Loading...
1997-02-05February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CoUnty, Virginia, was held on FebrUary 5, 1997, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire ROad, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:02 A.M. by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There was no one from the public to speak. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.5 on the Consent Agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman (prefaced his vote by saying he abstains on Item 5.5 because his company has a contract with the developer of this property relating to exercise equipment for the Western Ridge Subdivision Clubhouse). None. Item 5.1. Appropriation: Farmington Tax Refund, $28,022.54 (Form #96047). It was noted in the staff's report that Farmington Country Club brought Suit against the County contesting their 1994 real estate assessment. After the Circuit Court decision regarding the assessment, negotiations were conducted regarding the 1995 and 1996 assessments and the taxes which had been paid for those years. An agreement was reached between Farmington and the County and has been approved by the Circuit Court judge. Based on this agreement, the County will refund to Farmington $11,282.54 for the tax year 1994, and the sum of $16,740.00 for the tax years 1995 and 1996. An appropriation of $28,022.54 is needed to settle this matter. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NI3MBER: 96047 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TAX REFUND FOR SETTLEMENT OF FARMINGTON ASSESSMENT APPEAL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100092010580301 TAX REFUNDS TOTAL AMOUNT $28,022.54 $28,022.54 REVENUE 2100051000510100 DESCRIPTION GENERAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $28,022.54 $28,022.54 February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 000096 Item 5.2. Appropriation: County Attorney's Office, $25,830.00 (Form #96048). It was noted in the staff's report that at the January 8, 1997, meeting of the Board, it approved an additional position for the County Attorney's office effective'March 1, 1997. This new position will be an Assistant County Attorney who will assume many of the ongoing responsibilities in the office in order to free time for the Senior Attorney's staff to work on issues concerning reversion. An appropriation of $25,830.00 is needed in order to fund four months of compensation and benefits in the 1996-97 fiscal year, plus associated operating expenses, office furniture and a computer. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96048 FLrND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR Ai~ ADDITIONAL COUNTY ATTORNEY EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100012040110000 1100012040210000 1100012040221000 1100012040231000 1100012040232000 1100012040270000 1100012040520300 1100012040550400 1100012040550600 1100012040600100 1100012040800200 1100012040800700 1100095000999990 DESCRIPTION SALARY FICA RETIREMENT HEALTH INSURAi~CE DENTAL INSURANCE WORKER'S COMPENSATION INS~CE TELEPHONE TRAVEL-EDUCATION TRAVEL-SUBSISTENCE OFFICE SUPPLIES FURNITURE ADP EQUIPMENT CONTINGENCY-BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT $16,193.00 1,240.00 1,441.00 670.00 20.00 16.00 750 00 300 00 300 00 200 00 2,050 00 2,650 00 (25,830.00) $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 Item 5.3. Appropriation: Education Division, $10,000.00 (Form #96049). It was noted in the staff's report that the School Board, on January 13, 1997, approved the following appropriations: $6,000.00 for the Region 8 Literacy Coordinating Committee (RLCC) Grant. RLCC approved used of the funds for the Lead Agent Stipend (this person will provide literacy coordination services) and Family Literacy Incentive Funds (will provide family literacy initiatives in this region). Albemarle County Public Schools will act as fiscal agent. $4,000.00 for Stone Robinson School from a donation made by their PTO. These funds are to be used to hire a part-time volunteer coordinator who will be responsible for recruiting, training, scheduling, assigning and monitoring the work of volunteers at the school. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96049 FI/ND: SCHOOL/GRANT February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) oOOo 7 PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR REGION 8 LITERACY COORDI- NATING COMMITTEE GRANT AND STONE ROBINSON VOLUNTEER COORDINATOR EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1311563326160200 1311563326210000 1311563326580000 1221061101115000 1221061101210000 DESCRIPTION STIPEND-LEAD AGENT FICA MISC EXPENSES SALARY-OFFICE CLERICAL FICA TOTAL AMOUNT $3,000.00 230.00 2,770.00 3,715.75 284.25 $10,000.00 REVENUE 2311524000240241 2200018100181109 DESCRIPTION REGIONAL LITERACY GP~ANT DONATION TOTAL AMOUNT $6,000.OO 4,000.00 $10,000.00 Item 5.4. Set public hearing to amend Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, in Section 4-19 of the County Code, to include Lexington Subdivision under the County's "leash law". It was noted in the staff's report that of the eight occupied lots in Lexington Subdivision, six are in favor of instituting a dog leash law (three lots are currently vacant). This is within the Board's policy of requiring 51 percent of those living in a subdivision to sign the petition for the leash law. By the recorded vote set out above, a public hearing was set for March 12, 1997, on an amendment to Section 4-19 of the County Code to include Lexington Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. Item 5.5. Set a public hearing to abandon a public road known as Cree Road located in Crozet. It was noted in the staff's report that Cree Road is a public right-of- way approximately 1050 feet long. This road is not in the VDOT system and its general location is between Route 240 and the CSX Railroad. Historically, this road was used by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) for maintenance of their utility lines. RWSA now uses the main entrance for the Western Ridge development. Three properties are adjacent to the public right of-way, but all of these properties have other access to their property. The first property, a farm to the east of Cree Road, will be part of the Western Ridge development with the farm house serving as its club house. It can be accessed by a subdivision road (Lake Tree Lane). The second and third properties are west and south of Cree Road and can be accessed via Park Ridge Road. Staff believes this abandonment would not adversely impact either of these properties, and it will not negatively impact the public. Cree Road would remain in its present state, but it would not have the public right-of-way status which currently ends at the railroad crossing. CSX will remove this crossing since the backyard of a home in Western Ridge is located on the other side of the crossing. By the recorded vote set out above (Note: Mr. Bowerman abstained on this one agenda item), a public hearing was ordered advertised for April 2, 1997, on the request for abandornnent of a public road called "Cree Road." Item 5.6. Letter dated January 13, 1997, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Assistant Resident Engineer, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding restriction of truck traffic on Route 656 (Georgetown Road), was received for information. Mr. Mills noted that this issue is in VDOT's Central Office in Richmond awaiting a traffic count to be done by its Traffic Section. They hope to have this count completed before the end of the month with a recommendation then being made to the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Item 5.7. Notice of Design Public Hearing scheduled for February 25, 1997, on the design alignments developed for the proposed Route 29 Bypass February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 000095 Project: 6029-002-F22, PE-101, RW-202, C-501, Federal Proj: STP-029-7, Fr: 0.70 Mi. (1.12 km) North of Route 29/250 Bypass, To: 0.50 Mi (0.80 km) North of South Fork Rivanna River; UVA Connector Road Project: RUVA-002-101, PE-101, Fr: Route 250 Bypass, To: Massie Road, Albemarle County, Was received as information. Item 5.8. Report of 1997 Reassessment Values, received as information. It was noted in the staff's report that the 1997 biennial real estate assessment has been completed. Market value appreciation is estimated to be 2.25 percent more than the 1995 reassessment. Values reported do not include government or other tax-exempt properties. There was a large increase for the town of Scottsville which resulted from new construction and market value appreciation. There was a decrease in deferrals due to a significant increase in taxable forestry values. The 1997 reassessment cycle began in August, 1995. It is based on sales transactions prior to that time. Transactions after August, 1995 are used as guides and are generally not utilized significantly different. Item 5.9. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Appalachian Power Company to revise its fuel factor pursuant to Va. Code §56-249.6, received as information. Item 5.10. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company for a certificate to provide interexchange telecommunications services, received as information. Item 5.11. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for November 21, 1996, received for information. Item 5.12. 1996 Year End Crime Data and Calls for Service Report as prepared by the Albemarle County Police Department, received as information. Ms. Thomas said she is always interested in how rape cases are reported. She asked if the figures include cases the University of Virginia Police cover. Mr. Tucker said "no". Item 5.13. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of December, 1996, received as information. Item 5.14. 1996 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, received as information. Item 5.15. 1996 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, received as information. Item 5.16. Report on 1997 Land Use Taxation, received as information. It was noted in the staff's report that this report shows the effect on taxable assessments for the 1997 use-value rates recommended by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Council. The agricultural values decreased 7.87 percent primarily due to reduced five-year moving average yield on clover, hay and alfalfa and the capitalization rate. Agricultural values do not consider returns to livestock since use-value taxation applies only to land, not to the taxation of livestock. The capitalization rate is based on interest and tax rates over a ten-year period. Use-value increases as the capitalization rate decreases. The higher interest and tax rates of 1984 and 1985 have been replaced by the lower rates of tax years 1994 and 1995 reducing the capitalization rate. The 10.12 percent horticulture increase is due to the effect of level yields and the decreased capitalization rate. The 38.99 percent forestry increase is due to increased yields and the effect of the decreased capitalization rate. The open space use-value assessment is based on the use-value of agriculture land. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Pa9e 5) 000099 Item 5.17. Notice of Order by the Federal Communications Commission in the matter of Multi-Channel TV Cable Company d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications, complaint regarding cable programming services tier rate increase, received as information. Item 5.18. Copy of Commonwealth of Virginia, Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy Report dated December, 1996, was received as information and filed in the Clerk's office. Item 5.19. Report on Revised FY 1997-98 Revenue Projections, received as information. It was noted in the staff's report that in November, 1996 the Board received FY 1997-98 preliminary revenue pro]ections from the Department of Finance. This report projected a $4.7 million increase in revenues over FY 1996-97. This increase was based on a six percent increase in local revenues and a 3.2 percent decrease in State and Federal revenues for a total projected revenue increase of 5.4 percent. Projected property tax revenues have actually declined since the November, 1996 projection by approximately $360,000 based on a lower reassessment than anticipated. November revenue projections were based on a 2.5 percent increase, while the actual reassessment increase was 2.26 percent. Fortunately, several other local revenue sources (utility taxes, retail merchant licenses, recordation taxes, several fees), sufficiently increased to offset this decline for a net local revenue increase of $317,707. State and Federal revenues have increased since the November, 1996 projection by $365,671, which reflects increased categorical state revenues (Juvenile Crime Control, Social Service Programs, COPS). Total revenues have increased over the November projection by $683,378 for a total revenue increase for the General Fund of $5.4 million over FY 1996-97 or a six percent increase. However, all of the $683,378 cannot be considered new revenues. Approximately $148,000 of the increased local revenues are charges for services and offset payments for expanded police, sheriff and jail administration services, and recovered costs (reimbursements from the City, E-911, etc.) that are already tied to specific levels of services in the General Fund and which were not included in the October, 1996 projection. All of the increased State and Federal revenues ($365,671) reflect categorical aid revenues that are offset by corresponding mandated program expenditures. Local revenues in the amount of $169,739 may be considered new undesig- nated revenues and staff recommends that these revenues be placed in the Board's FY 1997-98 Reserve Fund. This would bring that Fund to approximately $370,000. The remaining revenues will need to be retained in the General Fund to offset the corresponding service and mandated program costs. This update was presented for information only, and did not require any action at this time. Agenda Item No. 6a. Transportation Matters: Request to adopt resolution regarding Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road) project. Mr. Tucker said there were two bridges along route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road) which suffered structural damage during the high flow associated with Tropical Storm Fran in September 1996. The two bridges in question are the second and third bridges traveling along Sugar Hollow Road from White Hall. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) proposes replacing these bridges. A Location and Design public hearing was held on December 4, 1996. The County's Engineering Department submitted an alternative plan for the third bridge which utilized a single, larger bridge at the western site instead of the two bridges presented by VDOT. This will avoid a double channel which was of concern to some citizens. Since Route 614 has approximately 170 vehicles per day, VDOT has recommended that two-lane bridges a minimum of 18 feet in width be constructed in lieu of the 22-foot bridges as presented at the hearing. VDOT supports the use of one bridge at the western site as opposed to the two structures presented at the hearing. The work in the stream channel will be minimized to O00:l. O0 February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) preserve the natural stream bed as requested by the citizens at the hearing. VDOT also recommends the use of rustic steel guardrail on the bridges and approaches to the bridges (several people speaking at the hearing felt the rustic guardrail is offensive and suggested alternatives that are more aesthetic, notably wooden guardrail. Comments from the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board also suggest that the rustic guardrail is not considered a good aesthetic option). Mr. Tucker said a one-lane bridge versus a two-lane bridge involves VDOT standards for safety and the rural character of the valley. Several citizens advocated one-lane bridges saying they will serve to slow down traffic thus making the road safer for cars, bicycles and pedestrians. Mr. Tucker said the Board is being requested to adopt a resolution (he handed to Board members a draft resolution to consider) to support VDOT's recommendations for bridge replacements along Route 614 with the following considerations: a more aesthetic alternative to the rustic guardrail be pursued, notably wooden guardrail, and VDOT should waiver its standards and allow one-lane bridges if safety concerns can be resolved. Mr. Charlie Williams, Assistant Resident Engineer, said VDOT's local office recommends that the bridges be built to a minimum standard of 18 feet in width. They believe it is needed due to the characteristics and traffic count on this road. They are working with their Chief Engineer to get an exception to allow that 18 feet. At this time, the plans do show a 22-foot, two-lane bridge structure. He said they reviewed the County's proposal with their bridge engineer and are in agreement with that proposal for a two-lane single bridge up next to the Girl Scout Camp. Ms. Thomas asked if VDOT's plans include the reworking of the River bed necessary for the single-lane bridge to exist for years to come. Mr. Williams said it will be necessary to fill in a depressed area and relocate one channel where it flowed underneath the new single structure. Ms. Humphris said there were citizens present who wished to speak. She invited Mr. Jim Morris, Moormans Scenic River Advisory Committee member, to speak. Mr. Morris said the Committee encourages a maximum of 18 feet. They feel that any additional width in the bridges will only encourage traffic. The Committee is glad there will be one instead of two structures to reduce the breaking of the river that happened during the flood. The Committee encourages the use of the wooden guardrails. VDOT used these at Millington and they are very attractive. They also like the concept of the single-lane bridge, but it looks like that will not happen. Mr. Jim Bennett said the Board is considering a resolution today to VDOT that will shape for generations to come the character of one of the County's most beautiful areas. He asked that the Board: {1) request single-lane bridges; (2) request use of rustic bridge materials; and (3) request that there be minimum damage done to the river banks and surrounding vegetation in the course of providing alternative access routes during construction. He concluded by saying VDOT has the opportunity to improve river dynamics and reduce future risk of flood damage to the road during replacement of the bridges. VDOT also has the responsibility to protect this valuable scenic area which contributes so much to the beauty of the County, its municipal water supples and its attraction to tourists. (A complete copy of Mr. Bennett's statement is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors.) Next to speak was Mr. Bob Gilges who said he is a new resident of Sugar Hollow. He has property between the second and third bridges. He is curious to know if the Board has had an opportunity to listen to the comments that were taken at the public hearing. Ms. Humphris said the Board has a transcript of the public's comments. Mr. Gilges said he is pleased with the way VDOT has responded. He did not expect to hear a recommendation for a single-lane bridge. He is impressed that the citizens can really make a difference in this process, which is not true where he lived before in Greenwich, Connecticut. Ms. Thomas said she does not know much about timber bridges, but it sounds like an interesting idea. She does not know what role this Board could February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 000 .0 . play at this point. The draft resolution talks about "rustic character suitable for the hollow." Ms. Humphris said the pictures passed around by Mr. Bennett show some particularly handsome structures. The brochure says they are award-winning and visually appealing. She asked what this Board can do to see that something like that might be achieved in Sugar Hollow. Ms. A~gela Tucker, Resident Engineer, asked if Ms. Humphris is speaking about a design beyond timber decking and timber railing, not wanting structural steel or concrete. Mr. Marshall said the bridge in the brochure is all timber. Ms. Humphris said the Board and the citizens are interested in knowing if the bridges can be visually suitable to that particular, very special environment. Ms. Tucker said it is VDOT's intent to make them visually suitable to the environment. The timber decking and the timber railing would help that. The substructure being of other materials would not be but so visible. Ms. Thomas said she had read one of the brochures and it noted that a bridge in Illinois had transfer post-tension galvanized steel rods passing through the deck and web members. That bridge clearly has concrete support posts. She does not believe the citizens are wanting it built without any metal or concrete. Ms. Tucker said they will be happy to look at the brochures. She feels the Richmond bridge office has a lot of similar material. Her only concern is not that it cannot be done, but the cost in redesigning it or the cost of unusual materials. This is supposedly being paid for with VDOT Emergency Funds. She said she will share the Board's concerns and wishes with the VDOT Bridge Section in Richmond. That office ultimately has the final say. They hope to reach a compromise where most of what is visible is timber. Ms. Humphris asked how this process will take place if the Board adopts the draft resolution today. How will the Bridge Section people understand what the people in this community are talking about including receiving copies of the materials passed around this morning. Ms. Tucker suggested deferring the resolution today and let them discuss it with the rest of their Department staff so they can show the Board what VDOT can do before adoption of the resolution. If VDOT cannot provide anything more than what was shown at the public hearing, she does not know how that will affect the resolution. She does know that time is of the essence. Mr. Perkins asked if the plans right now are for wooden decking with wooden railing. Ms. Tucker said she does not know if the wooden railing has been approved yet. They did use a timber rail system on the Millington Bridge. That was fabricated out of fancy plywood, the same type wood that was used for the bridge construction itself. VIDOT has not decided what will happen if the guardrail is damaged and has to be replaced immediately. VDOT is not using the timber rail system statewide. Mr. Perkins asked if there are any curves required in the railing on these bridges. Mr. Williams said at the first location there are some curves required. At the second location, at the westernmost runoff end, a transition may be necessary to go around a slight curve. He said Ms. Tucker made a good suggestion, and he believes they can stay within their time line. They have worked closely with the citizens in Sugar Hollow to get all of their concerns met. The Richmond Central Office will have the final say in what happens. They would like to give that word to the Board before the final resolution is passed so everybody will know what is going to happen. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the Board wants to support VDOT, so if the resolution gives the local office more support in dealing with the State Office, maybe the Board should adopt the resolution this morning. Mr. Williams said they will take the conversation from this morning along with a transcript from the public hearing and pursue the design changes proposed and present that to the Richmond Office. A resolution would not hurt, but they can wait until next month to get full support. Mr. Tucker said he thinks it would be more helpful for VDOT to have the resolution. If the Richmond Office indicates they cannot do the things that have been discussed, the Board would be in an awkward position of having to adopt a resolution they had essentially already turned down. Mr. Marshall said request #4 in the resolution says the Board wants the wooden guardrail as opposed to metal. He thinks the Board should adopt the February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 000 02 resolution today. He is glad Mr. Morris commented about the "rustic guardrail." He thinks they are the most atrocious things ever put up anywhere. Ms. Thomas said she would like to discuss the single-lane. She is an advocate for a one-lane bridge for safety. She can see its importance in this case because the traffic consists of local people, and people going up to Sugar Hollow. Those people going to Sugar Hollow are often college students and they are traveling very fast. The combination of a Girl Scout camp, a bed and breakfast with people who think they can walk along the road, and the traffic, is an explosive combination. She thinks that having a single-lane bridge will keep traffic under better control than even an 18-foot wide bridge. She knows the public's comments were in that direction. Mr. Williams said the existing structures are approximately 15 feet in average width. The new structures are proposed to be 18 feet in width. Three feet seems like a lot, but it is not too much. Ms. Thomas said there will be no sign saying ~single lane bridge ahead." Mr. Williams said there are other signing features they could use to enhance the idea, such as ~narrow road ahead" or "narrow crossing ahead". Something of that nature would help reinforce that idea. He has talked to some people who say there are too many signs there already, so they want to be careful about putting up additional signs. Anybody who has traveled the road will know that the characteristics of the curves coming into these two bridges really control the speed coming onto the bridges. VDOT does not propose to do more than a bare minimum approach. They are not changing the characteristics of those curves with the bridge replacements. Mr. Martin said he will support Ms. Thomas in her effort to have the Board's resolution focus on a one-lane bridge. He has the same situation with the bridge at Proffit, and a desire by the people in that area to maintain a one-lane bridge. He is willing to support the request even though the Board realizes the request may not be approved. Ms. Humphris said she thinks it is better to have a resolution in place. It is better to resolve first, and then see what happens. Motion was then offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Moormans River is a scenic river and Albemarle County is the designated administering agency for the Moormans Scenic River; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County is, therefore, required to ~administer the scenic river or section thereof to preserve and protect its natural beauty and to assure its use and enjoyment" and performs this function in conjunction with the Moormans River Scenic River Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County, pursuant to §10.1-402 of the Code of Virginia ~may review and make recommendations regarding all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources including the construction of...roadways, crossings, channels...or other uses which change the character of a stream or waterway or destroy its scenic values...To effectuate the purposes of this section, all state and local agencies shall consider the recommendations of Albemarle County"; and WHEREAS, on September 13, 1995, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors clarified the County's administering agency role by adopting the following motion: Work on Route 614 up to the Sugar Hollow Dam on the Moormans River will proceed only with full respect for the scenic designation of the river; practically this will involve getting prior approval for earth, bank, waterway and water-disturbing activities now and in the future; approval shall be given by Albemarle County's Water February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) Resources Manger after consultation with parties he deems necessary to consult; and 000:1.03 WHEREA~, the Water Resources Manager has made detailed proposals on December 12, 1996 to Mr. Charlie Williams, Assistant Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT); and WHEREAS, the public hearing of Deceu~ber 4, 1996 indicated strong community support for one-lane bridges and rustic appearance to the bridges; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors advised VDOT on December 10, 1996 requesting the adoption of the County's Engineering Department's alternative bridge design and plan; and WHEREAS, VDOT agreed to some aspects of the Water Resources Manager's proposal; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly in 1994 required VDOT to study the need for more flexible design standards in historic and environmentally sensitive areas, and the RRR Guidelines in the Virginia Connections Strategic Plan encourages design flexibility to meet local needs; NOW, THEREFORE, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors resolves the following: Replacement should follow the County's alternative plan for one bridge instead of two at the location of the present third bridge; The flood plain adjacent to the stream channel at the third bridge should be reconstructed pursuant to justification as outlined in Mr. Hirschman's December 12, 1996 letter; 3 o The replacement bridges should be one lane wide, which requires VDOT to waive certain standards; Replacement bridges should be of a rustic character suitable for the hollow, at the least with wooden guardrail rather than metal; and When they are necessary, temporary detours should be created with great care not to remove excess vegetation or damage the riverway; Furthermore, the Board of County Supervisors expresses its appreciation to VDOT for working with Albemarle County in an effort to preserve this scenic river for tourists, visitors and residents, following both the dictates of environmental conservation and economic development. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 6b. Transportation Matters: Discussion: FY 1997 Preallocation Hearing for Primary Roads. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has drafted a list of priorities which it is hoped the Board will take to the Preallocation Public Hearing that VDOT will hold on March 14, 1997, in Culpeper. The list of priorities is not much different from past lists. Again this year, under Standard Projects, staff recommends the Meadow Creek Parkway as the top priority project after completion of the Route 29 North improvements. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000 .04 (Page 10) Mr. Cilimberg said the last sentence under No. 1, Standard Projects, should read "Other projects listed in CATS in the northern urbanized area which would be funded with other than primary funds." In No. 2, staff noted the continuing Route 29 North Corridor Studies. The Board last year endorsed the study of Route 29 from Charlottesville to Warrenton so the second sentence should read: "The Route 29 North Study recommendations were forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board last year with the County endorsing these recommendations." In No. 4, it should read: ~Undertake the widening of Route 20 South between 1-64 and the proposed Route 20/742 connector road to serve the traffic from Monticello High School." This is a project which the Board has stressed the need for many times during this past year. Mr. Cilimberg said No. 9 references the Bellair/Route 250 intersection improvements. This is new in that it reflects the fact that there is a proposal which has been provided by VDOT after working with the citizens in that area. County staff has not been directly involved in developing the proposal that is included in the package today. Again this year, there are safety improvements a~d enhancement projects listed. During this last month, staff has made a request for funding of two enhancement projects which are on the list: 1) Airport Road improvements including landscaping, sidewalks and bike lanes, and, 2) the Rivanna River Greenway improvements. Mr. Cilimberg said once the Board has endorsed the projects, staff can draft the statement which will be made at the Culpeper meeting. That statement can be ready by the February 19, 1997, meeting for the Board to review. Ms. Thomas suggested changing the priority order of #3 and #4. She said #4 is a new project on the list, but responds to the needs of the new high school. She asked if priority order makes a difference. Mr. Tucker said the Board can do that now since it might have some influence. Mr. Marshall suggested it be moved up as far as possible on the list. He said that when the VDOT representatives were present last December, he talked with the Chief Engineer, Mr. Browder, and they agreed to put this on the priority list and fast line the project. Ms. Humphris said it is the consensus to switch #3 and #4 under Standard Projects. Mr. Cilimberg said staff recently got the item about Bellair and he does not know how the Board would like to respond. It is a project which has been hanging for a while. Ms. Thomas said at the last meeting of the citizens group they said they would have someone attend the allocation hearing for the group. They have acted by themselves. She has not been involved in any of the meetings. It is a troublesome intersection, so the wording ~to undertake improvements" seems to be good wording. It does not say the County endorses this particular solution. Mr. Cilimberg said there will be a mid-February field review, and staff is usually involved with that. Sometimes adjustments are made after that review. The solution should come back to the Board at some point in final form. Ms. Thomas said with the Route 250 West Corridor Study just beginning, she does not want to jump ahead of that. She thinks the wording and the position of this project gets it in and does not overlook something that a lot of people have worked on, both VDOT and locally. Ms. Humphris asked how what has transpired so far on the Bellair problem get folded into the Route 250 West Study. Mr. Cilimberg said he understands this project is proceeding ahead of that study. It is now to the point of field review. Plans were developed, although he does not know when it would get funded. If the Board feels the design considerations need to wait for that corridor study to be completed, the Board would need to say that. Ms. Humphris said looking at what was handed out today, she does not get a good concept of what is being proposed. She asked Ms. Tucker about coordination of these two situations. Ms. Tucker said the sketch is confusing, but essentially what is happening is the Bellair entrance road is being relocated to the east to align with Route 601 which comes up under the railroad overpass. Mr. Perkins asked if a light will be put there. Ms. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) 000105 (Page 11) Tucker said a traffic signal will be installed at what becomes a new four-way intersection. Ms. Humphris asked how close this traffic signal will be to the one coming off of the Route 250 Bypass. Ms. Tucker said it is 200 to 300 feet. The lights are to be timed to work together. If it presents a problem as far as keeping traffic flowing on the primary corridor, Route 250, then there is a possibility of the signal being removed at the loop ramp. The intent is to design and coordinate those lights to work together. It is felt that the signals are needed and can work together in that close proximity. Ms. Humphris asked if it is of any importance to coordinate the current Bellair situation with the Route 250 West Corridor Study. Ms. Tucker said the current time line is such that it will be a part of the Corridor Study, but it won't matter that VDOT is proceeding with the project. It is at the termini of the Corridor Study, the urban end of the Route 250 corridor. She said any citizen can present their wish list at the Preallocation Hearing without the support of this Board. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board wanted staff to go ahead and develop the presentation for the public hearing on March 14. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve the presentation of the County's recommended priorities to the Preallocation meeting with the tiny amendments discussed, and switching #3 and #4 on the Standard Projects list. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 6c. Transportation Matters: Discussion: Route 250 West Corridor Study, City Council representative. Ms. Humphris suggested the Board defer this agenda item until after it has reviewed all applications for appointment later today. Agenda Item No. 6d. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Perkins mentioned the new entrance on Route 240 at Western Ridge Subdivision. He said dirt was used for the shoulders, and there has been no problem except for where the trucks come out of Gemini Trucking. The trucks need both lanes so make such wide turns that the shoulders are torn up all the time. He said the trucking company really needs turn lanes into their property. He does not know if that is VDOT's responsibility. Ms. Tucker said VDOT often puts asphalt where there is a wide turning movement. She will have someone look at the situation. Mr. Martin said he feels there is a stop sign needed at the corner of Pritchett and Norford (the road off of Pritchett where the trailer park is located). Ms. Tucker asked if they are both public roads. Mr. Martin said he believes they are. Ms. Tucker said she will check to be sure that there was not a sign there at one time, and it is now missing. Ms. Thomas said the neighbors at the Ivy Landfill have mentioned that trucks bring a lot of mud out onto Route 637. She asked if VDOT has any standards governing this. Mr. Charlie Williams said he knows that the VDOT superintendent for that area has been looking at the situation and working with the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to alleviate the problem. He does not know that it has created any safety problems on the road. Mr. Bowerman said he met with people from the neighborhood associations in the Carrsbrook area last Thursday with Mr. Don Askew of VDOT about signalization and construction of a different type of intersection at Route 29 and Carrsbrook Drive. One thing that was brought up was the idea of traffic calming in Northfields, Old Brook, Huntington and along Carrsbrook. Mr. Askew said since these are secondary roads in subdivisions, he supports measures that may serve to reduce the speed of traffic. One place they have looked at is the intersection of Carrsbrook and Clarke Lane. There was a serious February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 000 .06 accident there last week. It is a location where there could be stop signs on Carrsbrook which would allow the people who have blind driveways on Carrsbrook some more time to get out into traffic. At Carrsbrook and Northfields, cars are still leaving the roadway and going into the woods as they come down the hill. If there was a stop sign there, the speed would be reduced, and it might alleviate those accidents. Traffic calming is something the neighborhoods want. There is also a proposal for about 150 new homes on the Wetsel tract, and that will cause additional concern. This has been discussed before, and he sees no reason it should not be done unless there are engineering considerations. Mr. Bowerman asked that VDOT look at some of the drainage ditches along Carrsbrook Drive. He believes there might be some restriction of water in the ditches. Ms. Thomas said she met with people in the Heards Community recently. Mr. Bill Mills and others drove the Heards Mountain road and he suggested cleaning out the ditches. The community is going to decide which areas they feel are the most dangerous in the hopes that they might get some spot improvements approved. They understand that paving the road will not happen anytime soon. Ms. Tucker said there will be a Route 29 Bypass Design Public Hearing on February 25, 1997, from 2:00 p.m. until 8:00 p.m. baby. work. Mr. Marshall asked if Ms. Tucker was going to tell the Board about her Ms. Tucker said the baby is doing fine, she told her to go back to Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing to consider granting the City of Charlottesville a permanent natural gas line easement within the road right of way of a portion of Woodbrook Drive Extended and a portion of Adams Court, more specifically described in Deeds and Plats on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27, 1997.) Mr. Tucker summarized the reasons for holding this public hearing (see minutes of January 15, 1997, for staff's report). The public hearing was opened. With no one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Humphris said she has people ask her often about the City extending their gas lines out into the County. She asked Mr. Tucker to explain how and why that happens. Mr. Tucker said that many years ago the Board adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that allowed that type.of utility, certainly the major transmission lines to be extended out into the County. Since that time, there has been a standard provision in the Comprehensive Plan as well as provisions in the zoning Ordinance which permit utilities to be extended. Gas, electricity, and water and sewer are permitted by right. The Planning Commission now reviews these requests for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to authorize the County Executive to sign a Deed of Quitclaim for a permanent natural gas line easement, 15 feet in width, on Woodbrook Drive Extended, as shown on plat dated December 4, 1996, and a Deed of Quitclaim for a permanent natural gas line easement on Adams Court, off Colonial Drive in the Jefferson Village Subdivision, as shown on plat dated November 14, 1996 (documents are on file in the Clerk's Office). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) oOo o? Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1996. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, said the 1995-96 fiscal year was a fairly uneventful financial year, except for implementation of the split billing of the real property tax. He said everything went smoothly, although they did encounter a few problems which will need correction before the next billing period. Financially, the County ended the year.in good fiscal condition. Revenues did exceed budgeted revenues by about $3.0 million with the majority of that coming from the split-billing revenues. They had tried to be somewhat conservative on the estimate of collections the first year not knowing how taxpayers would respond to this change. Expenditures were under projections, but, to a large extent, where the expenditure was under the projection, the remaining balance was reappropriated into the 1996-97 fiscal year for projects which had not been completed. Mr. Breeden said in looking at the audit, one figure that stands out is the General Fund Balance at $32.0 million, which was impacted by the split billing. At June 30, 1996, it shows the $17.0+ million collected in that fund balance. To get back to a realistic fund balance, deducting the money which is committed to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and the reappropriations of funds brings that amount down to about a $14.6 million General Fund balance which is about what it was at the end of FY 1994-95. From a cash flow standpoint, it is projected that that figure needs to be kept near $13.0 million, which is about a 45-day cash flow. There are a number of periods during the year when revenues are not being received (for example: between July 1 and November 1). During that period of time payroll is about $4.0 million/month, so it does not take long to use that cash flow. Mr. Breeden then introduced Mr. Jack Farmer from the auditing firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox. Mr. Marshall asked how this money from the split billing was invested. Mr. Breeden said the majority of that is invested through the Local Government Investment Pool that is operated by the State. They found that their rates are better than what can be obtained through the local banks. Mr. Marshall asked about the interest rate. Mr. Breeden said he did not know at this time. It is probably close to five percent. The majority of that money is going to the CIP, so the majority of the interest is actually being earned in the CIP from a revenue standpoint. Mr. Farmer said Mr. Breeden had given a good overview of the financial statements. He would mention a couple of points. In reference to Mr. Marshall's question, there is a note on Page 28 of the Audit Report that explains how the funds are invested. He apologized for missing the presentation of the Audit Certificate at last month's meeting, but he did congratulate the County on receiving that certificate. He said it makes a statement on behalf of the Board and the staff. Looking at the statements it shows that the County lived within its budget, and there is good fiscal responsibility and good management of the County's funds. Mr. Farmer suggested that the Board members read the Letter of Transmittal at the front of the report. It gives a narrative overview of the entire set of financial statements. The report was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and he hopes the County receives another certificate. In relation to the opinions on the Financial Statements, there is an unqualified opinion on the overall financial statements, and there are no exceptions and no findings in relation to the required disclosures of internal control and compliance for the single audit. Those opinions are in the Compliance Section. He said it is always a pleasure to go to the last page of the report and see the word "none" under ~Findings" and "none" under ~Question Costs", which means that all commitments have been met in regard to Federal Grant awards. He then offered to answer questions. Ms. Thomas said she had a question for Mr. Tucker. There were under- expenditures and it seems those funds just go over into the next year. She asked if there were any major expectations the Board had when the budget was set that went unmet. Mr. Tucker said "no". (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:12 a.m.) Mr. Breeden said that in many of these programs, it is known that they will carry over for a two-year period, but in many cases if a contract is required, then the entire amount has to be appropriated at the beginning of February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000 .05 the project. The reappropriation will sometimes carry that contract over a two- or three-year period until the project is completed. There being no further discussion of this item, the Board moved to the next agenda item. Agenda Item No. 9. Presentation: Fiscal Impact Model Committee Report. Mr. Tucker said the Board appointed the Fiscal Impact Committee in June, 1992 to develop a fiscal impact analysis methodology to analyze the fiscal impacts of growth on Albemarle County and to secure a fiscal impact model for the County's use. The eleven member committee has met through the past four years researching fiscal impact models, contracting for a specific computer model and debating and agreeing to the assumptions and data that is to form the basis of the model's analysis. After a thorough review of the average cost project model, one of four of the specifically designed models, the committee has prepared a final report for the Board's consideration. Recognizing that any computer model that purports to determine the fiscal impact of growth will be controversial, the Committee spent an enormous amount of time to ensure that any model used by the County will be transparent to the user and understandable to the community. Much research and discussion took place between Committee members in order to agree upon the model's assumptions and to verify the accuracy of the data entered into the model. Subsequent to its evaluation of the average cost project model, the Committee presents its work to the Board. Mr. Tucker then presented Mr. Chuck Rotgin and Mr. Tim Lindstrom to make brief presentations regarding the work by the Committee and who will answer questions from the Board. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 10:15 a.m.) Mr. Rotgin said he was a latecomer to the Committee, having been appointed to replace Mr. Blake Hurt. As a result, he missed a lot of the early meetings at which the scope of the project was discussed. He is very familiar with Lotus Spreadsheets, using them all of the time. From a macro standpoint (what the County is trying to accomplish), he understands how the program works. From a micro standpoint (what is in the program, formulas, etc.), he is not thoroughly versed on that. However, Mr. Lindstrom has exhibited the interest and spent an enormous amount of time looking at the program. He thinks all the committee members respect what Mr. Lindstrom has done, appreciate the time he spent, and have confidence in the outcomes as reflected in the Committee's report before the Board today. Mr. Rotgin said he is concerned that this model not be considered a ~silver bullet." It is not going to be a tool that will tell the County and its constituents what will happen with every project proposed. It is just one of many tools the Committee hopes the Board will consider. He, and other Committee member, have concerns that the model could be used improperly. The recommendations the Committee made reflect that concern. They feel it is important that the model be under the auspices of the County Executive's Office, it be maintained and thoroughly evaluated, and a committee be appointed to look at this model at least annually to be sure it is being handled properly. Also, over a period of years, to determine if it is accurate. He thought it would be helpful from a County budgeting standpoint (Ms. White explained the shortcomings in that respect), but he thought that was one of the initial charges to the Committee. There are four applications for this fiscal impact model, and the Committee just picked one of those applications. Mr. Rotgin said he appreciated the opportunity to serve on the Committee. The Committee does request that the Board adopt the recommendations of the Committee. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Lindstrom said it is amazing that the work of this Committee has gone on for over five years. Part of that is because the model, when it was first presented by the consultant, was very rough. It took a fair amount of time to first locate the consultant, and then when the consultant was located, it required a great amount of time by County staff to work with the consultant to put the information into this model. He said it is inaccurate to call it a ~model" which implies that there are some hidden formulas in it which manipulate the numbers. It is really just a simple straight forward Lotus spreadsheet. It is a program. The spreadsheets are interactive, so you just February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) ooo o load in what the current budget is for the County, the current assessment data, etc., push a couple of buttons, and it gives a relatively accurate picture of certain types of projects. After the consultant gave the model to the Committee and left the scene, a lot of work has gone on by Staff and the Committee to make sure there was a program that was neutral. Mr. Lindstrom said he has strong feelings on this topic. He is willing to be pragmatic, and he thought it was critical for this model to be useful, and that everybody in the community felt the model was honest. The fact that he and Mr. Rotgin are both present today to support the model says that as many of the elements in the community that were represented on that committee felt the model was neutral, it is honest and not biased one way or the other. Mr. Lindstrom said that leads into the recommendations which he will read. Before doing that, he wants to say that he, personally, went through every line on every spreadsheet and ran dozens of different scenarios in this program to see exactly how it works. He concluded that the model is no better than the assumptions and data that get put into it. The model is only one tool, but the Committee did feel it is important to know the fiscal impact even if it did not finally determine the Board's decision. In order for the model to be credible, it has to be carefully managed. That is mainly what the recommendations are about. The model will be important, whether or not it should be, it will be. It is almost like the genie is out of the bottle now. The important thing to recognize is that there is now this capacity and now the question is how to manage it. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to emphasis two things before he goes through the recommendations. First is credibility. In order for the model to be useful to anybody, it has to be credible. To be credible, it must be up- to-date and reflecting current data. You must know the assumptions that have been put into the model. If you don't know the assumptions, or how the model has been manipulated by whoever is presenting the results of the model, you can't assess the relevance of the results. Somebody has to be the gatekeeper. In two or three years, someone has to analyze what has happened during that period and determine if the assumptions were correct. Hopefully, the Board is willing to invest in someone sited in the County Executive's Office (or somebody who will manage the program), to keep it updated and verify it on a regular basis. The Board should also insist that as a matter of procedure nobody presents the results of this model to the Board unless they have first submitted all of their assumptions and manipulations to this office (including staff people in the County Office Building). If people from the PEC or the BRMBA, etc., who have their own perspective, are allowed to use this model (which they should be able to do), and the County does not know what assumptions they used, or the County cannot verify what they have done, controversy will be created and no light will be shed on the subject. In fact, it will be worse. The first thing is credibility. Second, this particular program was chosen, because the Committee felt strongly that the model needed to be transparent. Everybody in the community should be able to understand the model if they take the time to look at it. He said the model is transparent, but it does take time because it is complicated. The other part of the equation is that the Committee felt that anybody in the community who wanted to use this model should have access to it. It is not convenient for everybody to come into the County Office Building and sit down in this person's office. That will not work. One of the recommendations, which is not in front of the Board today because of a legal issue, is that there be at least a subscription service to this model; anybody in the community could pay to subscribe to this model. That means they would be entitled to any updates. There might even be a newsletter about the model if there were enough interest. The subscription price would defray the cost to the County of circulating it. What the Committee found at the last minute is that the contract with the consultant does not allow that type of dissemination. Hopefully, there is some kind of a licensing procedure. The other communities who have used these types of things do not let them out. He thinks the usefulness to the model is based on credibility, and availability. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to go through the recommendations. (1) The fiscal impact model should be adopted by Albemarle County provided that recommendations 2, 3 and 4 are promptly and fully implemented. Mr. Lindstrom said the Committee believes that failure to promptly and fully implement recommendations 2, 3 and 4 will lead to misuse of the model, damage February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) 000110 to its credibility and promotion of inaccurate, misleading or deliberately false information. The Committee does not recommend implementing the model without recommendations 2, 3 and 4. The model should be used for the fiscal analysis of growth resulting from land use and planning decisions and as a complementary tool in budget forecasting, primarily in projecting future capital facility needs. (2) A full-time staff person should be hired to manage the overall program. The person should be located within the County Executive's Office and should perform the following functions: maintain and upgrade the program with current data on a continuing basis: prepare follow-up analyses on completed projects to compare actual results with those originally projected by the model tQ verify the accuracy of the program's projections; run the program for all applications: verify the accuracy of any projections developed by others both inside and outside County government when those projections are to be considered by the Board of County Supervisors. (3) Ail fiscal impact projections submitted to the County using the County's model, either from outside citizens or staff or agencies within County government, should be certified by the office described above. Mr. Lindstrom said this certification process would ensure that the correct version of the model is being used in any analysis considered by the Board or the Planning Commission. It should also insure that any program, data or assumption changes made to the model that differ from the County's authorized model are clearly stated and understood. (4) An advisory board should be appointed to oversee the operation of the fiscal impact model and the program. Mr. Lindstrom said establishing a board of actively involved citizens to review proposed data changes or assumptions in the basic model will insure that credibility. The inevitable conflicts that arise as the model is used in various growth scenarios and development projects may be ameliorated by a group of knowledgeable citizens working together on a regular basis in a management and oversight capacity. (5) The model should eventually be expanded to track the cost of infrastructure improvements outside the County's capital improvement proqram, such as roads and associated transportation facilities, water and sewer, etc. Mr. Lindstrom said although these costs are not part of the original ~odel and are not now fiscal costs to the County, they should be evaluated as additional costs of development in a separate reporting mechanism in the future in order to track the total costs of development. (6) An "open space" scenario should be included in the model in the same way that various development scenarios are evaluated. Mr. Lindstrom said the way this model is set up, there is the ability to evaluate the fiscal benefits or impacts of various types of resident development and non- residential development in terms of industrial, commercial, office space and institutional use. To understand the cost of converting open land to an alternative use, the fiscal impact of open space must be able to be projected on a per acre basis. Without this understanding, the County is unable to understand the fiscal dynamics of current land uses and the true cost of converting open land to another use. (7) An initial charge to the Board appointed advisory board should be to perform an in-depth analysis of the other three fiscal impact models, i.e., the marginal cost project model, the average cost trend model and the marginal cost trend model. Mr. Lindstrom said the model has the ability to model on a project basis and to analyze on a trend basis. It has the ability to do a marginal cost analysis. He gave as an example: there is a 600-student capacity school building, and it has 550 students. There is a new subdivision which will bring in 75 more students. In the marginal cost analysis, that would trigger an assumption that a new building is needed to accommodate the additional 25 students. Under certain circumstances it might be useful to do that for budgeting purposes. It is not fair to developers to do that. The other approach is average cost. Every school child bears a certain average share of capital and operating expenses. There are four ways in which this model can operate. The only one the Committee carefully looked at is the average cost, project approach. They felt that one would be the most useful to the County and the other would be the easiest to understand. The Committee February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) recommends that the other three capabilities be flushed out by the person the Committee recommends hiring. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks this model will be a valuable tool, but it is not going to give any profound answers. He does thinks it will shed some light if it is properly managed. That is an issue that has been debated ever since he has been in Albemarle County, and he thinks this will make the debate more intelligent and useful. Mr. Martin said he assumes that the strong recommendation for 2, 3 and 4 also includes working out the legalities of having the model open to others. Mr. Lindstrom said the Committee feels strongly that the model should be available. He cannot say for the Committee that if the model is not available, they would not recommend it. They did not come to that conclusion. Mr. Martin asked if that is impossible, does the full-time staff person still needs to be full time. Mr. Lindstrom said the amount of data that this model manages is tremendous. In order for the model to be credible, that data has to be looked at on an annual basis. Between that and evaluating other people's use of the model including those in County government, and doing some of the structural things, at least initially it is a full-time job. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Lindstrom thinks it is likely that when there is a development proposal before this Board, that the developer, the County staff person and PEC, could agree on the number of kids generated per household by this particular development using the model. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think it is likely or even necessary that they all agree. What the model and process can do is insure that the Board knows the different alternative assumptions. The critical assumptions revolve around the assessed value of the units and the number of school children. He believes that if there is the full-time person on staff, over time the County will know enough to develop a feeling for what different types of development will have in terms of school children per unit and assessed values. He thinks the area of debate will get narrower as more is understood. Mr. Martin asked if the fiscal impact model is such that he would agree on the outcome if he agreed on the assumptions. Mr. Lindstrom replied ~yes." Nothing that anybody agrees to in the community can or should take the place of this Board having a completely different opinion. Presumably, staff will always have their own assumptions. He said that over the past five-plus years, he has spent a lot of time working in different communities. This community has an advantage that most do not. It has a level of sophistication on staff and an understanding of the value of information that many communities do not have. The County is close to knowing a lot about what goes on in terms of the economics of development, but it is not there yet. Perhaps the most valuable thing this model can do is to get close to a clear understanding of what the consequences of decisions are on budgeting. There are sOme subjective things on which there will never be definitive answers. The fiscal impact on residential development is something the County should come close to over a period of time. He knows that ~times are tight" and the Board has a lot of expenses. He said that Mr. Bill Nitchmann, when they first started work on this Committee, kept shaking his head and saying "I just don't understand how the County can operate without this kind of information. Nobody running a business would." Mr. Lindstrom said a lot of people view government as business, and it makes sense to him that if you have this capacity, it should be used. Ms. Thomas asked if this model is sensitive to the location of a project. Mr. Lindstrom said the model has to be adjusted. One thing that is critical about non-residential is how many people the model assumes will move into the community and take jobs and who will form households and have school children. The more people that in-migrate the less of an advantage received from non-residential. The more people who live somewhere else, the more advantage received. The model can adjust the in-migration factor. He has manipulated that. If there is a high-tech facility, that facility is likely to have a bigger in-migration factor than a blue-collar facility on the Greene County border. If you are not making a lot of money, the cost of living in Greene County is lower so far. If you are making a lot of money, and you live in Iv%; and don't want to drive all the way to Greene County, you are more likely to be captured by Albemarle County. The model can respond to those locational questions. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 000 .2 Ms. Thomas asked about residential development. The County is becoming interested in in-fill and has been interested in avoiding sprawl for a very long time rather than having a development in a pasture in White Hall as opposed to being next to a school that already exists. That has different costs. She asked if that shows in the model. Mr. Lindstrom said it can. The model now is in an infant stage. It is set up as a generic thing, but one can easily alter the assumptions and come up with a model that is sensitive to those issues. That is one of the reasons the Committee felt there was need for an open space component. Without an open space component, some of the lo- cational value is lost. Ms. Thomas asked if it will really take 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, to make this work. Mr. Lindstrom said that having sit on the other side of this, the desire to economize is understandable, but he thinks hiring one- full time person to do this initially is more than justified by the impact that this can have if it is done right, and the impact if can have if is not done right. The Board may find that after a year or so that person will not be needed full-time. Mr. Lindstrom said he should have charged by the hour for his work. He would have a bill on the table for over $150,000. There is a lot of work just to understand what the model does. It raised a lot of questions about things somebody needs to work on further. He thinks the model will be only as good as the staffing. Part of the problem with having a person part-time is that they will be used by other departments to do other things, and the Committee felt it was critical to have this person in the County Executive's Office so he was not constantly borrowed to do other things. To answer the kinds of questions the Board members have asked today will take work by this staff person. There are no spare staff people, and that is one of the reasons it took over five years to complete this report. The staff person cannot just be a ~number cruncher". First, someone who understands planning in a community like this in Virginia is needed. Second, they need to be a number cruncher. He thinks this is an office that needs to be staffed by a senior person who understands, by experience, planning dynamics in Virginia. Mr. Martin said he had a question for Mr. Rotgin about Recommendation #4. He said this Advisory Board is overseeing the operation of the fiscal impact model, and then #7 says that same advisory board is to analyze and look at other ways to use that model. He asked the relationship between that Advisory Board and the full-time staff person who will probably work under the direction of the County Executive. Mr. Rotgin said that is a good question. First, he would like to say that this was not a finished program when it was received. There were lots of bugs in it. The Committee probably should have sent Tischler a bill for taking care of some of