivered a notice asking that the situation be fully abated by 3:00 p.m. on Friday. If the County is required to remove the rotting food, the cost is chargeable to the owners, and the cost may be collected by the County as taxes are collected. He asked that the Board determine it is necessary to remove the rotting food from the Chaing House Restaurant, and authorize County staff or County agents to remove the rotting food if the owners refuse to do so in a timely manner. Mr. Martin offered motion to accept staffs recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. = Dorrier. Mr. Tucker said if the building is found to be structurally unsound, the County can also require that the building be demolished. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. __________ Mr. Tucker said he would like to comment about the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority budget. He said in looking back at some things, he thinks a better job can be done next year. This year, with the closing of the Landfill, the staff has not worked as closely with RSWA because of the switch over to funding most of their operations through the City and the County. He said that is part of the confusion in the budget now with the RSWA. Next year, they will be in a cycle with all of the other agencies. He has talked to the Chairman of the Authority, and next year there will be a different format so the budget can come to the Board sooner. April 17, 2002 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) Ms. Thomas said people may not remember, but the tax rate was actually lowered by two cents when the Rivanna Authority went into effect because that money was going to the Authority through the tipping fees. Now, those tipping fees are still being paid, but the fee is going into the mega-landfills at this point. She would like to be sure that the Board knows how much solid waste disposal is costing the County. She proposed that the County raise a penny on the tax rate so the taxpayers would know what is going on, but that was a stab in the dark. By this time next year, the County should know the actual costs of that A@ service. Mr. Dorrier asked what effect the recent discussion on the $5.00 increase at the State level has on the locality. Mr. Tucker said that will have more of an effect on those who pay the tip fee, or the operational costs directly out of their own county or city coffers. Mr. Davis said that bill was defeated today. Ms. Thomas said the message the County sent to its legislators was to be sure closure costs and remediation costs were included. The County did not recommend that the bill not be adopted. Mr. Rooker said there is $450,000 in this budget that was not in last years budget, and that cost is = related to remediation. Mr. Tucker said that is correct. __________ Mr. Rooker said there was article in the newspaper about a book endorsing Charlottesville for tax conscientious retirees. It said Charlottesville, Abingdon, Richmond and Williamsburg were named as four of the best low-cost retirement towns in the United States. That was in Where to Retire magazine. A@ __________ Ms. Thomas said she sent out an E-mail asking if any Board members wanted to attend a couple of events that have to do with Albemarles other sister city, Pacific County, Oregon. She has only heard from = one person. There is a barbecue at Ashlawn and a couple of other events, one of which is on Mothers = Day. _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. Adjourn to April 26, 2002, 1:00 p.m., for a Strategic Planning Retreat. With no further business to come before the Board, at 7:59 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn this meeting until April 26, 2002, at 1:00 p.m, at the new Jefferson Library at Kenwood on Route 53. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Martin. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 05/01/2002 Initials: EWC