Loading...
1997-08-20August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 000Z86 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 20, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. 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. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mrs. Humphris. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mr. Marshall offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.3 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded votes: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Item 5.1. Appropriation: Police Record System Improvements, $17,954 (Form #96081). It was noted in the staff's report that the County of Albemarle, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia police departments have tried to develop a common, or shared, data base of crime incidents. The Board and City Council have approved appropriations to purchase new computer systems for the County/City police departments. The University Police Department has a current and usable system already in place. The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is rebuilding its entire computer system with E-911 surcharge funds. The requested grant funding will be used to purchase software and training to connect the three police departments and the EOC. A grant from the Department of Criminal Justice Services was appropriated on July 22, 1996. This request is for an appropriation of the local share of $17,954 (allocated as $7,181.60 - County; $7,181.60 - City; and, $3,590.80 - University of Virginia). By the recorded vote shown above, the Board adopted the following resolution of appropriation approving the request: FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96081 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES GRANT LOCAL MATCH EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1152029408312000 REVENUE OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOTAL $17,954.00 $17,954.00 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2152019000190207 2152019000190219 2152051000512004 CHARLOTTESVILLE UVA ALBEMARLE TOTAL $7,181.60 3,590.80 7,181.60 $17,954.00 August 20, 1997 (Regular Night ~ting) 000287 (page 2) Item 5.2. Appropriation: Development Areas Initiative Study, $150,000 (Form #97009). It was noted in the staff's report that in January 1997, the Board of Supervisors appointed the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee to oversee the development of guidelines for growth in the urban neighborhoods. The Steering Committee developed a Scope of Work for the project and appointed a Selection Committee to oversee the consultant selection process. A request for proposal (RFP) was distributed in February. Eleven proposals were received. They then interviewed four firms in April and the top two firms were selected for negotiations. The Steering Committee has recommended that CHK Architects and Planners be awarded the contract for the project. The Steering Committee will lead the project and CHK will provide the advice and technical expertise necessary to facilitate decisions by the Committee. CHK's detailed work plan involves a significant citizen involve- ment process, including surveys, focus groups, eight citizen meetings, ten work sessions with the Steering Committee, and an all-day charrette to develop the citizens' preferred method of build-out for the urban neighborhoods. From this process, the firm plans to create a model ~master plan" or template to be used in developing future master plans for the urban neighborhoods. The firm will also provide design guidelines and recommendations on regulatory changes needed for implementation. The project is expected to take ten months and they will provide camera ready art work for reproduction by the County. The consultant's cost for the study has been negotiated at $147,104.50. An additional $2895.50 will be used for mailings, copies of the final report, and the expense of public meetings. The Board authorized the County Execu- tive, on August 6, 1997, to sign the contract with CHK Architects and Plan- ners. Adequate funding is available in the County's Fund Balance to cover the requested appropriation of $150,000. By the recorded vote shown above, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation approving the request: FISCAL YEAR: 1997-98 NIIMBER: 97009 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DEVELOPMENT AREA'S INITIATIVE STUDY EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1100081010312342 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DEVELOPMENT AREA STUDY TOTAL $150,000.00 $150,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE TOTAL $150,000.00 SI50,000.00 Item 5.3. Resolution to take Powell Creek Drive in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB'92'087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. At the request of the County's Engineering Department, by the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB- 92-087) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 20, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Forest Lakes South Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 20, August 20, 1997 (Regular Night ~e~ing) (Page 3) 1997, to the secondary SY~'~f s~te~highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Powell Creek Drive from Station 0+35, left edge of pavement of Ashwood Boulevard (State Route 1670) to Station 10+00, edge of pavement of Powell Creek Drive (State Route 1521), 965 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 7/5/94 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1416, pages 117-128, with a right-of-way width of 65 feet, with additional plat recorded 10/16/96 in Deed Book 1570, pages 349-356, for a length of 0.18 mile. Total length - 0.18 mile. Item 5.4. Letter dated August 5, 1997, from Mr. James S. Givens, State Secondary Roads Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: ISTEA Reauthori- zation Notice, summarizing the interpretation of the proposed change in procedure for designating National Scenic Byways and All-American Roads by staff of the Virginia Department of Transportation, was received for informa- tion. Item 5.5. Memorandum dated August 11, 1997, from Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director, County Engineering and Public Works, re: Bulky Waste Drop-off Program, was received for information. (Mrs. Humphris stated that this program was a huge success during the four-day collection this spring and that it will be repeated again September 27 through October 18, 1997.) Item 5.6. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for August 5, 1997, was received as information. Item 5.7. Copy of the minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board Meeting of June 12, 1997, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING to solicit public comments on whether the Board of Supervisors should initiate by resolution a referendum on a meals tax. (Notice of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on August 13, 1997.) Mrs. Humphris said the Board adopted a motion on August 6, 1997, to receive public comments regarding a meals tax (see those minutes for details). She immediately opened the public hearing after reminding those present that each person would be allowed only three minutes to speak, and there is a timekeeper present. First to speak was Mr. Peter Way. He began by thanking each Board member for the exemplary way they have handled the matter of reversion. Next, in terms of the meals tax proposal, he personally feels it is obvious that Albemarle citizens do not want the tax. They have rejected it twice in the past. It was impossible for the people wanting the meals tax to get enough signatures this time to get it on the ballot. To him, it appears to be a "no- brainer" as to whether or not to put it on the ballot. The people have clearly said they don't want the meals tax on the ballot. They don't want to August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000289 increase taxes, period. He felt insulted by the press account of what they think this Board is thinking. He thinks they are "putting words in the Board's mouth". They are saying to the people of Albemarle that they have a choice between a meals tax or an increased real estate tax. He feels there is a third choice and that is to go over the budget to see if there is a possi- bility of reducing costs. That is something the Board is obligated to do and, he feels, will do. He thinks it is outrageous to believe the only choices the citizens have is one of these options. There are other choices and the possibility for the Board to cut the budget and live within means. He thinks the majority of people in Albemarle County also believe that. Mr. Ed Robb said he recognizes how difficult this issue is for the Board members. If the Board feHls it has to increase taxes, he hopes they will have done their homework first. He believes the budget can be cut and money to provide most services can be found. In reference to the meals tax, there have been two strikes already; ~three strikes and you are out." He does not believe the Board wants to go in that direction. The people of Albemarle don't want a meals tax or a tax increase of any kind. Mr. Rollin Stanton said, four years ago he stood in front of the Board and said the budgeting process is not a process simply of spending, but one of saving and managing resources. He told the Board it needed to plan since there were several major expenditures coming up in the next five years, the new high school being the main one, and the Board ignored him. Three years ago he stood here and reiterated those comments. Once again the Board ignored him, and that $15.0 million school is going to cost $35.0 million. The Board said, ~We found the money for that by split billing of the real estate tax." Mr. Stanton said he had remarked, ~You are robbing from the future." Even then the Board ignored him. Mr. Stanton said that two years ago he stood here and told the Board that budgeting was not a process of spending. It is a process of saving and managing resources. He said there was a bunch of expenditures coming up in the next three years. The sustainability program being put into the new high school, which people said was going to be a half million dollars is now going to be as much as $3.0 million. The Board ignored him and went ahead with the sustainability part of the project anyway. A year ago he stood here and told the Board that the budgeting process is not a process of spending, it is a process of planning for the future. The Board increased the transient occupancy tax because it was somebody else's money that was paying for that, and ignored him. Today there is a "revelation from the mountain." Bob Tucker has told the Board that there will be shortage of $10.0+ million in the next three years. Mr. Stanton said he told the Board this four years ago, three years ago, two years ago, and one year ago, and suddenly the Board has finally figured this out. But, the Board says, ~Oh, but we've got a plan. We'll use the meals tax to pay for this". Mr. Stanton said the Board ignored him and now is in a bind and is coming to the citizens saying, ~Let's let somebody else pay the freight. Let's avoid raising real estate taxes." Mr. Stanton said he bought property in Albemarle county 25 years ago at an assessed value of $1000. Twenty years later, before he build a house on it, it had an assessed value of $25,000. He did his math last night just to be sure, and that is a compounded rate of ten percent a year. That means his taxes went up ten percent a year for 20 years, but the Board didn't raise the taxes. If the Board is going to raise taxes, raise the taxes. That is the Board's decision to make. Don't put that decision on the citizens and say, ~You vote whether or not to put in a meals tax." Then, later when the citizens say, "Well, we didn't want taxes", the Board will say, "But, you voted for it." No, the citizens didn't vote for it. If the Board decides to raise taxes, raise taxes. But, make sure that what the money is spent for is worthwhilel Mr. Stanton said he has told the Board time and again, and he has told the School Board time and again, that there is a three to five-percent excess in every single budget. Neither Board has gone back and looked at it, and hasn't changed a thing. Ms. Mary Huffard Kegley Scott, was present to speak for the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association. VHTA represents Virginia's restaurant industry, which generated $6.3 billion in food service sales in 1996. An increase in the Albemarle County meals tax is an unfair occasion to penalize one segment of the business industry. VHTA opposes meals taxes and questions why one industry should be singled out to bear this burden. Dining out is not a luxury in 1997; rather, it is often a necessity due to working parents. Meals are often shared with families in family-style restaurants or fast-food 000290 AUgUSt 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) restaurants. Therefore, it is inaccurate to say that a meals tax is a pass- through tax which will only affect tourists and out-of-town business visitors. The Virginia Tourism Corporation (VTC) reports that one-third are the result of travel-related sales. The majority (67%) of food service sales will be paid for by residents. The residents of the County have responded twice to the meals tax proposal by voting "no" in 1988, and in 1991. According to the VTC, 23 out of Virginia's 95 counties currently levy a meals tax. Economists will point out that a four-percent meals tax will adversely affect most businesses by as much as five