their bugs. The time that Mr. Lindstrom spent on this program was to adapt it to Albemarle County. He has a very good knowledge of how the County works, and has a planning eye, as well as an ear. Mr. Rotgin said there are four subprograms to this model and only one has been talked about. There are three more that might be implemented. In order for this model to be effective, it does need to be credible. In order to be credible, it needs the backing of a lot of different constituencies, similar to the make-up of the Committee. As the other three elements of the model are considered, it is important to have that diverse Advisory Board looking over someone's shoulder as the other three parts are finished. It is also important to be able to follow up in future years to determine how accurate the projections put out by the model have been. Mr. Lindstrom has done a far amount of juxta positioning of the assumptions. Someone raised the issue about apartments earlier, and how to determine what numbers are used in the model. There is one apartment complex where the Planning Department knew the number of children in that complex. Those numbers were put into the model and it came up with a huge negative. He then went to one of his firm's apartment .complexes and actually counted the number of school children. There was a difference in the number of school children between those two properties by a factor of three. That is a significant number. That means there cannot be just a generic number to plug into the model. Credibility will be developed over a period of time with a full-time person managing the program, and with this person's work being overseen by the County Executive's Office and this broad-based advisory board. Mr. Rotgin said Mr. Lindstrom also did some calculations as to what price house becomes revenue neutral to the community. It takes a $320,000 house. Another question was whether this model could be made to work for a particular area. If you could take a district and plug in figures on tax February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) revenues for school costs, fire & rescue, etc., the model could be run to give meaningful data for that particular area. Mr. Lindstrom said the profile of having an Advisory Board working for various functions is something that is repeated throughout County government. Mr. Martin's concern is whether this person is working for the County or for the Committee. It has to be clear_that they are working for the County. The Committee is there as Board appointees to let everybody know what is going on. He said that Mr. ROtgin mentioned the $320,000 house and he would like to caution that that is a function of how many school children there are in a house. That assumes .23 school children, and if that number is increased, it will take a much more expensive house. One of the reasons the Committee feels strongly about having this full-time person is that the first variation of this model projected twenty years forward (a trend analysis). It said that if there is a population growth over the next 20 years like there has been over the past 20 years, the model said there would be a $120.0 million surplus as a result of the kind of growth patterns there have been in recent history. He looked at the assumptions as to the number of school children per household. He increased that number for single-family by a factor of 0.18 per household and what that did factored against 18,000 single-family dwelling units, was that it took the $120.0 million surplus and turned it into a $75.0 million deficit. The model is very sensitive to some of the assumptions. Ms. Thomas asked if the $320,000 house is with .23 school children. Mr. Lindstrom said for a single-family dwelling, the County's assumption is .47. Mr. Rotgin said it is important that the model be maintained and that policy decisions of this Board or the School Board are put into the model. Ms. Thomas said it would help the School Board immensely to know the impact of what they are doing. Mr. Marshall said he has reservations about this whole idea, and has had all along. He has used computers in his business for a long time, and has found that they are very sensitive to the information put in. He does not know how reliable the information will be to him as a Supervisor to make a decision based on the money the County will spend on the model. He said Mr. Lindstrom has done a fantastic job. The recommendation that if one does not agree with Statement #1 to forget the whole thing says it all to him. He does not know whether the County can keep up with 2, 3 and 4 and have the personnel constantly making sure the information put in is accurate. He has reservations about whether the right information will go in the model. Mr. Lindstrom said that is why the Committee felt it is critical to have a single person to be in charge of the model who understands the community and planning. Mr. Marshall asked who will train this person. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has to decide whether it is worth the investment needed to keep this thing honest, and whether having this capacity available is going to be beneficial in the long run. Mr. Rotgin said credibility is the most important thing. Input needs to be monitored and that is why the report says that anything that is presented to the Board of Supervisors has to be certified by the person submitting it to this person who should be hired to manage the program. In response to the question about how a board member will use this information to make a decision, it is just a tool. A housing project would always be revenue negative and a retail project always revenue positive so the Board can't make a decision based on that. Ms. Humphris said the Board approved the mobile home park because it was something the County needed. If you saw the fiscal impact of that project, it would have been extremely revenue negative, but it was something the community needed. This fiscal impact model is just one tool to show the effect of it. Mr. Marshall noted the statement earlier that a revenue neutral house is at $320,000. He asked how many people in the community can afford a house of that price. He thinks there is a whole segment of society that will be left out. Mr. Lindstrom said what the model does for the Board members as politicians is during budget time when the Board has to make the difficult decision to raise revenues. People, in the absence of information, will say the Board is just wasting money. With this information, the Board will have something to point to and say the community is doing certain things the public wants. There are consequences associated with these decisions. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 000 . .4 Ms. Humphris said she can't imagine coming to the point of having a tool that has been refined to the point that this one has, that would obviously provide essential information for decision-making, and have the Board turn its back on it and say "we don't want to know". She said she attended most of the meetings of this Committee during its tenure, and everybody needs to know that given the disparate directions from which all the members of the committee came, the way the committee cooperated, shared ideas, had discussions and functioned together was close to miraculous. The amount and kind of support from County staff was above and beyond, and the patience they showed with the members of the committee to insure the committee had the best product to bring to the Board for approval. The strongest words ever spoken in any of those committee meetings were between committee members and the Tischler staff person. The committee members were so frustrated that it sent Mr. Lindstrom, who had the ability to assume the responsibility to do what he did, and what he did was work that the County could not have afforded to buy. Ms. Humphris said she was not a participant in all of the computer part. She discussed with Mr. Rotgin the fact that the model would be used as an important piece of information, but in no way would it be considered the decision-making factor. All six Board members know they have to take into consideration many, many factors in every decision made. For her, it was an enlightening experience. She sees this repeated in the work that County government does with citizen advisory committees. The County is fortunate to have citizens who are willing to give of their time and expertise to help the County come forward with something that is probably leading edge, and she hopes the Board will adopt this report. She thinks the County will be steps ahead of other communities who will continue to wrestle with how they will find the answers to these problems. Mr. Bowerman said that five years ago there were five members of the present Board of Supervisors who participated in the selection of the Committee members. The selection of the individuals on the committee was key to the issue of credibility when the final product was done. The fact that this diverse committee came up with a product that all committee members can agree to is critical to adoption of this and using it as one tool. Mr. Rotgin said a couple of years ago, the Board struggled with the decisions on General Electric and whether to approve an incentive. The ultimate recommendation was that the Board would approve the incentive for road improvements if GE would agree to hire ~x" number of people from this community. This model would enable the Board to change the parameters. In response to what Ms. Humphris and Mr. Bowerman just said, he hopes everyone recognizes that the goal is to maintain the special quality of life that is enjoyed in the community. There may be different ways to get to that point, but that is the goal that all have. Mr. Lindstrom said he would also like to thank the staff. He said it may be an inaccurate picture that has been painted as to the role that one committee member had in this process. It really has been a team effort. It could not have happened without County staff. Finally, the Committee feels more strongly about setting this up so it is accurate and reliable and credible than it does about setting it up. Ms. Humphris asked if Board members had more comments. Ms. Thomas asked what staff wanted from the Board at this point. Mr. Tucker said staff needs some directions from the Board. If the Board concurs that it supports staffing this type of need, then staff can deal with that during the upcoming budget process. If the recommendation that 2, 3 and 4 go forward before the modeling itself, staff needs to know that. Mr. Martin said he would like to see the process move forward and look at this in terms of the budget for next year. Mr. Perkins said he would like to see the cost projections for running the model. Mr. Marshall said he too is interested in the cost, and if the County can afford to do it, than it should be done. Ms. Humphris said she would like to have a motion. She does not want the Board between now and budget time to lose sight of what an important asset this can be to the community. If it is brought in as an "iffy" thing, or a ~maybe" thing in the budget rather than a significant "must do" thing, it might get lost in the process. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to see it in the budget proposal as a budget recommendation. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Mr. Tucker asked if this should be a funded project rather than an unfunded priority. Ms. Humphris, Mr. Bowerman and Ms. Thomas all agreed. Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas to adopt the Committee report with recommendations adding a No. 8, "Make the model available to others on subscription if legally possible." Mr. Bowerman said he thought one of the charges to the Committee was that it be a public domain document. Mr. Lindstrom said there was a "slip between the cup and the lip." The Committee members all thought that is what they had and made their decision about the consultant based on the fact that a transparent program was needed. What happened is that the Committee never saw the final contract documents and evidently the people who ended up dealing with the contract did not know this. He said that Mr. Dennis Rooker and Mr. Davis are going to discuss this and see what can be done. The consultant understood that this was a key part of it. Mr. Bowerman said he thought that other communities would be able to lock onto it and adapt it to their own use. Mr. Lindstrom said the key may be just a licensing agreement where every person who subscribes to it will sign an agreement saying they will not use'it for purposes other than whatever the consultant and the County agree to. He said if Tischler gets some money from subscribers, he would not have any reason to ~beef" as long as it is controlled. At this point, Mr. Bowerman made second to the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. (Note: The Committee recommendations, as adopted, are set out in full below.) 1) 2) The fiscal impact model should be adopted by Albemarle County provided that recommendations 2, 3 and 4 are promptly and fully implemented. A full-time staff person should be hired to manage the overall program. The person should be located within the County Executive's Office and should perform the following functions: maintain and upgrade the program with current data on a continuing basis; prepare follow-up analyses on completed projects to compare actual results with those originally projected by the model to verify the accuracy of the program's projections; run the program for all applications; verify the accuracy of any projections developed by others both inside and outside County government when those projections are to be considered by the Board of County Supervisors. 3) Ail fiscal impact projects submitted to the County using the County's model, either from outside citizens or staff or agencies within County government, should be certified by the office described above. 4) 5) An advisory board should be appointed to oversee the operation of the fiscal impact model and the program. The model should eventually be expanded to track the cost of infrastructure improvements outside the County's capital improvement program, such as roads and associated transportation facilities, water and sewer, etc. 6) An "open space" scenario should be included in the model in the same way that various development scenarios are evaluated. 7) An initial charge to the Board appointed advisory board should be to perform an in-depth analysis of the other three fiscal impact models. O00116 February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meetin9) (Page 22) s) Make the model available to others on subscription if legally possible. (Note: At 11:13 a.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:25 a.m.) Ms. Humphris said she would like to note that Mr. Lindstrom had checked with Roxanne White during the break, and the Committee did approve the contract for the Fiscal Impact Model. The Committee is responsible for the wording of the contract. The Board skipped Agenda Item No. 10 temporarily. Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Draft Resolution in support of Regional Competitiveness Program in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. Mr. Tucker said the Regional Competitiveness Act was passed in the 1996 General Assembly in response to needs for greater regional cooperation. The purpose of the Act is to encourage counties, cities and towns to exercise 'options provided by law to work together for their mutual benefit and the benefit of the State. The Act received $3.0 million to provide monetary incentives for localities to enter into regional agreements for strategic planning and cooperation. These funds will be available on July 1, 1997, for a five-year period to eligible regions that function according to the Act's requirements. Regional partnerships intending to apply for funding must be approved by resolution of the local governments of that region. The centerpiece of ongoing regional initiatives under this program will be a regional economic competitiveness strategic plan that identifies critical competitiveness issues and actions to build consensus to address these issues. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission proposes to have the Sustainability Council, the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership and the Planning District Commission join together as a qualifying regional partnership and submit a proposal. In discussions with the Department of Housing and Community Development it appears that while the program is intended to better enable areas to be economically competitive, how regions approach this is fairly open to regional discretion and priorities. Theoretically, the strategic plan could include elements like regional sustainability and qualify of life improvements that enable the region to better position itself as an attractive, livable and economically viable place. It appears that the first year would be an opportune time for the region to make a proposal that can fit the area's needs and priorities. The Planning District Commission is requesting the County's support of this regional partnership. Mr. Tucker said this item was included on the agenda today so the Board members could consider adopting a resolution. Ms. