Loading...
1997-02-22000176 February 22, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 22, 1997, at 11:00 a.m., at The Senior Center, 1180 Pepsi Place, Charlottesville, Virginia. The meeting was adjourned from February 19, 1997. 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., and County Attorney, Larry W. Davis. Representatives of Charlottesville City Council, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, and members of the Town Reversion Committee (formerly the Town Reversion Study Group) were invited to take part in a public forum, regarding the reversion of the City to town status, sponsored by the League of Women Voters. The forum was planned to allow representatives of each of the three local groups time to state their positions, followed'by a question and answer period in which the audience could address the speakers. Ms. Kathryn Hobbs, President of the League of Women Voters, served as moderator and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Mr. Michaux Wilkinson, Executive Director of the Virginia Commission on Local Government, discussed various forms of intergovernmental structures specified in Virginia law. He stated that officials do not have to limit their sights to cooperative agreements now allowed by state law. It has been his experience that if the localities are interested in doing something not currently in the law, the General Assembly is receptive to modifying state law. If a solution cannot be forged between the city and county, in his opinion it is because of political constraints, not legal constraints. Kay Slaughter, City Councilor, made a statement with a chart presentation on behalf of the City. The City feels that they have to look at all the options and try to fashion solutions based on the best available data. City officials believe discussions should continue between the City and County on consolidating social services and fire services regardless of what happens with reversion. On behalf of the Board, Ms. Humphris made the following statement: "Thank you for inviting the Board of Supervisors to participate in this forum. Today I appear on behalf of a Board which has been forced into litigation by the filing of a petition which seeks to revert the City of Charlottesville to town status. The purpose of our participation in this forum is to address and to continue to inform the public on the County's position concerning reversion. We are not here to discuss alternative local government structures. Such discussions by the County are not appropriate until and unless the reversion action is dismissed. Having said that, there is one position on any such future discussions I can state unequivocally on behalf of all the members of the Board of Supervisors. Any future discussion of alternative government structures must be based soundly on the premise that there can be no change in the form of the government of the County unless such change is subject to the approval of the County voters by referendum. Local government must be a vehicle that is supported by the people it serves. Reversion of the City to a town will affect each and every person in Charlottesville and Albemarle County. It is a critically important issue which the Board of Supervisors has studied in depth and in which we have invested a tremendous amount of time and energy. It is an issue which we did not initiate. It is an issue we must address. In contrast to City Council, the Board of Supervisors has a clear and united position on reversion. Although reversion of the City of Charlottesville to a town is not sought by the County, the County concedes it is highly likely that the Special Reversion Court will order reversion along with terms and conditions to balance the equities of that reversion. The County also acknowledges that litigating reversion before the Commission on Local Government and in the courts is an expensive and divisive process for the entire community. However, the County has no option other than to participate in the litigation. It must take all necessary steps to protect its interests in what is clearly an adversarial proceeding. The City, on the other hand, needs only to participate actively in the process if it desires to revert to town status. The ultimate decision as to whether the City reverts to town status will be made by City Council. State law provides that City Council, by a simple vote, can refuse to accept the reversion even if it is ordered by the Reversion Court. The County does not have that choice. To avoid the expense and divisiveness of reversion litigation the Board of Supervisors stands ready to negotiate with City Council if City Council determines it wants to negotiate a reversion to town status under existing law. Let me repeat. The Board of Supervisors stands ready to negotiate with City Council if City Council determines it wants to negotiate a reversion to town status under existing law. The City Council and Board of Supervisors can 000177 February 22, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 2) negotiate, outside of the adversarial legal proceedings, what services the County would provide to the town and the terms and conditions that would make the reversion a fair and orderly transition. If an agreement is reached, a voluntary settlement agreement providing for the reversion of the City to town status could be presented to the Commission on Local Government and the Reversion Court in lieu of proceeding with the reversion litigation. What cannot be negotiated, however, because they are not appropriate or permissible terms or conditions of a reversion or of a voluntary settlement agreement under state law, are (1) terms which dictate how an elected school board will run the school system after reversion or (2) terms which dictate how the County will determine the number and boundaries of election districts after reversion. Running schools is the responsibility of an elected school board that is elected by voters of the County which, of course, will include the voters of the new town. Determining election districts is solely the responsibility of the Board of Supervisors who will be elected to represent all the people in