percent. Families, and anyone living on a fixed income, cannot afford to eat away from home as prices increase. Also, customers will comparison shop between localities, or restaurants, to find the lowest prices. A meals tax will further imperil a difficult industry, where a majority of all new restaurants will fail during the first three years of operation. Mr. Cary Branch said he was in Atlantic City three weeks ago standing in front of Donald Trump's Taj Mahal and when he closed his eyes he could see the new Monticello High School. It is the most expensive public high school ever built in the State of Virginia. A school so expensive it could not even be named after a human. The School Board that was instrumental in designing that school ran away with the budget. To spend $30.0 million is ridiculous for this County. The school could have been built for $21.0 million. It is not too late to do something about the "County's Taj Mahal." He encouraged the Board to either cut taxes or hold them where they are and do whatever is necessary to hold the budget. He is vehemently opposed to a meals tax and raising either personal property or the real estate taxes of the County. He believes the Board has the responsibility to design the budget to accommodate ~where we are." It is not too late to cut millions of dollars off of the high school costs. Mr. Steve Koleszar said he supports the meals tax. It has two clear advantages over either real estate the or personal property tax. First, it will be paid by people outside of the County as well as people inside of the County. The citizens of Albemarle have the privilege of paying a meals tax to other localities when traveling outside of the County, so the County should reciprocate and let people from other localities pay a tax in Albemarle. Second is the issue that the meals tax is somewhat of a tax on luxuries. In this County, you must have a car or you can't get to work. Everybody has to have a place to live. Those two items are true necessities. Mr. Koleszar said the Board has this decision to make. The Board is the leader of the County; it is the job of leaders to lead. Three members of this Board are running for reelection unopposed in the current campaign which shows the faith and confidence that this County has in the leadership of these members. It is a resounding endorsement of the careful, thoughtful leadership that has been provided in the County. He asked them to exercise that leader- ship. Being in favor of taxes is never popular. But, it is time for leaders to stand up and lead. There has been an argument made that the people of this County have rejected the meals tax. He thinks the people of this County are intelligent voters. They think about the issues carefully and they may have rejected the meals tax in the past, but that does not mean they reject it now. Times have changed and there is different leadership on the Board of Supervi- sors, and a different attitude about the role of government services. The fact that the Board of Realtors and the Chamber of Commerce how endorse the tax is an indication that the attitude toward the meals tax has changed since the last time it was on the ballot. Mr. John Carter said he does not believe this meeting will provide any substantive data to conclude that a meals tax will be acceptable to the people of Albemarle County. The Board has already had sufficient evidence that it is not. A ~vote-yes" petition drive failed to show public support for a meals tax. If the Board wants to find out what the public thinks, run a county-wide survey and find out. It would not cost much. No one has suggested this simple solution. The Board has presented the public with a five-year economic forecast purporting to show a need for more money. It is intimidating in its complexity, but nevertheless, flawed in its premise. The premise is that there is a correlation between the size of government and the population it serves. Logical as it might sound, things don't work out that way. Mr. Carter said total County revenues increased this year by $7.7 million and in the light of a booming economy there is no reason to expect less to spend next year. If that is not enough to meet the needs, he suggests that there is something wrong with the Board's spending policies. He suggests August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000291 (Page 6) that the Board throw out the "deal made with VDOT" to put $500,000 every year to get a road done faster. If you don't put the money up, the road will be done later at no charge. He suggests that is the first place to start. At this point, the three-minute time limit for speakers was called. Mr. Walt Johnson said he is not present to either support or object to a meals tax or increased real estate taxes. He does request that the Board provide the public with some understandable, factual support for whatever might be the Board's recommendation. The public has heard that there may be a $10.0 million shortage in the future. The only factual reason he has heard for that is the schools. He thinks the public needs to know more to make a rational decision. He suggested (Mr. Johnson handed to Mr. Tucker a diagram explaining his statement) that the Board take the total annual budget, factor out the cost of new school construction, which gives a net budget. There are two parts to that figure; school support and general operating expenses. Then, take the total School figure and divide that by the total annual, student classroom hours of professional instruction. That will give the annual cost per student classroom hour of professional instruction. This should be important as the amount of money being spent for the actual basic training which comes from the classroom is evaluated. On the other side, take the general operating funds and divide that by the total county population. This will give the dollars per person residing in the County. These would be two factual figures. Do this for the last ten years. Normalize everything in 1997 dollars to get the ~fudge" factor and inflation out of it. That would say what is actually being spent per person in constant dollars. That would be interesting and be a factual approach to the problem, and would give some information as a basis before proceeding to investigate further as to whether or not this tax is needed. Mr. Layton McCann referred to a song which asks "what part of no don't you understand?" He said that after two failed referendums and one failed petition drive, what part of ~no" does the Board not understand? The purpose of this public hearing is to decide whether to put this matter on the ballot for a referendum in the fall. Should the Board be convinced to do this in the fall, he would suggest that each and every seat in the Board Room be equipped with buttons that show support or opposition. Then the Clerk could come in, read the question, and everybody punch a button. Then, all the hard decisions will be instant "no-brainers", and the special interest groups will have made the decisions. In this County there are some taxpayers who are like children, they see and they want. The Board must act as parents, saying ~no" when there are no funds and resources available. He feels the Board often gives in to the immature and special interest groups. The Monticello High School is a good example. There was a phrase used often when this was in the planning stage; sustainability. This concept has cost megabucks and savings may not be realized. It may be a showplace, but do the taxpayers need or want a show- place? Sustainability is a nice, catchy phrase. Mr. McCann said he had another such phrase which may not be found in a politician's or a bureaucrats handbook of handy phrases, that is "downsizing". Rather than threaten the citizens with an increased real estate tax if they don't support the meals tax, he would suggest that the County Executive cut the County's budget by one or two percent, and there will be enough money to do what is needed. Just say "no" sometimes to some of the "tax and spend" people who want to spend everything they can get their hands on. The County does not need to spend "everything we have" to support the schools. If the Board will arise to the occasion, there will be no need for the ~yes" and "no" buttons in the room. Mrs. Edna Tapscott Anderson spoke for the meals tax, saying she feels it is one of the fairest taxes the County can have. Earlier it was mentioned that the taxes seem to be targeting tourism. If anyone has every traveled into a another town or state, they don't usually ask the amount of a meals tax before they decide to eat a meal. She has talked with her family members in Southern Albemarle, and speaks on their behalf. They feel this is a tax that most can live with. If a person can afford to eat out, they can afford to pay these few extra pennies each time they eat a meal. Ms. Katie Hobbs, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chapter of the League of Women Voters, spoke next. She said the League has been on record as supporting the meals tax in previous years. They again support a meals tax as being an equitable way of raising revenue, which is important and necessary at this time. The League does not suggest when a referendum should come before the voters, only that it needs to be done soon. It seems logical that the individual Board members could be helpful to the citizens in that member's district to explain the pros and cons of the issue. (Page 7) Mr. Ed Strauss from the western part of Albemarle said he wondered what the situation would be tonight if the petitioners had gotten enough signa- tures. Would the Board have listened to the people here tonight as to whether or not to validate those signatures? This is a corrupt game the Board is playing with the citizens. Taxes and trust go hand-in-hand. The County levies a tax every month on the phone bill to fund enhanced 911 start-up costs. That tax should have been discontinued, but once the County had it, they could not give it up. Taxes are a trust. Does the Board want the citizens voting on all issues? If so, let the citizens vote on the Sheriff's Department. Do you want to invalidate the public's decisions? He knows the Board cannot run this County without a tax increase. It is the easiest way out. But, if you are going to open the door, let him vote on the things that really bother him. The citizens don't need any public employees like a certain principal trying to induce a vote. He does want to see kids coming home from school talking about how the meals tax will keep the property tax down. That is dirty and low, and people drawing a salary are doing it. The Board can stop that. This is a forty cents tax on a $10.00 meal; what is $1.39 on a $16.00 telephone bill? The Board has on blinders. Washington has learned, the State has learned, what are the candidates for Governor now talking about? The citizens of Albemarle just want something for what they are paying. The Board cannot guarantee where the money will be spent. No one can say "if this tax passes we will take this $2.0+ million and give it to the schools." The Board can't say that. Mr. Strauss concluded by saying, ~If you don't know, keep your billfold in your pocket, I do." Mr. Dave Flynn said he was part of the opposition in 1988 and 1991. He is here tonight to let the Board know that after twenty-seven years in the food business he has retired, but he has not died. He opposed this tax then because it was an unfair tax, and he still opposes it because it is an unfair tax. So, why is everybody here tonight? Six years ago when Martin and Marshall became Board members they said the public had spoken and they would not support the tax. Less than a year ago the Board said that unless the special interest group called ~Vote Yes" could get enough signatures by the February 10th deadline to put this issue up for a special election in the Spring, the Board would not support it. They didn't get enough signatures in the Spring, so ~why are we here tonight?" Then, the Board extended the deadline to August 1 so if they didn't have the 4000 signatures needed (they only got 2252 in ten months) the Board would not support it. Mr. Flynn asked why the public is smart enough to put the Board members in office, but when the public says ~no" on something, it does not have enough intelligence to know what it wants. The public has spoken many times to the Board in the past, so ~why are we here tonight"? Two weeks ago, the Board said if it could get enough local organizations to financially support the campaign for the tax at a cost of $15-$20,000, it would put the meals tax on the ballot on November 4th. No one has come forward. Saying the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors support this issue is a falsehood. Their Governments Relations Committee opposed it 100 percent, and yet someone appears to say they are for it. "So, why are we here tonight?" Mr. Flynn said he hopes it is so the Board can look straight into the television camera and tell the 38,000 people who did not sign that petition that you hear them and do mean what you said and will not put this issue on the ballot on November 4th. He predicted that if it is on the ballot, it will be defeated at a greater margin than it has been defeated in the past. He hopes the Board will make the right decision tonight. Ms. Karen Strickland said she had an ulterior motive in coming tonight. She actually came to say ~goodbye". Having been active in the community for four years, she did not want to leave without saying something. Over the years she has learned that the Board members are overworked and underpaid. Even those members she has disagreed, she