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was present. She said the genus of this Act is very similar to the geneses of the Act that created planning district commissions. They were concerned at that time, as they are currently, that there are ways of working together to improve the ability of the various localities to function economically and to provide services to their citizens on an efficient basis. The genus of these two things was very similar. There is a more economic focus on the regional competitiveness act. Ms. O'Brien said she did a comparison of the two Acts and sent it to be included with the Board's packet today. The PDC has discussed someone taking the leadership role to see whether there is any interest in this partnership for this region. The word ~partnership" is becoming overused. Essentially it is an opportunity for localities, the private sector, the education sector and the community organization sector to work together identifying what makes a region competitive. It could be the environment, the education system, the location of parks, or typical economic development type things. Each locality will be asked during the process of developing a plan or strategy to define what makes its area competitive. Any weak spots that keep an area from being competitive need to be identified. The group which develops this plan, along with the community and the locality, will need to define what makes the region competitive, decide where there are areas that need work, and then develop strategies to take care of those soft spots. It is important not to duplicate things that exist at the regional level. The February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) O001 .? PDC thought it might be appropriate to build on three strengths they saw in the region, one being the Sustainability Council headed by Mr. Bowerman, the other being the Planning District Commission headed by Ms. Thomas, and the other being the Regional Economic Development Partnership headed by Dr. Pebble DiCroce. Ms. O'Brien said it is envisioned that these three groups work together on a short-term basis. They will need to meet once or twice to do the public process of developing the plan. There will be a staff team working with them coordinated by the Planning District director. The staff team will consist of all the chief administrative officers of the localities. In addition, the staff to the Sustainability Council and Mr. DeMoray will serve as a staff team. The Planning District staff will do the staff work and provide information for the planning process. The strategies chosen will most likely be implementable by either one of the three agencies, or even someone else all together. If something were found in the education area, the schools will work on that as a group. An idea already mentioned is telecommunicating interactive teaching, something like is done in the UVA Engineering School. That is an idea that might work without duplicating another person at the regional level, or duplicating another group of people at the regional level. They need to tap into the resources available from the State to work on areas identified as soft spots. Ms. Humphris said it is interesting that Ms. O'Brien is talking about locating weak spots, and Ms. O'Brien emphasized environment and education. Everything Ms. Humphris read in the material provided to the Board was about economic development. She did not get a clear picture from that packet of material that this Board would be entering into anything other than some sort of a backdoor economic development partnership. Ms. O'Brien said this Act is not intended to be the backdoor to an economic development partnership. It is an opportunity for the Board to determine what makes Albemarle County competitive, what makes Albemarle what it is, what makes the region what it is, define what makes the region economic development competitive and then work on those things. It is not economic development in the traditional sense, at least at this time. If the area does not enter the program this year, it is likely to become something other than it is right now. She talked to Bill Shelton, who is running the program, and he was clear that the Act allows the region to determine and define its economic competitiveness. Then the plan follows, and economic development is then defined by how your competitiveness is defined. It is not defined by the current definition of economic development. It will be defined by the region as opposed to having someone define it for you. Ms. Humphris asked if the Sustainability Council is meant to be an ongoing group. Mr. Bowerman said it basically had a charge to develop sustainability accords. That task has an ending point some time next year. Ms. Humphris said this proposal has the Sustainability Council as one of the three operators. Mr. Bowerman said that does not mean the Sustainability Council cannot be continued with a different charge after approval of the various governing bodies which put people on the Council to begin with. Ms. O'Brien said she does not see the work of that Council being complete in a year and she does not see the need for it disappearing. She thinks the likelihood of its being continued is fairly high. Ms. Thomas said since she is a member of the Planning District Commission she will talk about how she sees this. This as a region which has incredible prosperity and wealth in certain areas of the region not matched in the other portions. The State is not helping in that situation. Those who are not enthusiastic about population growth (that includes all of the Board members according to the economic development policy it adopted last year) have been saying that population growth impacts the community and yet the County's tax rate has remained the same. Albemarle has not been feeling these impacts. But, Fluvanna and Greene, in particular, have been stomped by population growth, particularly in the number of school children. Albemarle is a community that has a great disparity in how prosperous it is and the State does nothing to address any of the problems, nor is the State interested in helping the County with its rural land preservation which is desperately needed if Albemarle is going to maintain what a lot of people value about living in the County. If this Act gets funded, and former Governor Holton is putting all his prestige on the line trying to get it substantial millions of dollars, it would be the region's chance to get real dollars from the State to address things that aren't being addressed by any existing State program. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 000:1. .$ Ms. Thomas said when looking at the study of local economies by the Center for Public Service it shows that Albemarle's school system is good, but by every measure they use, the outlying school systems are not doing well at all. The drop-out figures, the number of students who go on to higher education, the eleventh grade tests, everything they use to measure, shows a tremendous difference between the school systems in Planning District 10. That could be defined as something that makes this an attractive region and something that needs help. This is a chance to get in on a program that might have some real dollars to address this disparity. Governor Holton said he regards it as a bribery program, bribing local governments to get together and cooperate. Other than this program, there will be no money from the state to help with anything identified as a regional problem. Ms. Thomas said her second point is that the chances of getting money to address problems defined are better if the region gets in the program during the first year. State bureaucracy is likely to get set in its way and define this program the way the first few groups define it. Hampton Roads has defined it almost entirely as the traditional type of economic development with marketing of the area. That is the sort of model that might be picked up by the whole State if Planning District 10 is not in early so as to define the program as this region would want it defined. Ms. O'Brien said Northern Virginia is having this same discussion. Their business council, which is lead by Til Hazel, is concerned about the education system because they have 4000 hi-tech jobs and do not have anybody to take them. The business community in Northern Virginia is saying they have to educate people there to take their jobs in order to better their economy, their own family income. The Planning Commission has often talked about underemployment here and this may be an opportunity to work on that. There are many things that can be defined. Ms. Humphris said the Board needs to move on with the agenda. She asked if anybody had questions. Mr. Marshall said he intends to support this resolution. He does not think economic development is a bad word. He thinks it is good. Ms. Humphris said it is not that economic development is.a bad word. She found the paperwork the Board got to be very fuzzy and incomplete. It did not mention any of the things Ms. O'Brien mentioned in her presentation. She also finds the resolution to be a bit vague. Before the Board passes a resolution, it needs to know what it is being asked to do. She asked if there were anyone else present who wished to speak. Mr. Peter Hallock said Albemarle County has not joined the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership. He thinks that if the program were left with the Sustainability Council and the Planning District, the Sustainability Council might go out of existence and it would become a way to join the Economic Development Partnership without really having a public hearing on it. Ms. Thomas said adopting a resolution that says ~there exists in our district organizations such as the Partnership and the Sustainability Council dedicated to the overall health of the region consistent with the Regional Competitiveness Act" does not place this Board within that partnership for economic development. There is no back door to join the Economic Development Partnership. That costs real money. Mr. Hallock said the Board would be turning it over to them if the Sustainability Council goes out of business. He would rather leave it with the Sustainability Council which has a broader spectrum of the community in its members. Mr. Marshall said Albemarle won't get any funds unless it joins this as a regional group. Mr. Hallock said the Sustainability Council is a regional group. Just leave the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership out of it for the time being and let the other two groups handle it. It might assure that the Sustainability Council has a reason for existing. Ms. Humphris said the Planning District is representative regionally. The Sustainability Council is representative regionally. The Partnership for Economic Development has its own particular agenda. It has one agenda, and these other groups are more overall umbrella organizations, so why should the partnership have a position in this group? Mr. Perkins said it has regional representation too except for Albemarle County. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000 1'! 9 Ms. Humphris asked why, with its particular agenda, it should have a seat. Mr. Perkins said because it is a regional organization. That is what Albemarle can say. The character being hung out there is to get everybody to do everything on a regional approach. He doesn't necessarily agree with that, but if that is the way to get money, that is the way to get the money. Ms. Thomas said an alternative would be for the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership to take on this project totally themselves. That has happened in the Hampton Roads area. Mr. Marshall asked if that would make Albemarle eligible. Ms. Thomas said she thinks that would overlook the value of the kinds of programs that only the Planning District Commission has been interested in. One thing that comes to mind is housing which is not taken up by either of the other two, or, the sustainability aspects that are making Albemarle known throughout the Nation for what is being done in this area. She would hate to have the existing Partnership be the group to do it. Mr. Marshall said he would rather be a part of the planning rather than be left out of it. Right now Albemarle is not part of the Economic Development Partnership and the County is being left out. The new fiscal impact model is another tool Albemarle has in its possession to help make the proper decisions. The Board will not be going out and trying to attract new business and new concerns to come to Albemarle County. They are coming and the County has to control the ones that are coming, and the ones which are not wanted. The County would like to have ones that pay $15 and $20 an hour instead of $5 an hour. Ms. Humphris referred to the resolution where the Board resolves to support participation including development of a strategic plan for the region, and asked if the Board should elaborate on what the strategic plan should include such as housing, education, the environment, etc. so as to make it clear that Albemarle is looking at the overall best interests of the region and not just at one facet. Mr. Martin said he did not think the Board can define all of the things it may be looking for in a strategic plan. The resolution might say "including education, housing, etc." Ms. Humphris said that is what she meant. There is a list of ideas in the staff report. She would feel more comfortable with the resolution if it spelled out all these things in print to show that the Board means all the key issues, and not just one issue. Ms. Thomas said the Board could put in an additional statement "Albemarle County assumes such a plan will include education, housing, the environment, etc." It would be helpful, maybe even to include an asterisk, but to say what Albemarle assumes will be looked at in a strategic plan. That seems to be an appropriate type of guidance that any other county would be free to do also. Louisa County has already signed this resolution. At this time, Ms. Humphris recognized Ms. Babette Thorpe from the Piedmont Environmental Council. Ms. Thorpe asked if the Board will hold a public hearing before the strategic plan is acted on, and if that is the intent could the resolution be amended to reflect that intent. Mr. Bowerman said he was on radio show a couple of weeks ago talking about sustainability and was surprised at the reaction he got from the public regarding what the Sustainability Council is doing. The first question likened it to the failed happenings in Russia that started in 1917 as some sort of planned, more government control of this region and, telling people were to live. He thinks that element of the Sustainability Council and elements of this proposal are way out in front of the public in terms of what the public understands about the program. Also, because Albemarle County has not joined the Regional Economic Development Partnership, he thinks that is a serious issue also. He was able to say that the Sustainability ~Council is providing information to the public so business interests, as well as local governments, can make intelligent decisions about the future. If the Sustainability Council becomes involved in pulling down state funds in some sort of regional group, he has not looked enough in his own thinking to know what effect that could have on the grass roots nature of the Council and what it is attempting to do. He would like to have public input from both sides of the issue before the Board formally signs onto this. That is his uneasiness. He talked to Ms. O'Brien about it yesterday, and he was not able to define it in his own mind even yesterday. He does not want to damage the credibility of February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000120 the Council, he does not want to damage the credibility of this Board, at least in so far as the current steps it has taken with the Economic Development Partnership. He would like to hear from the public. Ms. Thomas said she thinks Ms. Thorpe was talking about hearing from the public when the strategic plan is ready to be presented. Mr. Bowerman said he defers to the Board, but he thinks the Board members are way out in front of the public on this, a lot more so than it was on reversion. He does not think the public has any idea what this is all about. He does not know whether the Board should take public comments before or after the resolution. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it should be done before a strategic plan is adopted. Otherwise it is not a public strategic plan. She does not know what the time constraints are. Ms. O'Brien said the proposal has to be in by the end of June. Ms. Humphris agreed with Mr. Bowerman that the public has no idea what it is the Board is discussing, or thinking about doing. The Board is leaving them way behind, and should not. She does not know whether a public hearing should be held before adopting the resolution or simply before the strategic plan. She thinks it should be before adopting the strategic plan because right now the Board has no more information to give. Mr. Martin said that once there is a plan, or a proposed plan, it gives people a better idea of what they are coming to a public hearing to speak on, something to react to. Ms. Thomas suggested that the staff and any Board members who want to, suggest what the addition to the resolution should say, bring back the resolution next week, and say right in the resolution that the strategic plan will have a public hearing if that makes people sure they will have input. Ms. Humphris asked if that is a motion. Ms. Thomas so moved. Mr. Marshall asked for clarification of what is being done. Ms. Thomas said staff will come back with an addition to this resolution that will outline what the strategic plan will include so it doesn't have the appearance of being an economic development marketing plan and it will also say that the Board will be having a public hearing on a strategic plan. Mr. Martin made second to Ms. Thomas' motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:58 A.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to consider candidates for appointment to boards and commissions and to discuss an administrative matter; and under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and to discuss pending litigation relating to insurance discounts. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session. At 3:20 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation: Other Potential Local Revenue Sources/Taxes. Mr. Tucker said that due to the impending shortfall in revenues for the FY 1997-98 School budget, as well as the potential long-term drop in the rate of increase for real estate taxes, staff has provided a list of revenue sources for the Board's review and staff guidance in preparing the FY 1997-98 County budget. He brings this to the Board's attention not only for the 1997- 98 budget, but for the 1998-99 budget year when the new Monticello High School will be opened. Transient Tax: In 1996, the General Assembly authorized Albemarle County to levy up to a five percent transient tax, although the legislation stipulated that the additional three percent can only be used for ~promoting tourism, travel or business that generates tourism or travel in the locality." Each one percent of the transient tax generates approximately $195,200 so an additional three percent would generate $585,600 which could be used to fund County projects such as the Rivanna Greenway and boat ramp, the Route 29 North landscaping, the Airport access road, the Visitor's Bureau, and, other identified tourism programs. Mr. Tucker said this source of revenue would free up funds which are already allocated in the CIP and allow the County to use $430,000 of that $585,600 for other General Fund needs. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is known that the use of the funds as described would be all right. Mr. Davis said no one has actually initiated a tax under these restrictions. There is no real life experience on this new law. It is his opinion that the projects which Mr. Tucker identified would safely fall under this legislation. There is a problem in that this is an unusual taxing provision in that it requires the County to basically segregate a fund that could only be used for these certain purposes. The County would have to establish an account where the three percent of the lodging tax would be deposited, and then the Board would need to appropriate funds for appropriate projects out of that account. Mr. Martin said if the $585,600 is a one-year collection on this tax, and the projects mentioned have been paid for by that amount, what would the money be used for in the second year? Mr. Tucker said there are similar projects which could be identified. Mr. Bowerman asked if purchase of development rights for protection of rural areas would qualify. Mr. Davis said that question has been asked before. That gets into a gray area. Arguments could be made that that somehow promotes tourism, travel or business that generates tourism or travel, but he thinks it is on the fringe of the gray area. Ms. Thomas asked if purchase of land for the Greenway would qualify, but purchase of development rights might not. Mr. Davis said the $167,000 for the Rivanna Greenway is not for purchase of land, it is for improvements. Mr. Tucker said it is for improvements of the public access to a public recreational facility. Ms. Thomas said if the County added to that in the next year, there would be purchase of land involved. Mr. Davis said that is different from purchase of development rights. This is land which is being passively used for recreational facilities which is along an area that tourists could enjoy. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board could set up criteria for development rights it would like to purchase so its top priority was for areas along designated greenways or continuation of greenways. She thinks some portion of them might qualify if worded carefully. Mr. Davis said there may be parameters and criteria that could be identified to justify that type of expenditure. He is cautioning the Board from a blanket standpoint it is something the Board would need to proceed cautiously with. Mr. Bowerman said in the event the Board did not have a target area in the third or fourth year, the funds could be rolled over to the next year. If the Board did not have a list, it would not mean the tax would need to be reduced that year. It would be a fund set up for tourism benefits, etc. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) Mr. Martin said he saw a discussion recently that some of the money might have to go to the Tourism Bureau. Mr. Tucker said staff is talking to them about the possible use of some of these funds for tourism marketing. That is why it is only $430,000 instead of the entire amount of $585,600. Cigarette Tax: The County has asked Delegate Van Yahres to add Albemarle County to the counties authorized to collect a cigarette tax. Currently, only Arlington and Fairfax counties have that authority, although H.B. 2204, presently before the Legislature, requests that Accomack County be added. A five percent cigarette tax would raise approximately $400,000 in revenues, comparable to what the City of Charlottesville collects on a twelve percent cigarette tax. Mr. Davis said this bill has already been killed. Mr. Tucker said staff did make an attempt to get the legislation enacted. He wants the public to know that the County is trying to find sources of revenue other than the property tax. Cable Franchise Tax: Although the Board has previously declined to impose a cable franchise fee for a number of reasons, it is a potential revenue source of approximately $358,000 at a five percent fee. If the Board is interested in pursuing this option, the time frame for implementing it would be at least a year away and, therefore, revenues would probably not be realized until FY '99. Ms. Thomas said she understands the problem with this tax is that it gets the Board into a whole area of regulation that would have a cost attached. She asked Mr. Tucker if he could quantify that. Mr. Tucker said "no". He will say that the other reason is the free enterprise attitude this Board has had in the past of not trying to limit those cable companies that can operate in this area. The Board discussed franchising in the mid-70s when cable first came in this area. It decided not to get into the cable franchising business, but to let the free market reign. He is only pointing it out again if the Board would like to consider the fee now. Land Use Tax: Current land use taxation policy defers approximately $5.49 million in tax revenues to land enrolled in agriculture, forestry or open space. Although the fiscal impact of various land use policy decisions has not been updated since the Board's last review of the issue, should the Board wish to revisit the various revenue implications of land use, staff would again develop those fiscal impact scenarios. Mr. Tucker said a meals tax was not mentioned in his memorandum. That could bring in $2.3 million, but it is subject to a referendum. More than likely, even if it passes, it might be this time next year before getting it into place to generate revenue. It would be more of a benefit in FY 1998-99. He said these options were provided for the Board's information. The updated revenue projections given to the Board earlier today showed only a very small increase, and that amount was added to the Board's Reserve Fund for use during budget review. That total is only $370,000. Other than using some Fund Balance money for one-time expenses to help the schools with the $1.4 million shortfall in the Superintendent's budget, there are not a lot of areas to tap for the funds. There are no rabbits to pull out of a hat, other than the property tax. Ms. Thomas said there was an article a couple of years ago that said the County actually made money on the Land Use Tax even though it removes over $5.0 million in revenues. It said that even accounting for that, the County made about $3.0 million. At the same time, there have been a lot of proposals suggesting that is has not been effective as a land use tool. It is allowing people to stockpile land, but not truly putting it in anything that could be called a long-term commitment. Those discussions have been on its effects as a land use tool, not on its effects as a revenue source. She asked if the Board made it more effective (have people take advantage of the program only if they put their land in an easement, an ag-forestry district, or open space), would it in fact be making more money? Would that $5.0 million figure become only $1.0 million of a loss? Mr. Tucker said that is a difficult amount to quantify. The question was, if the Board decided to look at the land use tax and eliminate it, would February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 000123 it be replaced with something else? As the Board has discussed before, if it was decided to go to open space and the ag-forestal districts, it would require a lot of hand holding to help people understand how to make the change. If there were a shift, some property owners probably would not qualify, so that is where the County would gain revenue. Ms. Thomas asked if any counties have tightened up their land use usage. Mr. Tucker said he knew of no counties which had shifted totally from land use to open space, ag-forestal. Even if that happened, it would not help during the next fiscal year. Mr. Marshall said he wanted to leave land use exactly as it is. Ms. Thomas said for land use purposes she would like to change it, but she does not think that will give the County much of a financial boost. Mr. Bowerman said it is a tough sell each time that issue is raised. When you try to discuss it, it is a complicated notion to try and sell to the public who think it would be a windfall and right now the people who are utilizing it are all getting some especially good break. When you take the time to explain it, the obvious benefits are not there. It takes time. Mr. Marshall said he may be the only one on the board who utilizes it. Ms. Thomas said she does on her few acres, and it forces her to be a better farmer. Mr. Marshall said without it his land would not be a farm, but he would have to subdivide it because he could not afford to live there and pay the taxes. Mr. Tucker said it is 1998-99 that the Board needs to be thinking about. The latest projection for the opening of the new high school is about $1.3 million. The schools are anticipating another significant increase in enrollment, over 300 students, and that is estimated at an additional $1.4 million. It is known that there is a need for over $2.7 million in new money for 1998-99. He would like any guidance the Board can give staff. If the Board feels property taxes are off the books, that gives some direction to the staff to meet that shortfall. This report was to get the Board's opinion on the other alternative taxes. Ms. Humphris asked if any Board member thought the County should not pursue the transient occupancy tax. There was consensus that the staff should continue to pursue an increase in the transient occupancy tax. Mr. Martin said the County should pursue the cigarette tax again next year. Mr. Tucker said this is one where everyone needs to go to the Legislature to speak. The tobacco lobby just ~blows people away" any time that anyone tries to be added to the cigarette tax. Ms. Thomas asked why Accomack County put their name on the bill, because that requires passage by a two-thirds majority. That is just asking for defeat. Mr. Martin asked how Arlington and Fairfax got the legislation. Mr. Tucker said they have more clout, and they have had the authority for a while. Ms. Humphris asked about the cable franchise tax Mr. Bowerman said "no." Mr. Martin said he can't see doing it. The consensus was not to pursue the tax. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Tucker is asking if the Board is interested in having his staff pursue any of these options. The Board is saying "yes" to the transient occupancy tax, continue with the cigarette tax, and that is it for now. Mr. Martin said "no" that is not all of the options. He has been on the Board for five years and during that time he has opposed any rise in the real estate or personal property tax. He was on the Board when the personal property tax was reduced once. He thinks that for the purposes of budget discussions, the Board needs to give directions to consider something like a two-cent real estate tax increase with maybe a five-cent decrease in the personal property tax, as well as moving to the maximum amount allowed for elderly/handicapped tax relief. He thinks the more people who are allowed to qualify, the better cushion there will be against the two-cent real estate tax increase. Ms. Humphris said the two cents would be an additional $1.1 million and the five cents on personal property would be a $250,000 decrease, and then whatever relief the elderly could get. Mr. Davis said that ordinance could not be put into effect until the next tax year because it is already beyond the application deadline for this year. Mr. Martin said he knows that the Board will miss out on cushioning the blow for some people who will really be February 5, 1997 (Regular Day M~eting) (Page 30) 000 .24 hurt by that blow, including the indigent, the hard-working, and the working poor, but if the County needs in excess of $1.0 million just to maintain the current effort, he feels it is his obligation as a member of the board of supervisors, to d© something about that. He is not saying he would support an increase in the end, but he thinks staff needs to bring that back to the Board for discussion. Mr. Marshall said he hopes staff will be able to come up with more money somewhere else. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Tucker has said he cannot. Mr. Tucker said he has talked to Dr. Castner recently and Dr. Castner is anticipating that the state will provide some additional money. It will not be much, maybe $200,000. Ms. Thomas said the County got $500,000 more than was anticipated last year. She thinks the real estate tax is a horrible tax. It pays no attention to your present situation in life. That is one reason she was part of the citizens group that pushed to have the fiscal resources advisory committee back in 1990. She said that other alternatives have been looked at. She does appreciate having this list one more time. She thinks the County is stuck with a lousy tax, but one has to remember that a kid is only a fifth grader once. She does not want to sacrifice kids this year. Her personal advice is not to sacrifice this year thinking that there can be a huge jump next year. She hopes the citizens recognize the need for the meals tax with this description. Mr. Martin said if the citizens are able to get a meals tax passed, the Board can go back and discuss anything that may or may not have been done with real estate. He also hopes that with this mild winter, some of the funds which were earmarked for electric are not used. Hopefully, there will be at least $200,000 to$300,000 left. Mr. Tucker said those are one-time dollars. Mr. Martin said at least that would help some. Even if all those things are added, unless there are some mistakes made in the budgeting process, it seems the Board of Supervisors will have to come up with more revenue. Hopefully not, but he would still like to see the various scenarios. Mr. Marshall said he is not willing to support it. There being no further discussion of this item, the Board continued with the agenda. Agenda Item No. 12. Presentation: Public Information Materials. Mr. Tucker said Ms. Lee Caitlin has developed, with Mr. Davis, a brochure of public information materials to be disseminated to the public regarding reversion and other pertinent issues facing the County. For presentation purposes, a format has been developed which Board and staff members can use for speaking engagements. Also, an informational item for the County's Web Site has been developed regarding reversion. Ms. Caitlin made a presentation of the materials. Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Request from the League of Women Voters to have the Board of Supervisors participate in a public forum on reversion being sponsored by the LOWV. Ms. Humphris said the letter received raised some questions. It says "the purpose of this forum is to educate our citizens about the issues and options that face our local government structure and organization." Ms. Humphris said it does not say the discussion is to be on reversion. She thinks the Board should ask the President of the LOWV exactly what the forum is for. The Board would be happy to participate in a forum on reversion. She does not know that the members could discuss because they have not discussed any options at this point. She asked Mr. Tucker to write to the President of the LOWV asking for a clarification of their request. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. There were none. Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 000 .25 Mr. Marshall recommended the appointment of Mr. Paul C. Harris, Sr., to the Children and Youth Commission for a term which will expire on June 30, 1997. Mr. Marshall recommended the appointment of Mr. Clifford R. Buys to the JAUNT Board of Directors for a term which will expire on September 30, 1999. Mr. Martin recommended the appointment of Mr. Eric J. Strucko and Mr. Ronald N. Whitener to the Albemarle County Housing Committee for terms which will expire on December 31, 1999. Mr. Bowerman recommended the appointment of Mr. Edward L. Strickler, Jr. to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging Advisory Council on Aging for a term which will expire on May 31, 1997. The motions were seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 18. Joint Meeting with School Board. The Board recessed at 4:05 p.m. and reconvened immediately in Room 235 with the following members of the School Board being present at this time: Mr. John Baker, Mr. Madison Cummings, Jr., Ms. Susan Gallion, Mr. Jeffrey Joseph, Mr. Stephen Koleszar, Ms. Karen Powell and Dr. Charles Ward. Also present, Dr. Kevin Castner, Division Superintendent. Agenda Item No. 18a. Discussion: FY 1997-98 Draft School Division Budget. Ms. Humphris called the meeting back to order. Ms. Powell, Chairman of the School Board, thanked the Board for allowing them to come today to speak about their budget. They do have a public hearing on their budget at 7:00 p.m. tonight. Dr. Castner said all background information is contained in a report entitled "Albemarle County Schools Superintendent's Proposed 1997-98 Budget Summary" which has been forwarded with today's agenda materials. He said that at this point in time, the budget is the School Board's budget and not the Superintendent's. He would like to review some of the highlights. During the last two years, they have put together planning documents which drive their budget for both short-term and long-term priorities. The direction of the School Board this year started out with a "maintenance of effort". The School Board asked to only try to maintain the current commitment in class size, in keeping up with the cost of living, textbooks, necessary transportation, and to not exceed a maintenance of effort definition and to delineate any unfunded initiatives that would not fit in that definition as a separate category. They also asked that within existing funds, to see if there is a way to differentiate funding to support some schools which have a greater diversity of students, not to ask for new money, but to take it internally and readjust the pie. The Hendrix study caused them to make changes in how to approach the teachers salaries. The Hendrix study showed that they were above market in the middle of the scale, and below market at the end. Also, they were below market in that surrounding counties were paying $2000 for a Master's and Albemarle was paying $1000. He was asked to do that within the allocation discussed with Bob Tucker's staff and school staff and stay within that allocation. Dr. Castner said the challenges of this year's budget are similar to those of last year. This year there are 282 new students, the addition of the planning of the new high school which is costing over $200,000 initially, and revenue is not now equal to a maintenance of effort budget. They dealt with staffing and a salary that maintains the cost of living at the rate given by the County executive's staff. Dr. Castner said to explain why there is this dilemma, look at last year's budget ($67.0 million, which was a 5.3 percent increase with 218 students). Next year there will be 282 students and the initial amount of money is only a 4.4 percent increase. There are the additional students and 000 26 February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) the new high school, and that creates a gap. They need 6.5 percent in new money, so it leaves a gap of $1.4 million. This is a fact. The problem this year will be even worse next year. Next year, instead of 282 new students, they project that number to be 305. Their projections the last few years have been within plus or minus 10 students. Dr. Castner said the start-up costs for Monticello High School this year were about $200,000. Next year, that will be one-half to three-quarters of a million dollars. They will be more challenged financially next year than this year, and this will continue as long as they get this type of increase in student growth. Mr. Martin asked how much of the start-up costs for Monticello High are one-time costs. Dr. Castner said a lot of that is one- time costs. They are trying to provide that information to the County Executive's staff at this time. In this maintenance of effort budget, it has a 3.5 percent salary adjustment. That is the number that was jointly arrived at. They asked for additional staff to address the growth issue. For example: for every 20 new students there is one additional teacher hired. Each teacher costs with fringe benefits about $42,000. That is a large chunk of money, and that is just to maintain class size. The other issue is that 16 percent of the population is special ed students. Those classes are smaller, so out of every 100, 16 students will be special ed, and they need staffing. Dr. Castner said as the School system has grown the past few years, they have tried to slip in a few initiatives. Whenever they put in initiatives, they go against the maintenance of effort. Funding at the school level has had no increase for the past five years. They have been holding back seven percent each year as a protection against a severe winter. That is how tight the budget is. As to bus replacements, talking about long-term bus costs, the schools have been trying to buy ahead so they don't have to buy all the new buses the same year. The question is, do the schools want to run a bus that is 14 years old when the limit has been set at 137 They don't have a choice. The Standards of Learning (SOL) for social services were entirely revamped so they had to change the curriculum. There are first-time costs associated with that. In Human Resources, there are fewer staff members than in 1990 and they can document that the number of calls is much higher. There are over 2000 teacher applicants, many more than in the past. Also, they are getting into litigation issues. Dr. Jennings is spending an increasing amount of time as the point person for those. In the Fiscal Services Office, there is no longer a management analysis. It is a one-person office, and if that person ~gets sick, they have no back-up person. These positions are restoration, and they fit in the maintenance of effort definition this year. Dr. Castner said he is pleased to say that the principals in the school system tried to help him solve a problem. The School Board asked him to get into differentiated staffing. That means is that within the existing numbers, they can restructure some money so some schools will get greater funds than this past year on a formula, and some schools less. They have redistributed 86 positions and also have tried to reapportion them to areas of greater need. This restructuring also enabled them to do some work in technology within the existing budget. The principals gave up some positions so they could focus more on technology. Dr. Castner then showed a slide to demonstrate what would happen if there were a formula that gave each school a certain amount of dollars for each student so every school was treated the same. For a school like Walton that has 30 percent free/reduced lunch students, this past year they used some of their money for a social worker so their Class sizes were larger. They chose to make that trade-off because they needed that position for their population. They have a way now so they can treat Walton a little differently. Now, instead of all schools being treated equally, some schools have slight decreases and some schools had gains. As a result of this, Walton will get three additional positions. There will be additional positions at Burley, Agnor-Hurt, Yancey, any of the schools that have the most significant free/reduced lunch populations. He said they are not satisfied that the free/reduced lunch is the only way of defining certain needs, but that is the only way they have at current that is a number known to be accurate. They will be looking at other areas that might add to how they work with this February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) formula. This was a significant effort among the principals, and they did something special. Mr. Martin asked if Dr. Castner was saying that prior to this, the "pie" was divided perfectly even. He thought that more resources had been spent at Yancey and Walton for years. Dr. Castner said Title I money had done that. Also, they have been putting $100,000 into what they call an ALPS Program (Accelerated Learning Project Schools). The amount of ALPS money is very small compared to what is being done for this next budget year. For example: Walton received an extra $15,000. Now they are getting three positions equivalent to about $100,000. The commitment has been increased greatly. Also, they put some money into summer school programs in areas of greatest need, but not in all schools. Hopefully, this will result in increased learning. Mr. Martin said it has been a while since he was a member of the School Board, but he thought they were putting more than just $15,000 more into Yancey and Walton. Dr. Castner said he is talking about the ALPS program. Mr. Martin said he is talking about Albemarle County's commitment. Dr. Castner said he will review that. The biggest problem with technology is that staff has to be trained to use the computers. The Schools get money for computers, but no money to train staff. There are three positions going to 23 schools. The principals gave up three more positions from their allotments toward solving this problem internally. They are not trying to solve every problem by asking for more money. They are trying to solve some of these problems internally. These are the directions School staff had from the School Board. Dr. Castner said this maintenance of effort budget is $1.4 million short. He got some additional information from Richmond today, which was the cross-over day in the Legislature. There are many proposals to put more money into education. The range he was told could be anywhere from $75,000 to $269,000 for Albemarle County. He believes the schools will get some additional money. It will help with some, but not with all of the shortfall. In addition to the $1.4 million, the School Board asked staff to identify unfunded areas and prioritize them, such as textbooks, the ALPS Plus Differentiated Learning program which is increasing in summer school experience, a K-5 language/arts specialist, the language/arts reading initiative which is the number one priority of the principals, and then there were additional areas such as: health clinicians, working with the gifted, technology, and recruitment and selection. That list totals $2.9 million. All of the School Divisions' new money is going toward maintaining growth. They would like to do some of the initiatives, but if those initiatives have to compete against existing effort, the existing effort has to come first. They don't know if they will be able to solve the $1.4 million, let alone the $2.9 million. When people wonder why there are not certain programs in the system, it is growth that is causing the competition. Dr. Castner said he has been using the following statement in the budget process: "Systems that have vision out perform their resources." If the schools have a maintenance of effort budget, and only maintain, they have a greater expectation in student achievement. What kind of results does the school system have to show? Looking at the literacy passport, which is a sixth grade test in Virginia, in 1994, 1995 and 1996 the trend rate is higher in Albemarle than in the State. The goal is to get 90 percent of their sixth grade students getting the literacy passport the first time. They are working toward that and have made some efforts. There are a couple of things that happened last year that he is pleased with. He would like to look at that number in a different way. When the Literacy Passport data is reported, because they don't have SES (Low Socio- economic) data, it is reported as African/American or black children, and, white children in the State of Virginia, so this comes from a state report. He is concerned about this. If you look at the state average between a black child and a white child, you see a discrepancy. You see a discrepancy in Albemarle County, but the fact is that the County last year went up about 1.7 percent in the literacy passport and went up 7.9 percent in the achievement with the black students. Causing that gap to get smaller so it no longer exists is what the School System should be about. Their success can't be judged on averages. Around the country they are saying that the SAT scores are going down, but that is not what is happening in Albemarle County. They are dealing with an average of 1075 and that is not the type of increase February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) ooo 2s nationally. Of the money going to education (while all of the students are doing well), they are dealing with 72 percent of the kids, 71 percent taking the test. That is far more than nationally, and more than the state. Albemarle is not getting the scores by having lesser students take the tests. He thinks it is a combination of the parents, good teaching, and the support for education given by the Board of Supervisors. It is not any one thing. When people make generalizations saying schools are not doing as well, it does not apply in Albemarle County. The Schools have the data to show it. Every August in the School Board's report they put out that data on a school by school level. It tells the story of where they want to make changes. The other day, 85 more algebra books were needed at Walton. When he came to Albemarle County, Walton had the lowest percentage of students taking algebra of the five middle schools. What happens is that the kids are accelerating faster than they thought and they need the books now. That is a sign of something positive. Those are the types of things the Schools are working on, so when talking about these increases, it can be guaranteed that even though talking about maintenance of effort, they are not saying they will give just maintenance of effort results. People will get their money's worth. Dr. Castner invited the Board members to come in the schools and visit. He then offered to answer questions. Ms. Humphris thanked Dr. Castner for an excellent presentation. Agenda Item No. 18b. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 4:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion and to discuss pending litigation relating to insurance discounts. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Perkins. At 5:30 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall (left the executive session at 5:00 p.m.) and Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 18c. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Davis reported that rather than proceed to trial, Trigon has agreed to settle the hospital discounts case for $600,000, and the Board of Supervisors and the School Board have agreed to accept that amount. The parties have agreed that this is not an admission of liability on the part of Trigon. He asked the Boards to approve the settlement agreement with Trigon. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. At this time, the School Board adopted a like motion which passed unanimously, all School Board members being present at this time. February 5, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 000129 Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.