those districts. Of course, negotiations are not possible unless and until City Council determines that the City has problems which can be addressed by reversion and, in fact, seeks to revert the City to town status. The County cannot negotiate a reversion it does not seek with a City Council that does not have a position on reversion. If, under existing law, there are reasonable terms or conditions which the City desires in order to revert to town status, then the County is prepared to negotiate. If there are no reasonable terms or conditions under existing law that would make reversion acceptable to City Council, then the County asks City Council to say so and to end this expensive and divisive proceeding. Let me clearly say that the Board of Supervisors recognizes the importance of having a healthy and vital Charlottesville and is committed to jointly addressing problems and services that are essential to the citizens of the City and the County. We believe that our history of cooperation exemplifies good governance. As you know, we already jointly provide many important services such as water and sewer, solid waste disposal, jails, libraries, emergency communications and fire protection and cooperate in many others. Probably no two independent jurisdictions have greater cooperation. However, the Board of Supervisors can only be committed to addressing the problems of the City if the City is willing to address them in a long term and responsible manner. I feel compelled to give some history of the reversion discussion over the last three years in order to put today's discussion in perspective. We first began hearing rumors that City Council was considering reversion in 1993. There was no public discussion of it and no attempt to meet with the County to discuss it. After two years of hearing that the City had serious problems it needed to somehow address and that it was seriously considering reversion, in September of 1995 we met with City Council and proposed that the City identify the problems it felt were critical to its health and that were driving the reversion discussion. We proposed that the City and County explore possible solutions to the problems and consider alternatives to reversion. At our initiative, we began discussions concerning housing issues, education issues, and social service issues and formed committees that met in the fall and winter of 1995. We had two additional joint meetings with City Council and felt progress was being made and we were encouraged that solutions could be found. Unfortunately, what became apparent early in 1996 and then was clearly communicated to me by Mayor Toscano and by the City Manager and City Attorney to our staff was that these discussions were not what City Council wanted. Instead of discussing the problems and new solutions or approaches, the City really wanted to discuss (1) amending the Revenue Sharing Agreement; (2) acquiring more land to tax by having the County consent to a boundary line adjustment; or (3) renegotiating the funding formulas of our joint service agreements to change the funding from being based on use to some basis more favorable to the City. The discussion they wanted was a discussion on how could the County provide more revenue to the City for the City to decide how to spend. We simply did not then, and still do not now, believe that such discussions would result in a long term solution to the City's problems and, in fact, would not address the City's problems. In addition, we felt that those proposals would not be fair to County tax payers. As you know, in 1982, after extensive negotiations, the City and County entered into a Revenue Sharing Agreement which committed the County essentially to pay 10 cents of its tax rate to the City each year for the City's unrestricted use. In exchange, the City was prohibited from annexing any additional land from the County. Last year we gave the City over 5 million dollars. This amounts to almost 10% of the City's budget. As of FY 97 we have paid the City approximately 44 million dollars pursuant to that agreement. It is projected that by FY 2015, we will pay almost 300 million more dollars to the City. In 1982, it was agreed that this was a long term solution for equitable sharing of tax revenue. Now, 15 years later, the City wants more than 10 cents of the County's tax rate. At the heart of this debate appear to be several presumptions by the City that need close scrutiny. February 22, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 3) One presumption is that the City believes it is subsidizing services being provided to County citizens. We do not think that to be the case. Obviously, there are programs that City and County citizens take advantage of in both jurisdictions. HOwever, we have no evidence that the City is giving more than it is receiving. Another presumption is that the City believes that because it is a City and has pursued certain housing strategies and has, percentage wise, a more urban population than Albemarle County, that the County should further subsidize the City for providing the urban services for the region. By providing the annual revenue sharing payment, the County already does this. However, the solution to the issues relating to regional urban service problems is not to give the City more money. It is to address the problems. As the County first proposed in September of 1995, we are still willing to cooperatively explore solutions and alternatives for regional problems if reversion is dropped, but we are unwilling to simply give the City more County tax dollars. The last presumption is that the City believes that a consolidated school system will solve the City's projected financial problems. Clearly, education is the most expensive and important service that is provided. If the City were a town, and if there were only a County school system, the County would pay the entire cost of the schools. But if there remains a City and there is simply a consolidation of the City and County school systems, the City would remain obligated to pay the cost of educating City students. Such a consolidation of the school systems is unlikely to result in significant