has respect for all they have done. Second, she has learned that economic development is good for individuals and very bad for the community. Third, she has learned that you can't encourage growth and cut taxes at the same time. The county where they are moving to in New Jersey (Monmouth County) looks on the map to be the same size as Albemarle, but it has 52 towns. The taxes in those towns range from $2.50- $4.50/$100, so the taxes in Albemarle are very low. She has three school-aged children and has been to a lot of schools there. The infrastructure of Albemarle County schools is far superior to the schools in that county. Ms. Strickland said she thinks that because Albemarle is growing so fast, the Board has to raise money. This business of asking the community to come up with the money is impossible, the community groups are volunteers and they don't have money to put up for a campaign. Finally, she wants to say bye". She said the Board better keep Albemarle looking beautiful because this August 20, ~997 (~egular N±ght ~eet±ng) (~age 8) is the most gorgeous place in the world to live. Having to leave here, she feels sad. She wants to come back, and she wants to make sure the Board keeps Albemarle as beautiful as it is now. Ms. Corrine LeBovit said she choose this area when she retired in 1979. She lives on a fixed income. She has no family here, so she will never have children in the schools here. Her children live in other parts of the country, but she believes that schools and education are important. Children are the future of the country and must get a good education. As population expands, it becomes more expensive to support all the services the public needs. She has learned that housing developments never pay in taxes as much as ~hey cost. People want services. In Nelson County where she first lived, the meals tax was defeated twice and then passed the third time. She thinks it is a fairer tax because it will not all be paid by Albemarle citizens. It does not effect where she chooses to eat, eating more often in the city. She does not pay any attention as to whether the tax is on the bill or not. Surrounding counties have the tax too. Ms. LeBovit thinks it is a good idea. (~ote: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 8:45 p.m.) Mr. Ed Lord said he does not represent any group. He is against any tax increase, but he knows the County needs revenue from time to time. He definitely favors an increase by a meals tax. He thinks this tax would produce more revenue at less cost for the individual citizen in the County. He just returned from a trip in New York state and they paid a meals tax everywhere they stopped. He began to wonder why Albemarle County seems to be the only place there is no meals tax. Ms. Dottie Gerke and Ms. Maryanne Dilbone of ~Vote Yes" came forward to speak. Ms. Gerke said she was not present to criticize the County government, but to praise it. The County is frugal. The County needs more revenue. A needs tax is the least painful way to raise the necessary revenue. She is present to represent the "Vote Yes" campaign and the 2800 signatures of persons who signed the petition to allow the vote on a meals tax. A lot has been said about the petition drive's failure to obtain the 4000 signatures needed. She does not believe the petition drive was a failure. Getting 2800 signatures under adverse circumstances was not an easy task. It is one that should be applauded by government officials and not criticized. They were given nine months to get 4300 signatures in a 750 square mile county. The City petitioners for getting the reversion question on the ballot were given 18 months to get the same amount of signatures in a ten-mile square area. Board members only need to get 125 signatures to get their name on the ballot to run for public office. A reluctance to put the meals tax initiative on the ballot sends a wrong message to County votes. Such non-action implies that revenue from the meals tax is not needed. Besides the new school, there is also the new detention center, the jail upgrade and the police "crunch". She asked the Board members tonight to answer two questions. Will the Board vote for a real estate tax increase, and if so, how much of an increase will be supported? She said the response to that question will educate the public about the revenue needs of the County and how best to address those needs. By putting a meals tax on the ballot, voters will be provided with their basic democratic right. Those who oppose having a meals tax referendum must be afraid it will pass this time. Why else would they be opposed to giving voters a chance to express their views? Ms. Dilbone said she agreed with Ms. Gerke's statement. Mr. Gary Westmoreland said he feels that discussing the meals tax for Albemarle County is deja vu all over again. He urged the Board to vote against such a proposal for three reasons. 1) Previous election results on this issue have been against this tax. Is there any truly compelling reason to raise this issue again before the voters? 2) The requisite number of signatures to submit this issue to referendum where not gathered in the time allocated. Where is the ground swell of enthusiasm for this tax? 3) Instead of asking County residents whether they are under taxed, the debate should focus on spending cuts in the County's $118.4 million adopted budget for fiscal year 1996-97, application of user fees for County government services and privatization initiatives. Mr. Richard Hewett, a member of the Virginia Hospitality Association, spoke next. He came tonight to give important reasons to oppose the meals tax. 1) This tax is discriminatory and threatens the livelihood of those in the food service industry. In a down economy, restaurant meals are cut back significantly. A meals tax will make this worse, perhaps even driving some 000294 August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) restaurants out of business. While spending for restaurant meals may be discretionary for customers, it is the livelihood of those in the food business. There is nothing discretionary about their need to earn a living. A meals tax singles out and burdens a particular type of business without a valid justification for a special burden. 2) A meals tax is not supported by its citizens. It has been voted down twice. A meals tax pits the citizens groups against each other instead of allowing them to unite for a common cause. This is a sad waste of energy and resources which could be put to better use. Most counties do not have a meal tax. The Virginia Tourism Corporation reports that less than 25 percent of Virginia's 95 counties have a meals tax. If additional revenue is necessary, a hike in the real estate tax makes more sense. The County's current real estate tax rate lags the City's by about 40 percent. A four-cent per thousand hike in the County's real estate tax would generate about the same revenue that a meals tax would and would only raise the tax bill on a $100,000 home about $40.00 a year, or one penny per day. A collection mechanism is already in place for real estate taxes, and most importantly, real estate taxes are tax deductible from state and federal income. A meals tax is not. A meal tax would create yet another government intrusion into the citizen's life. It would require new collection and enforcement mechanisms, but its complicated requirements are expensive to implement and would create confusion and burdens on owners and staffs of hundreds of restaurants and convenience stores. Many convenience stores might be forced to scrap their existing registers systems because of a two tax function. Mr. David Kalergis, a county resident, said he is faced with paying his share of this tax increase whichever way it comes. His preference, if it has to be done, he is to do it through the real estate tax which are tax deduct- ible dollars. He would rather have it done through the mechanism that is already in place. Mr. John Baldino said the President of the Albemarle Education Associa- tion sent a letter to the Board today explaining that they were part of the ~'Vote Yes~ campaign and worked hard to get a meals tax on the ballot. He said he eats out a lot and has never paid attention to whether or not he is paying a meals tax. The counties surrounding Albemarle have meals taxes. He has watched the School Division grow 200-300 students per year. These students require a lot of services. Eventually, the Board will have to raise taxes to pay for those services. The County keeps putting back the renewal of the bus fleet, but, at some point, maintenance of those buses is a problem. The County is growing and will continue to grow at a steady, reasonable rate. The citizens will have to pay for that growth. He will agree with John Carter that there should be a county-wide survey on a meals tax. The easiest and cheapest way to do that is to put it on the ballot and let the residents of the County decide. It is not unlikely that it could pass this time. Some attitudes toward a tax increase have changed, and it is a question now as to which way the tax will increase and how to pay it. He feels it should be shared among the greater population than just putting it on the real estate or personal property tax. Mr. Robert Kroner said he is a resident of the Samuel Miller District and Chairman of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce. He said the Chamber vigorously opposes wasteful and unnecessary spending by govern- ment, and generally, any new tax, or tax increase. They do support appropri- ate expenditures and realize the County must collect taxes for those services. Over the past several months, members of the Chamber Board and their Legisla- tive Action Committee have debated and studied the issues surrounding the meals tax referendum. Just last month, the Board unanimously adopted a resolution supporting a meals tax as the preferred mechanism to generate the revenues necessary to fund the County's anticipated 1998 budget shortfall. They recognize that the lion's share of additional funds will be targeted toward funding the County's School System. They believe that strong elemen- tary and secondary educational systems are important factors to promote and maintain a strong work force which is crucial to maintaining a healthy local economy. Mr. Kroner said that while the Chamber understands the meals tax would not cover the entire projected deficit, they believe the meals tax is pre- ferred over a minimum ten percent increase in the real estate tax rate. Fifty percent of the meals tax would be paid by people who are not residents of Albemarle, while 100 percent of the real estate tax is shouldered by the individuals and businesses that call Albemarle County home. He understands the reluctance to place the meals tax referendum on the ballot without some August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) O0029~ (Page 10) assurance that a campaign will be mounted to properly educate the electorate about the rational behind the meals tax. Because the Chamber has so many members who are not residents of, or own businesses in, the County, they cannot pledge Chamber funds to publicize and promote the meals tax. They can, however, solicit donations from interested parties and use those funds to actively promote the passage of the referendum. Several parties have indi- cated to him that they are willing to contribute financially to such an operation. They are prepared to accept the role to organize a pro meals tax movement if the Board will place the question on the ballot. The Chamber Board risked the ire of some of its members to take this position, and will continue to do so. They ask that this Board do the same thing. Mr. Fritz Berry said he helped to elect some of the Board members, but has not been to a Board meeting in a long while. He congratulated the Board members on what they have to put up with. He knows these decisions are very difficult. He only asks as a citizen that the Board come forward with the information. He knows the Board has done the best it can to cut what can be cut. He asks that the Board give the citizens an opportunity to vote on whether or not they want this type of meals tax. The Board has heard that a meals tax allows visitors to share the tax. Every time he goes anywhere, he shares the taxes. He just wants other communities to share in Albemarle's taxes. There have been various interest groups in the past who have made it sound like the vote was strictly, ~will we have a tax or no tax?" That is not the issue. It seems to him there will be a tax. If there is going to be a tax, decide what kind of tax. Mr. Berry said he was part of the petition drive on only one day. He took one lunch hour and got 36 signatures. Everybody was for it. He turned in his petition and was told two days before the deadline that somebody had not printed their name right, so none of the 36 names ever showed up. He assured the Board that there is support in the County for a meals tax. Ms. Caroline O'Brien said she and her husband are lifelong residents of Albemarle County, property owners, and parents of a child in Albemarle County schools. She is concerned over the idea of increased property taxes. It seems reasonable to support a meals tax versus an increase in the property tax. She thinks the emphasis should be on how tax dollars are being spent instead of increasing taxes. Sixty-three percent of the County budget is spent on the School System. Every year the taxpayers hear that the budget is just a maintenance effort for the schools. Last year, new textbooks was an unfunded item. The PTA's were used as a political vehicle to support the administration's agenda for more money. She feels the School budget should be a zero-based budget based on actual need. Every tax dollar in the School budget should be scrutinized for actual need. She is against a meals tax, and also an increase in the property tax. She thinks the County should learn to live within its means. Ms. Carol Clarke, a resident of the Samuel Miller District and President of the Charlottesville Area Board of Realtors, spoke next. She represents 750 local, professional Realtors who share some of the same concerns as owners of private property in the area. She said support of a meals tax in a referendum is one of the first issues they have taken an endorsement position on. They feel strongly about that position. They believe it is a more rational and equitable decision to support a revenue source which would in large part be borne by tourists, visitors and the transient, temporary University of Virginia population and their families. It is a more palpable source of needed revenue than an immediate increase in the real estate tax which will be inevitable. She urged the Board to put off the inevitability of that tax increase if the meals tax referendum is not on the ballot in November. The increased needs of Albemarle County are obvious and budget cutting will not do it all. They ask that the citizens of the County be given the opportunity to make a choice in November. Ms. Clarke said it is unfortunate that the silent majority did not take time to sign a petition. She never saw a petition except in the office of the Board of Realtors. Her husband is a professional, and he never saw a peti- tion. She encouraged the Board to exercise its leadership role and give the citizens of Albemarle County a chance to make that choice. The Association of Realtors cannot provide financing for a promotional effort, but it can provide information and advocacy through the Real Estate Weekly~ a weekly publication which is freely distributed and available to all in the County. Mr. Frank Kessler said he speaks as a citizen tonight, and he is involved in restaurants and real estate, so he is "on both sides of the 000296 August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) fence." He encourages the Board to review the budget and if there is any way to make cuts in anything, to do so. However, if there is a need for taxes, he encourages the Board to let the citizens have an opportunity to vote on it. He has heard that the meals tax has been defeated twice, but the Board's business is no different from his. There is a need to plan, to implement, to evaluate and change. He believes there has been a change since the last time this issue was on the ballot. There has been mention of the new high school and that it is too expensive. The citizens know there are additional needs in the County. Everybody is aware that there is going to be a tax increase of some type. He hopes that only happens after the budget is ~bare boned", and he encourages the Board to do that. If those who are against the meals tax are sure it will be defeated by more than it was last time, he would not worry about it, since neither side has anything to lose. If the citizens vote for it, the Board has heard in a different time from the citizens. Ms. Harriet Mohler said she speaks for herself, her husband, and many of their friends, in strong support of a meals tax for Albemarle County. They have lived in Albemarle County for 20 years and believe they are getting good service for their tax money. In most instances, they are supportive and appreciative of county government. They are willing to pay more to continue and increase services, particularly in the area of education. They have no children or grandchildren in the area, but continue to think that support for education is good for them and everybody's future. Ms. Mohler hoped that the meals tax will be on the ballot and that a great deal of that support will go for education. She said they feel the meals tax is fair, and a good way to get funds, so they request that the question be placed on the ballot. Mr. Page Williams said he is a former PTO president, a County taxpayer and a diner at County restaurants. He strongly supports the contemplated four-percent meals tax for a lot of the reasons stated here tonight. He thinks the Board should let the voters vote on the question in November. He thinks the Board has shown itself to be fiscally conservative and attempting to stretch tax dollars. It is unpopular and he recognizes that many people will not vote for a tax at anytime either on a petition or a ballot. He hopes that now, instead of as in the past time, there will be a widespread percep- tion of needing the meals tax revenue, or the citizens will suffer larger increases in the real estate tax rate, and possibly also in the personal property tax rate. He hopes the voters will realize that the Supervisors and County Administration are ~not crying wolf", and that more revenue will be needed to balance future budgets. There has been a lot of talk and concern about the new Monticello High School. He hopes that will be seen as a tangible reminder that the revenue from a meals tax is needed. Voters should recognize that a meals tax will not cover all of the revenue shortfall. The meals tax does not single out County restaurants, in fact it just ~levels the playing field" for County restaurants, as opposed to the other neighborhood restaurants. Mr. Williams said he doubts that many people make their choices of where to dine based on a meals tax. He understands the Meals Tax Ordinance will compensate restaurants for collecting and reporting the meals tax. He said he is concerned about his taxes, but also about the future of Albemarle County and the level of services it can provide, especially in education. Ms. Teresa Andrews said she is the newly elected President of the Parent Council which is a group of mostly PTO members who come together to discuss the needs of the schools as they relate to parents, teachers and the general public. This issue was discussed last year and each member went back to their respective PTO's and discussed the meals tax. All members came back and said there was favor for having this issue brought to a vote by the citizens. Ms. Andrews said she feels this question should be put on the ballot in November. Mr. Dewey Cornell, a resident of the County, said he is in favor of the meals tax, but has one reservation. It would be unfortunate if the citizens got the impression it would spare them from any other future property tax increases. He does not want the meals tax sold as a final solution to the revenue problem. It is apparent from figures he has seen in previous meetings that the financial needs of Albemarle County will eventually outstrip what a meals tax can do. A meals tax will help, but in the long run it will not be enough. Leaders have to make tough decisions. They have to make unpopular decisions when they are in the public's best interest and, of course, no one wants taxes anytime. Responsible leaders are willing to do what is necessary even when it is politically unpopular. Mr. Cornell said he hopes the Board will have the courage and integrity to do the same. 000297 August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) ............. ~.~ ~. Mr. Gene Burton said he supports the meals tax. He doesn't want the real estate tax to go up, but he feels that all the people who say they are against the food tax should go out and grow their own food and go back to the old times, kill some groundhogs and possums and eat that food. Mr. Mike Marshall, former chairman of the School Board, said he voted for the meals tax both times it was on the ballot before. Since that time he has served in local government, which has changed his mind about taxation questions. He will not reiterate his reasons for opposing the meals tax, but it is discriminatory, it is regressive and singles out a certain sort of business to be a special tax collection agents for the County. All of those are strong reasons not to consider it. His more upsetting concern about this is that none of the thresholds for putting this on the ballot seem to have been met, yet there is this public hearing tonight to see if it will be put on the ballot. It seems that the actions of the Board could be interpreted as intending to create the tax without being responsible for creating it. He wonders if this process is not a corruption of the fundamental concepts of democracy as he understands them to be. He wanted to express that concern. On the other point, he would say that in a just and fair, compassionate society, food would not be taxed. Because food is taxed in New Jersey does not mean it is right to do the same thing in Albemarle. He hopes the Board will observe the stated parts of the process that have been put into place so far, and make the decision based on that process. Ms. Lisa Huffman said she is a parent so education is her number one concern. She urged the Board to put the meals tax question on the ballot in November. She does not know what there is to lose. Is the Board afraid to say they support it? She is active in her school's PTO, and she sees first- hand all of the fund-raising efforts to make up the money the school does not have. They have funded all kinds of items one would think the schools would pay for, such as field trips, science equipment, textbook support and play- ground equipment and repairs. She is not saying they will stop if the meals tax is implemented and some of that money goes for education because there will always be something else needed. She does not think there is anything to lose by Putting the question on the ballot in November. With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mrs. Humphris closed the public hearing. She said she believes all Board members have received many phone calls, faxes, postcards, letters, and all kinds of communication on this subject right up until tonight. Mr. Marshall said he thinks it is funny, but he hasn't gotten one call on it. He said that he and Mrs. Humphris met with the Chamber of Commerce and he has not changed his mind since that time. He told the Chamber that this issue had been defeated twice and the petitioners could not get enough signatures to get it on the ballot, so he thought it was in trouble. The public has spoken out strongly against it two times,~ and fOr that reason, and the fact that the County itself could not go out and finance selling of the referendum, and some organization would need to come forth with $15,000- $20,000 and no one did that, he cannot change his mind. Ms. Gerke asked him if he would vote for a tax increase, and if so, how much. He does not know whether he would vote for a tax increase or not. If somebody could prove to him that it's needed, he can't say at this time that he will not vote for a tax increase in lieu of not providing a specific service he knows that is needed for the health, welfare and education of the children. He would prefer to have a meals tax and if he had to vote for a tax increase or a meals tax, it would be an "either/or~ situation. He does not think the question will be on the ballot. Mr. Marshall said when it comes to a tax increase, he will scrutinize the budget very closely next year and see if there is any way to cut it. There have been tax increases every year he has been on the Board. He has never voted for one, but there has been one in the way of increased assess- ments. When he first became a Board member, the assessment was at 60+ percent of market value. Today, the assessment is at 97 percent of market value. There is no where else to go. If more money is going to be spent, taxes will have to be increased. He would prefer to look at ways of not spending more money. He reminded those present that the last two years, the School Board (which is responsible for approximately 70 percent of the budget) has submitted to this Board an unbalanced budget. There are School Board members running for election this year, and that Board controls 70 percent of the tax dollars. He suggested that the citizens look at it closely, scrutinize it August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) closely, and decide who to vote for because he expects to get another unbal- anced budget next year, and he cannot say he will support it. Mr. Martin said there has been a lot of public input, and he thinks this has been an exceptional public hearing. A lot of people gave a lot of thought to what they said. One thing about Mr. Strauss is that you know he will always shoot a straight arrow and it will always be right on target. Mr. Flynn reminded him about saying he would not support a meals tax, but he did not use the word ~never". The only time he ever used the word ~never" was in the context of saying he would never stand for the Albemarle and Charlottes- ville School Systems to consolidate in a way that both governments were running it at the same time. He has listened to the things people said and knows the meals tax was turned down in 1988 and in 1991. On the other hand, he was elected in 1991 and again in 1995, but if he wants to do it again, he has to run for election in 1999. He looked at the last list he received showing the demographics of voters, and how they have changed. In the Rivanna District, which includes Keswick, Stony Point, Stone Robinson and Hollymead, the numbers of registered voters has gone up every year since he was elected in 1991. In the meantime, a substantial number of voters have been dropped from the rolls because of moving, inactive voting records, etc. Mr. Martin said he thinks the electorate the meals tax is facing is different