savings for the City unless the County agrees to subsidize the City's obligation to educate its students. The County will not do this. Currently, the annual cost of educating a student in the City system is over $2,000 more than in the County system. There is no evidence that a consolidated school system would cost less money. It may even cost more. It was the County's position in 1995 as it is today that the City and County should discuss realistic long term solutions. Reversion may be one possible solution. The Board of Supervisors and the County School Board stated in April of 1996 that before reversion was pursued, a study of whether a consolidated school system was viable and was in the best interests of education should be undertaken. Financial analyses by both the City and the County have shown that reversion doesn't make financial sense to the City without consolidated schools. To that end, the County offered in January of 1996 to participate in the City's school study being done through its reversion attorney, but that offer was declined. We continued to feel that a truly public study of the schools was needed. At our initiative, a comprehensive study of the schools was being put together jointly by the County and City School Boards. In a resolution stating the County's position on reversion adopted by the Board of Supervisors in September of 1996, the Board supported the initiation of such a joint study to determine the feasibility and benefits of the abolition of the City school system under reversion and the resulting effects on the County school system which would be required to provide education to the children of both the County and the new town. The Board further stated in that resolution that if, after the joint school study was completed, and a negotiated reversion was sought by City Council, the Board supported the joint and systematic study of the services provided by the County and City to provide information and analysis to aid the County and City in reaching a negotiated reversion agreement. However, the filing of the reversion petition in November of 1996 destroyed the feasibility of a joint school study. Once the reversion litigation was initiated, the issue became not if a consolidated school system under reversion was a good idea, but rather, what the impacts of a consolidated school system forced upon the County by reversion would be. It became necessary for the County to protect its interests in what is clearly an adversarial proceeding. The open study to address the consolidation of the schools under reversion unfortunately will occur now only if reversion is ordered by the Reversion Court. It will occur when the County School Board seeks public input while forming its plan to consolidate the schools. Let me state clearly the County's position on schools. Consolidation of the school systems without reversion is not an option the County will negotiate or pursue. Consoli- dation of the schools can occur only if the City reverts to town status and there is a single tax base to pay for education provided to all students on an equal basis. However, if reversion is rejected, the County is willing to encourage the County School Board to examine cooperative efforts to improve the delivery of specific programs or services through joint efforts of our schools, provided that the County does not subsidize the cost of educating City students. Let me briefly comment on another issue. Contrary to what is often stated, after the 1982 Revenue Sharing Agreement, there were studies done by the City and County staffs regarding consolidating services such as purchasing, inspections, social services, and parks and recreation. For various reasons, it was determined there was no benefit to pursing those efforts. However, the County continues to be willing to address ways to save taxpayers money by delivering services more efficiently. If reversion is rejected, it will be possible to discuss areas such as social services and housing, among others, to see if joint efforts make sense, either to save money or to better address problems. Approved by B, Date i~ '~~5°~ Initials ~"' 000179 February 22, 1997 (Adjourned Meeting) (Page 4) We have put together this handout to provide some information about reversion and to address common questions we have been asked about reversion. It addresses, in a simple fashion, issues such as constitutional officers, taxation, annexation, redistricting and regional agreements. We encourage you to look at these issues and to help us educate the public so that the public can understand what reversion does and does not do. To conclude, let me say again, although the Board of Supervisors does not seek reversion as the solution to the city's problems, it stands ready to negotiate reversion if it has to; but this can only happen if City Council takes the position that it chooses reversion. Again, to be clear, some issues are not on the table and cannot be negotiated under the umbrella of reversion. These issues include the Operation of the schools and how new election districts will be drawn. However, if under existing law, there are reasonable terms or conditions which City Council desires in order to revert the City to town status and it wants to revert, then let's negotiate. If there are no reasonable terms or conditions under existing law that would make reversion acceptable to City Council, then, City, please say So and let's end this expensive and divisive proceeding. The County's position cannot be more clear. Negotiations can begin concerning reversion if the City decides that reversion is what it wants to pursue. If reversion is not the City's solution, as soon as the reversion proceeding is dismissed, the County is willing to look at how the City and County can cooperate in areas that make sense for the good of our community. Thank you." Following statements by the panel, Ms. Hobbs opened the floor up to comments, and a question and answer session, from the approximately 75 persons who were in attendance at the forum. Ms. Hobbs thanked everyone for attending and participating in the forum. The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 a.m. I