from the electorate in the past. He is agreeable to at least discussing it. One thing said many times tonight was, if this Board supports putting this question on the ballot, the only thing it is doing is supporting the people's right to choose. Mr. Martin said Mr. Strauss pointed out that if he had to vote on something, he would prefer to have it on the ballot as to whether or not to have a police department versus a sheriff's department. He does not believe the General Assembly will allow that to happen, but it does allow it to happen in terms of a meals tax. He does not know why that is allowed on one question and not on another question. In the matter of reversion, he never did know how such a small number of people in Charlottesville could put together a petition which would effect all of Charlottesville and all of Albemarle County. It didn't make sense to him, but that is what the General Assembly said they could do, and that is what they almost did. Mr. Martin said he is still open for discussion of the meals tax question. Mrs. Thomas said she wanted to correct the misconception that the Board is giving away its responsibility if the question is put on the ballot. Actually, the Board is required to submit this question to referendum if there is to be a meals tax. The last time the meals tax question failed there was not full information provided to the public. The Board has to do a better job of making it clear to the people what the county's needs are. These needs are not based on what special interest groups suggest to the Board each year. If anyone had set through the budget meetings, they would know the Board does "barebones" the budget. The Board is basing the budget on what growth has brought to the community. Albemarle has such an attraction for people from other areas that property values have gone up each year. That has been hurtful to the people who are now being taxed on a value six or more times what they originally paid for their property. The real estate tax is an unfair tax because it pays no attention to what a person's current income level is, or what misfortune there might be in the family. The meals tax is not a lot fairer because it is indeed a tax on food, but it is paid by a lot of people from outside of the community. Mrs. Thomas said she continues to believe that the voters deserve the right to choose. If this issue is on the ballot in November, everybody involved will be trying to get their information to the public at a time when they are focusing on other political issues on that ballot. She suggested discussing whether it would be better to put the meal tax question on the ballot in March. In March, a number of people here tonight can come to the budget meetings if they don't believe there is a $9.0 million need and only a $6.0 million increase. If they believe there is $9.0 million in the budget that does not need to be spent, they can participate in that process. Legally, the meals tax question could be on the ballot the first Monday in March. Then, by time to adopt the next budget, it would then be clear to everybody that it is either a real estate tax or a meals tax. Mrs. Thomas said she is not 100 percent set on that idea, but she believes it should be discussed. Mrs. Humphris asked when a decision would have to be made in order to have this question on the ballot in March. Mrs. Thomas said it would need to be made in January. She had not asked the County Attorney about this, but it might depend on when the town elections are on the ballot in Scottsville. 000299 August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Martin said in fairness to the voters, he believes it should be on the ballot at the same time as other matters are being voted on. If the meals tax passes, he thinks it should be under the same conditions as the other votes failed. If it passed in March, the voters might say it just slipped by them because of the change in dates. He also thinks the petitioners indicated that this issue would be on the ballot in November. Mr. Marshall said this Board has said in the past that it would not support putting this issue on the ballot, that the Board wanted citizen groups to go out and get signatures showing it needed to be on the ballot. That failed, and no organization has come forward with any money to finance the education of the public, so what has changed? Mr. Bowerman said local government is given few options by the State by which to raise revenue. Basically there are three major sources, the sales tax which the State collects and then returns to the locality, the personal property tax on cars (the State may take away this authority in the near future), and the real estate property tax. Those are the major areas for financing services which Albemarle citizens require. Richmond and the Federal government are not delivering the services; the services are delivered right here in Albemarle, starting in this Board Room. The decision as to whether to finance something is made in front of citizens like those present tonight. The meals tax is an alternative source of revenue, which in this community because of the presence of the University and the particular make-up of the community, would not be paid disproportionately by local citizens eating out. The revenues are estimated to be 50/50 residents/University community. Mr. Bowerman said he has been concerned about the absence of an effec- tive education campaign by some group. In the past there were very effective anti-meals tax campaigns run, and people do get their information from television, radio or the newspapers. The Board could not do anything nine years ago, or six years ago, to print a brochure that was factual, and laid out the reasons the Board felt a meals tax was necessary. He had looked for financial support and organizational support so he would have some feeling that if this question was put back on the ballot, the public would have a fair chance to make an intelligent decision. He does not feel the public had that opportunity the last two times. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Kroner has said his group talked about this issue and they are not all in agreement, but they are willing to put their organiza- tional strengths behind supporting a meals tax and they will be the repository of money. For that reason, he is inclined to think someone from the public has come forward. Also, the Real Estate Association came forward and said they have educational things they will do. He understands the Chamber of Commerce cannot raise money because they also represent City citizens, but they can take money from people in the community. The Board is not imposing a meals tax if it votes to put this issue on the ballot~ Although it has been voted down twice, there are many important things in the country that have failed a number of times before they were finally passed. He does not know about the rural areas, but knows that in the Rio District, forty percent of the voters change between elections every four years. Six years ago this question was on the ballot and the electorate said "no". Six years ago, the Board at that time said it intended to spend the money from a meals tax for building schools although it could not make this a guarantee since the Board could not obligate future boards. Since that time, the County has spent over $10.0 million in borrowed moneys to build schools. The County is paying over $1.0 million a year in interest on that borrowed money. That could have been financed with a meals tax six years, and the County would not have had to borrow those funds. This construction could have been paid as it was done. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks the public should have the opportunity to review the meals tax question again as long as a group is willing to spearhead an education campaign to get the facts out to the public. Mr. Marshall asked what will happen if the meals tax question is put on the ballot, and it is voted down again by a large number after the public is educated. To him that means they don't want any tax increase of any kind. Would the Board then increase taxes next year?' He feels the Board is just looking at the meals tax as an either/or solution to a perceived budget problem next year. Mr. Marshall said he has been in favor of the meals tax for all of the obvious reasons, but the public said ~no". The last time he ran for election he was perceived as being anti-education. Everybody has said the School Board had a mandate to spend the money they spent, but if they had August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000200 (Page 15) a mandate, why was he not defeated? What will happen in the next election if this meals tax is defeated? Mrs. Humphris said there is a significant difference at this point in time. It has been pointed out by other Board members that there is a large turnover in the County's population, and now there are two groups who say they will do all they can do to help educate the public on the meals tax within their particular parameters. It is a strange thing for people to believe that elected public officials like to raise taxes. Nobody wants to do something that will make them unpopular~ The Board has to go through the processes and give its time and thoughts and abilities to insure it does the right thing, the intelligent, and the fair thing when it comes to researching and making decisions on the budget. Mrs. Humphris said she has always been in favor of a meals tax. At one time she served on the Equalization Board and soon learned how many people in the County have an assessment on their home because of where they live and that has nothing to do with their ability to pay the tax on that property. That is somewhat different from the meals tax. It seems to be the norm these days, but people do not have to eat out. Many have said the Board has the opportunity to give the public the chance to vote on the meals tax, and from that point it is up to those groups to educate the public. She does not believe it will be wrong to allow the people the opportunity to do that, even if it is voted down. Mr. Perkins said the comments tonight have been interesting. A lot of the things that have been proposed, he had proposed before. One of those is that he proposed a one percent set-aside this year and got no support for that idea. He has never voted for the one-half million dollars that goes to roads to match VDOT funds, but on the other hand, it has been six years since the public has been given an opportunity to review the meals tax question, and this is the way the County is forced by the General Assembly to decide if there will be a meals tax. He thinks it should be on the ballot during a regular election. He would not support doing it during a special election because he thinks only special people would show up to vote. If the Board doesn't know from the five-year financial forecast what the County's financial conditions are, the Board better look for a new County Executive. Mr. Perkins said he will support putting it on the ballot this fall, and if it is de- feated, the Board will have to work it through the budget and if they don't want a tax increase, then there are public hearings to address that. Usually only people who advocate spending more money attend those public hearings, but maybe next year will be different. At this point, Mr. Bowerman made motion to adopt the following Resolu- tion to Initiate a Food and Beverage Tax Referendum. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Thomas. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs, Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. RESOLUTION TO INITIATE FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX REFERENDUM WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3833 of the Code of Virginia enables a board of supervisors to initiate a referendum on whether a county food and beverage tax may be levied; and W~EREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has determined that revenue from a food and beverage tax is preferable to revenue generated from an increase in the real estate tax rate; and WHEREAS, a referendum on a County food and beverage tax provides County voters an opportunity to determine if a food and beverage tax is an acceptable tax to generate additional necessary revenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests the County Attorney to file a petition with the Circuit Court of Albemarle to request a Writ of Election for a referendum to be held on November 4, 1997, on the following: August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) -. ....... Shall Albemarle County be authorized to levy a food and beverage tax of no more than four percent on food and beverages sold for human consumption by restaurants and on prepared sandwiches and single-meal platters sold by grocery stores and convenience stores at delicatessen counters, provided such tax, in no event, shall exceed eight and one-half percent when added to the state and local general sales and use tax? 00030 (Note: The Board recessed at 8:57 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-97-27. ARC Natural History Day Camp (Signs #67 & 68). Public Hearing on a request for environmental day camps on 840 ac farm in Earlysville. Access to the property, zoned RA, is from Route 661 (Reas Ford Lane). TM45, Pl. Rio Dist.. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 4 and August 11, 1997.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a permanent part of the records of the Board of Supervisors. He said that because Panorama Farm lies within an agricultural/ forestal district, the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee reviewed the proposal and by unanimous vote, with one abstention, recommended in favor of the day camp use to the Board as being appropriate within the district knowing that the purpose of both camps is in keeping with the intent of the State statute and County ordinance regarding agricultural and forestal districts. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 22, 1997, by a vote of 5:1 (Mr. Finley abstained), recommended approval of SP-97-27, subject to the three conditions set out in the staff's report. Mr. Cilimberg said the biggest issue regarding the proposal seemed to be the existing road system which will be utilized for each of the facili- ties. The ARC Camp will be accessed by Reas Ford Lane (a gravel travelway of about 10 feet), and although it will create a traffic inconvenience for adjacent residents for about three weeks, the inconvenience could be allevi- ated by installation of precautionary signage on Reas Ford Lane. Staff recommended a condition to include signage on the lane. The EEC Camp will be accessed from Panorama Drive and there are no issues involved in using that access which has an 18-foot paved surface. There being no questions from Board members, the public hearing was immediately opened. Mr. Steve Murray, representing the Murray family from Panorama Farms, said they have freely given of their resource since the 1960's. They allowed Camp Faith, a camp for inter-city children, to use property near the factory in Earlysville. In the early 1980's, the Albemarle/Rivanna/Charlottesville Garden Clubs asked if they could use the farm for environmental education programming. Then the Environmental Education Center at Miller School asked to use another portion of the farm for their program. Two years ago, while discussing with County staff other activities which they are proposing for Panorama Farm, they found that they are probably in violation of zoning regulations by allowing these camps without a special use permit. For the first 13 years they received no compensation for the ARC Camp, while at the same time spending time and money mowing grass, maintaining structures and roads, insurance, etc. Two years ago, they asked the ARC Camp to provide some compensation and the ARC people agreed to pay $1500 which does not cover all of the costs. Mr. Murray said the applicants would like to request that the Board waive the fee of approximately $800 they paid for the special permit. They feel there is something philosophically wrong with giving time and energy to non-profit organizations and then having to pay the County to do so. He feels the staff report was friendly toward their request, so he will be prepared to answer any questions from the Board.' With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Bowerman immediately offered motion, which was seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve SP-97-27 subject to the following conditions as recom- mended by the Planning Commission. (Mr. Bowerman said he would bring up the August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 000.302 request to waive the fee after this matter has been dispensed with.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Compliance with Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance: Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is re- quired; All such use shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establish- ment Sanitation and other applicable requirements; A.R.C. and E.E.C. camps are to be operated in accord with the project description dated May 19, 1997, and representations made to staff as described herein. Maximum enrollment of the E.E.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty (30) campers per session for two (2), two-week sessions during the months of June, July, and/or August. Maximum enrollment of the A.R.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty-five (35) campers per session, for one (1), one-week session and one (1), two-week session during the months of June, July and/or August. Structures on Panorama Farms to be used under this special use permit are to be limited to the existing structures on the property; and 3 o A sign ("Road Narrows") shall be posted on Reas Ford Lane in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation letter of July 3, 1997, unless the road is improved under SP-97-11. Mr. Bowerman told Mr. Murray that the Board does not allow fees to be Waived. However, occasionally, the Board does appropriate money from the County's General Fund to pay the fee. He asked that the staff look at Murray's particular situation and return some recommendation to the Board so it may discuss granting the request. The other Board members were in agreement with Mr. Bowerman's suggestions. Mr. Davis said the State Code limits this practice to certain types of non-profit organizations and this may not be a qualifying entity. (The Board discussed Agenda Item No. 8, SP-97-17, Agenda Item No. 9, SP-97-18, Agenda Item No. 10, SP-97'20, Agenda Item No. 11, SP-97-21, and Agenda Item No. 12, SP-97-22, together.) Agenda Item No. 8. SP-97-17. CFW Wireless, CVll7, Boyd Tavern (Sign #96). Public hearing on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs znd P~A & EC. TM94, P41A. Located on N side of Richmond Rd (Rt 250), approx 1/2 mile W of Rt 616. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 4 and August 11, 1997.) The staff's report said the applicant proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole tower to provide Personal Communication System (PCS) coverage to eastern Albemarle County, and the western part of Fluvanna and Louisa counties. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The location for the proposed tower is on a slight rise which has a small cluster of trees. The majority of the parcel is open pasture. Housing in the area is located primarily on Route 616 and Route 250. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, other than the dwelling located on the property on which the tower is proposed, is approximately 1700 feet distant. Approximately 14 houses on Route 616 are located within 2000 feet of the proposed tower. The staff did address each question in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning ordinance (those comments are in the staff's report) and found the request to be in general compliance, therefore, recommended approval with conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, by a vote of 5/2 also recommended approval of SP-97-17 subject to 11 conditions. August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 000808 Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-18. CFW Wireless, CVll0, Covesville (Signs #90&91) . Public hearing on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 56 acs znd P~A. TM109, Pgc. Scottsville Dist.. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 4 and August 11, 1997.) The staff's report notes that the applicant proposes to construct a 150-foot self-supporting lattice tower to provide Personal Communication System (PCS) coverage to Southern Albemarle County and the northern part of Nelson County. Currently, no PCS service is provided in this area. The location for the proposed tower is on the side of Fan Mountain well below the crest of the mountain. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approxi- mately 945 feet ASL (above seal level). The Observatory is at an elevation of 1825 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower is approxi- mately 800 feet distant. Approximately 24 houses are located within 2000 feet of the proposed tower. An apple packing plant and church are also within 2000 feet of the proposed tower. The Observatory is located approxi- mately 4700 feet distant. The staff did address each question in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning ordinance (those comments are in the staff's report) and found that the impact on the Mountain Resource Area made this request inconsistent with the provisions of this section, therefore, staff was not able to recommend approval of the request. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, recommended denial'of SP-97-18. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-97-20. CFW Wireless, CVll3, Toms Mtn (Sign #93). Public hearing on a request to construct 160' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs znd RA & EC. TM87, P9. Samuel Miller Dist.. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 4 and August 11, 1997.) The staff's report notes that the applicant proposes to construct a 160-foot self-supporting lattice tower to provide Personal Communication System (PCS) coverage to southern Albemarle County along Route 29. Cur- rently, no PCS service is provided in this area. The location for the proposed tower is on the side of Toms Mountain well below the crest of the mountain. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 980 feet ASL (above seal level). The top of the mountain is at an elevation of 1209 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower is approximately 1800 feet distant. Approximately three houses are located within 2000 feet of the proposed tower. A significant number of dwellings in the Red Hill area will be able to see the proposed tower. The staff did address each question in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning ordinance (those comments are in the staff's report) and found that the impact on the Mountain Resource Area made this request inconsistent with the provisions of this section, therefore, staff recommended denial of the request. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, by a vote of 5/2, recommended denial of SP-97-20. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-97-21. CFW Wireless, CV102, Joshua Run (Signs #61&62). Public hearing on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs znd RA. TM32, P41. Rivanna Dist.. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 4 and August 11, 1997.) The staff's report notes that the applicant proposes to construct a 160-foot self-supporting lattice tower to provide Personal Communication System (PCS) coverage for northern Albemarle County in the Hollymead area. Currently, no PCS service is provided in this area. The location for the proposed tower is on a slight rise directly behind two existing houses in a wooded area. Housing in the area is located primarily in the Forest Lakes, Deerwood and Airport Acres subdivisions. Some dwellings are located on Route 649. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, other than the dwelling located on the property on which the tower is proposed, is approximately 800 feet distant. Approximately 59 houses are located within 2000 feet of the proposed tower. A number of commercial uses and industrial uses are also located within 2000 feet of the site. The staff did address each question in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning ordinance (those comments are in the staff's August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 000504 report) and found that the request generally complies with the provisions of the section, therefore, recommended approval. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, by a vote of 5/2, recommended approval of SP-97-21 subject to 11 conditions. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-97-22. CFW Wireless, CV108, Piney Mtn (Sign #55). Public hearing on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs znd RA & EC. TM21, P10. White Hall Dist.. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 4 and August 11, 1997.) The staff's report said the applicant proposes to construct a 150-foot self-supporting lattice tower to provide Personal Communication System (PCS) coverage for northern Albemarle County and southern Greene County. Cur- rently, no PCS service is provided in this area. The location for the proposed tower is on a ridge of Piney Mountain which runs north/south. The ridge is lower than the peak of the mountain. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, other than the dwelling located on the property on which the tower is proposed, is approximately 1900 feet distant. Approximately seven houses are located within 2000 feet of the proposed tower. Several existing towers located on the peak (including Airport-related radar) are approxi- mately 2100 feet to the west. The staff addressed each question in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning ordinance (those comments are in the staff's report) and found the impact on the Mountain Resource Area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of this section, therefore, staff did not recommend approval of the petition. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, by a vote of 5/2, did recommend approval of SP-97-22 subject to 15 conditions. Mr. William Fritz said CFW submitted six applications, and five of those are before the Board tonight. The sixth application was deferred to allow time for additional work. The applicant was a member of the Tower Task Force and delayed filing these requests until the work of the task force was completed. The applicant tried to find locations for the towers without going to sites where construction'of new facilities would be required. A map posted on the wall at this meeting shows existing facilities, the location of the five petitions before the Board tonight, plus the sixth application for a site on Britt's Mountain (Route 29 South). All of these applications are for coverage towers, not capacity towers, because CFW is a new company in the area providing PCS service, as opposed to cellular service which is currently provided by 360° Communications and U. S. Cellular. Some of the requests are for locations in the entrance corridors, but staff did provide information to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and received no comments from that body. Mr. Fritz said, should the Board decide to approve any of these applications, staff recommends a change in Condition #10 on all applications. It is a more comprehensive condition regarding co-location. Staff also recommends that Condition ~1 be amended to allow towers to be designed for a maximum height of 199 feet (only the ~x" amount of feet differs in each application). That would make it easier should a potential co-locator want to use the tower and use an elevation which would require an amendment of the special use permit. The base structure would be strong enough to support that increased height. He then offered to answer questions from the Board members. Mrs. Thomas said she knows the Planning Commission discussed colors of the towers. She asked if the ARB will be dealing with that issue in each of these cases. Mr. Fritz said on the three petitions where the Planning Commission recommended approval, they did include a condition limiting color. For the towers in the Entrance Corridor, they included language stating: ~Except as may otherwise be modified by the ARB." Mro Marshall said the staff's report notes that the Telecommunications Act does not permit localities to do anything which has the effect of limiting service. Staff also says that if a site cannot be located, it is conceivable the applicant may reapply for another site in the Mountain Resource area. Staff was also convinced that not all co-location options with other sites have been exhausted. Where does that leave the Board August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) .... 000305 legally if the requests are denied? Mr. Davis said the question is whether there are valid land use reasons to deny the requests. Combined with that is the requirement of the Telecommunications Act which says that even if there are valid land use reasons, the request cannot be denied if that denial also denies the applicant the right to provide service. The Board needs to decide whether any particular tower is needed to provide service. Staff feels there are other alternative sites that may not have been fully identified yet and the burden on the County is to show there are alternative sites to provide an adequate level of service. Mr. Fritz said he has found no evidence to show that the towers proposed for Route 29 South or Piney Mountain, which are in the Mountain Resource Area, could not be located outside of the Mountain Resource Area, and that denial would not prohibit service. With no further questions for staff, the public hearing was opened on Agenda Item No. 8, SP-97-17. Mr. Mike McPherson with CFW was first to speak. He asked if the Board wanted to take comments on each application individually. Mrs. Humphris replied ~yes". Mr. McPherson said the Planning Commission recommended approval of this request, so he would reserve his comments for answers to questions. Ms. Babette Thorpe was present to read a statement on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council pertaining to all of the CFW applications (the statement is on file in the Clerk's Office with the permanent records of this meeting). Mr. Tom Loach asked about expansion of wireless telecommunications in the County and its relation to safety. He said a study in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that the use of wireless communication could bring a driver's level of incapacity almost to the level of an intoxicated person. In two countries (Israel and Brazil), the use of wireless communication is already outlawed. He said technology has good and bad sides, and both have to be evaluated. It seemed from Mr. Fritz's presentation that the physical location of the towers was not based on any level of service determined by the County, but by the vendor. He thought there was to be a consultant who would determine the area's level of service need. Lastly, he asked if the County is requiring vendors who do set up towers to sign some sort of agreement that there will be some sort of co-location allowed on these towers in the future by competitive vendors. With no one else coming forward to comment on SP-97-17, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mrs. Humphris said this is the first time she has heard the statement that towers do not need to be above the tree line at all; while foliage does weaken the signal, the signal will work. Mr. Fritz Said you can use a wireless phone in a building, so obviously the signal is penetrating the building. Anything between the receiver and the transmitter will absorb some of that energy. Obviously the server wants to be above the tree line so there is no blockage at the beginning of the signal. It also increases the service area, but it will go through foliage. Mrs. Humphris asked how much energy is absorbed. Mr. Fritz said he does not know. Mr. Marshall said that could increase the number of towers which are needed. Mrs. Humphris asked if the towers were within the trees, and not visible, if that would make a significant difference. Mr. Marshall said that would depend on the season of the year. Mr. Martin said he thinks the ~adequate service" question needs to be determined. He has never had a problem using his phone on Route 29. Mr. Marshall said that in southern Albemarle there are a lot of dead spots. Mr. Perkins said where the problem comes in is that Mr. Marshall's provider might have adequate service, but there could be as many as 88 other companies moving in, and they want adequate service also. Mr. Fritz said he thinks that is a typographical error in the staff report. Everything he has seen refers to eight other providers, not 88. Mrs. Humphris said there was a question asked at the Planning Commis- sion meeting about the noise level in the event that a co-locator had to use the back-up generator for a power supply. She does not remember there being any answer to that question. Mr. Fritz said the Commission raised that question once. He researChed the concern about noise. CFW proposes to use August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21). ~ 000.306 batteries as their back-up in all cases. He talked to the Zoning Administra- tor and found that if the Board wishes to add a condition to account for a generator, the Board can use the provisions of Section 4-14 of the Zoning ordinance. Mrs. Thomas said she has been trying to find alternative sites that could be used as co-location sites. On Page 4 of the staff's report, it says using the Fluvanna tower would not eliminate the need for a tower in Albemarle, because there would be a small gap in service without it, but they do not propose to co-locate on those small towers. Mrs. Thomas believes that if they did, that small gap could be handled by a facility smaller than that proposed on this application. She thinks that question should be investi- gated before the Board approves this very large tower close to an intersec- tion. Mrs. Thomas said a lot of people have never forgiven her for this Board's approval of a tower that now sits near Camp Holiday Trails right beside Route 1-64. The tower proposed under this application would be just as close to the interstate highway. The applicant did address that point in a letter to staff in which they say their tower will not be as ugly as the other one, but it is very similar and has the same potential for being as thoroughly detested. Mrs. Humphris said the staff's report says that potential co-location sites investigated includes a tower located to the east in Fluvanna County, but it doesn't say why that idea was discarded. She asked why that idea was not pursued. Mr. Fritz said when staff was looking for co-location options, the idea behind the co-location was to eliminate the need for an application. Mrs. Humphris said the report does say that if the County needs to know what type of tower would be needed to fill a gap, it would need to have that work done by a consultant. Mr. Fritz said the applicant would need to re-engineer this site and provide staff with a revised application, or staff would need to consult with someone who has expertise in this field. Mrs. Humphris asked if the applicant had looked at this possibility. Mr. Fritz said he did not know the answer to that question. Mr. Tom Whittaker, Operations Guide from CFW, said he was aware of the information in the staff report and did discuss it internally. The CFW system is designed so the sites hand off as efficiently as possible, and without too much overlap. If either the Keswick site or the Boyd's Tavern site was moved to the east to Fluvanna County, it would create a dead spot in the middle. The only way to fill that gap would be with a site that would not operate as efficiently, and some type of tower, possibly at a lower height, would have to be built. The financial investment for CFW would be the same. That did not seem practical from a business perspective, or from the County's perspective, because they will still be presenting an applica- tion for a tower although it might be a smaller tower. His opinion is that towers below the tree line do not provide adequate service for any wireless carrier. Vegetation absorbs a tremendous amount of energy, particularly in the summertime. Mrs. Humphris said she was not talking about having the tower below the tree line, only that it be less than 150 feet. Mr. Whittaker said he was addressing the previous remark about energy. Mrs. Thomas said the other question had to do with it being a lower tower if it were simply filling in a smaller gap. Mr. Whittaker said it would still be above the tree height, and he does not know what that is at the proposed location. Most tree heights they have looked at are about 100 feet and they propose to be 40 to 50 feet above the tree heights. Also, if they apply for another location, all of the co-location aspects would be taken into consideration. Mrs. Thomas asked if CFW has the same policy as 360o Communications of separating panels by 30 feet. Mr. Whittaker said basically all wireless license carriers have some type of separation policy. They are between 10 and 20 feet and that is to avoid interference. The same policies exist for public service radio communications. Mrs. Thomas asked why at University Village the panels are side-by-side. Mr. Whittaker said those panels are all owned by the same company. There is a spectral difference between the two frequencies which helps their particular situation. Most carriers prefer some type of separation. When there is a spectral difference as there is between CFW (at 2000 megahertz) and 360° (at 850 megahertz) that provides some level of security, a lower potential for interference. If they were both cellular carriers, the bands are so close together that the opportunity August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 000807 for interference is great. It is just as great with public service carriers who operate near the 800 megahertz band. Mrs. Humphris said the trees at this location, according to the application, are approximately 80 feet tall. If the tower were made shorter to make it only large enough to ~fill a gap", this would decrease the possibility of allowing co-lHcation. Does the Board need to know what is in that area in order to know if there is a need for co-location? Mr. Fritz said he included in all of the reports whether each of the areas is a search area for other applicants. He believes the other service providers have already identified this area as a search area at the southern end of their Route 22/231 corridor. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Board members of the new condition provided to the Board tonight conditioning the height of any tower approved and also requiring a design to allow for an increase up to 199 feet. Any decision to increase height would be based on the possibility of co-location later, and would be subject to a hearing on a new special use permit. Mrs. Thomas said that means the Board could then decide whether it wanted another co-location tower, or whether it would allow an existing tower to be taller in order for co-location. Mr. Cilimberg said that is the intent of the staff's recommen- dation. Mrs. Humphris said this still does not answer the question of what the height of the SP-97-17 tower should be, if there were the use of a Fluvanna tower. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Board cannot defer this request to get more information. Mr. Davis said the Board always has the discretion to defer action in order to get more information. Since this is an important piece of information needed for the requests before the Board tonight, the staff may need some direction on how to get that information. Mr. Bowerman asked how this information would be obtained. Mr. Cilimberg said there are two ways this can happen. One would be if the Board indicated an interest in a particular issue and deferred the petition to allow the applicant to work with staff to get that information. If the applicant chose not to do that, the only other way staff could verify an alternative height would be through some kind of consultant. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant said they can do it, but it would not benefit them financially. Mr. Martin said the Board would still be faced with yet another tower application although under different circumstances. He feels the Board will just have to take the applications as they are until the County has a consultant to say what is meant by ~adequate service" and the Board makes a policy decision as to whether there will be higher and fewer towers, or shorter and more towers. Mr. Tucker said the last time the Board had a work session on the question of towers, staff indicated that they would be developing a draft RFP for a consultant. That was to be returned to the Board for its review before letting it out for bid. If the Board is going to have similar questions on all of the petitions on the agenda tonight, it might consider deferring until staff can get the answers the Board needs. Otherwise the Board will have to deal with each individual application, and approve or deny the request. If the Board is planning on denying any request, staff wants to be sure it has reviewed all information in order to be able to defend that denial. Mrs. Humphris asked how long it will take to select a consultant. Mr. Tucker said it could take 60 to 90 days. Mrs. Humphris asked the County Attorney how long the Board had in which to make its decision. Mr. Davis said State Code allows the Board 12 months in which to make a determination on an application. CFW applied in April, 1997. Mrs. Thomas said she would not urge the Board to defer an application if it really intends to approve or deny any individual application. She feels that SP-97-17 is one that needs some engineering answers. When CFW's service areas are circles, and a tower is added so they can co-locate in Fluvanna, it changes their service area and they~end up with a small gap. The Board needs to have an engineering answer as to what size tower is needed. This seems, to her, to be a very practical question. Mr. Martin asked if Condition #1, as amended, will be applied so if someone else wants to come in later there will not be another tower built by August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) .,..: 000308 another carrier in that same area. Mrs. Thomas said she believes the Board needs an engineer's help because she does not believe co-locating requires a tremendous increase in height. Mr. Tucker said there are two issues. One is the ~big picture" of identifying where the needs are, what the service levels should be, and the second is a question of individual locations. The second question can probably be dealt with quickly. In fact, that part may not have to be bid, but the answer to the "big picture" will take longer. If the Board wants to move forward on each petition and address the sites individually, that can probably be done more quickly and at a lesser cost. Mr. Martin referred to the last such petition approved by the Board, and said there was public opposition to the site and he felt there was all ready adequate service, but the petition was approved anyway. He does not think the Board can, at this point, just defer everything waiting for a consultant's report. He does not know how the Board would defend its action to defer one petition and go on with others, since it seems to him the Board is becoming very arbitrary. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks the Board can be arbitrary without addi- tional information. She asked Mr. Martin if he is suggesting that the Board defer all petitions rather than think that there might be enough information on some of them tonight. Mr. Martin said he feels a vote for deferral should be taken, not just on these applications, but on every such application which is pending. Mrs. Humphris said it seems to her that the Board could defer SP-97-17 and actually get the answer needed (co-locate with a shorter tower, or fill the gap or not), just by getting a consultant for that one particular question because this site has a different situation from the other sites. Mr. Martin said he thinks some of the same questions were asked at the last meeting, and he opposed that request. Mrs. Humphris asked the pleasure of the Board. She said there are a number of other items on the agenda to deal with tonight. She asked if the Board members wish to vote on SP-97-17 tonight, or defer it for specific guidance from a professional engineer, or to just defer it if the Board is going to defer the rest of the petitions for more information. Mr. Martin asked if the Board members intended to defer all of the other applications, not just SP-97-17. He thinks the Board needs to have some basis on which to make such decisions. To defer this one, and then say other petitions, even those coming before the Board many weeks in the future, will be deferred based on information the Board does not have, is not sufficient. Mr. Davis said he would like to address one point made by Mr. Martin. Under Virginia law the Board cannot impose a moratorium on processing applications and the Board is getting close to confusing that issue. The Board can defer action on any application in order to get additional informa- tion. The Board can look at each of the applications before it tonight, and defer each for the same reasons, but the applications needs to be looked at on an individual basis. If the applicants want to make an application and have it go through the Planning Commission and then come to the Board, the Board needs to maintain the same public hearing schedule, hold the public hearing and look at the applications on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Tucker said if the Board is interested in getting a professional opinion on these requests, there is nothing wrong in getting direction, so that ~anything in the pipeline" will automatically need a review by a professional engineer. Mr. Davis said if that is the information the Board needs to make a decision, they can defer those applications until such time as the report is received, or if the applicant can provide alternative information that is satisfactory to answer those questions, the application may be able to be processed without waiting. That is a decision that needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. Mrs. Thomas asked if staff would like to know if the Board is deferring to get specific information (which the Board should delineate), or if it is deferred because the Board wants the ~bigger picture" of what is apt to be needed in the County in terms of co-location prospects, the locations which August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) ~.... 000309 will provide the most coverage, whether there are the lower priced sites, etc. Mr. Davis said "yes." Mr. Martin said the applicants requesting permission for these towers need that information. They can then spend their money requesting what the Board wants. He does not want the Board to get in a situation where someone thinks the Board wants fewer and taller towers, and then when that is proposed, the Board asks if the applicant had looked at using more towers, but shorter towers. The County should not keep sending the vendor back to the drawing board. That would be unfair. Mr. Marshall said it is also unfair to the user who will pay more for the service. Mrs. Thomas said she will support a motion to defer on the basis that the Board needs more professional information, both in general and specific. Mr. Perkins wanted to know what information would be asked for. He does not think the tower height is that critical. All of these towers are unsightly. The Boyd's Tavern area is flat, and it may be more critical to have the added height to give the service circle CFW is hoping to get. Mrs. Thomas said that is the kind of information she feels the Board needs. She thinks the Board needs to know everything from the requirements for co-location, to the implications of the height, to the visual and service implications, being on a ridge line or not, just some plain old engineering knowledge about how these things work, how they are sited, what they can or cannot be alongside of, etc. Mr. Martin said if he is going to vote on these petitions individually, then he will vote for passage of SP-97-17. In the absence of philosophical or overall guidelines so he can compare this request to another one in the past, he is left with the fact that there are not a lot of citizens here tonight opposed to it, and the Planning Commission voted for approval. He would support this one where he did not support the last one. If he makes a motion, the motion will be for passage. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has the same pattern of questions each time. He thinks the Board should hire a consultant and get that person involved in these discussions, and defer everything now. He said the Board does not have the answers it needs at this time. Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to have each public hearing tonight, and each application will need to be deferred individually. Mr. Martin offered motion to DEFER SP-97-17 until the first night meeting in February, 1998. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Perkins asked the chances of looking at each application individu- ally. Mr. Tucker said if the information the Board needs is something specifically brought up tonight, that can be done quickly. If the Board is looking for the ~big picture", that will take longer. Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs the ~big picture" to deal with any of the petitions because each has its own specific, individual idiosyncracies. It is the ~big picture" which is needed as an overall guide. That has been the problem all the time. Mr. Cilimberg said if each of the applications is to deferred until the Board gets the ~big picture", does the Board w~nt the consultant to evaluate each proposal within the framework of the "big picture." Mrs. Thomas said that is her feeling. Mrs. Humphris said everything that is "in the pipeline" by the time the consultant starts work, needs to be evaluated within the "big picture". Mrs. Humphris then called for the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 9, SP-97-18, Covesville. She requested that the applicant speak first. Mr. Whittaker said the Covesville site, specifically, is considered in CFW's 1997 launch plan. Although it appears that all of the requests will be August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) 0008 .0 deferred tonight, postponing all of these requests until February has an onerous effect on their whole process. The spirit of the task force was to help move the process along. He knows the recommendations of the task force were considered, but they are not adopted recommendations. CFW started this process early, worked through the process, and has been cooperative. CFW is unique to the other licensees because they have no operating system in Albe- marle County now. These sites are a significant percentage of the system they intend to 'launch within about sixty days. This delay has an onerous effect on CFW's business plan. He does not disagree with County guidelines and the State Code. CFW worked within the spirit of the Task Force and now to have such a large percentage of the sites denied is a serious blow. Also, CFW has approved sites on other sides of the sites requested tonight, and those approvals may now be "money down the drain." He understands that is the risk CFW takes. If CFW goes to the 360o Communications tower and cannot arrive at an amicable lease arrangement, then CFW still does not have a site. He understands the process of hiring a consultant and will help with that process as much as they can. For the record, he would like to state that this delay is a tremendous blow to their business plan. Mr. Bud Zirkle, CEO for CFW, said he understands the Board is in a difficult position trying to evaluate the requests. It is highly technical and there are a lot of issues involved. CFW will do whatever it can to facilitate the process and get the information requested by the Board. In an effort to do that, CFW has worked with County staff since June of 1996. By February of 1998, that will be almost two years, and that is an unacceptable time frame for CFW. In terms of looking at ~the big picture", unlike many of the wireless carriers the County has dealt with, CFW has laid out its plan for the entire county. Of the 15 sites chosen, nine of those sites are co- locations. CFW has worked diligently to reduce the number of towers to be constructed in the County. They put their towers on buildings, on water towers, anywhere they can find in order to eliminate building a tower. The requests tonight are the last pieces needed in order to make their network a commercially feasible operation. A unilateral decision to defer to February is catastrophic to CFW's business. Mrs. Humphris said she has observed that CFW has been totally coopera- tive and the Board appreciates that fact. She hopes CFW realizes the Board has a responsibility to the citizens of the County. This delay is not being done casually. The Board is just trying to make the best decision for everyone involved, not just for CFW. Mr. Zirkle said he had assumed that was the reason the task force was created. CFW purposely delayed a lot of its efforts to try and coordinate with that whole process, but they did start their process in May or June of 1996. Mr. Martin said that is one of the things he feels is blatantly unfair. The vendor~followed the guidelines established by the County, and now the Board is changing its mind. He believes the recommendations of the Task Force were more or less "just tossed", except for the recommendation to hire a consultant. Mrs. Humphris said what came out of the Task Force was a listing of things the County did and did not know. What the County did not know, it did not have the resources to answer; this would require the help of a profes- sional, engineering consultant. Since there are so many providers, the County can't just get an answer for one. The County needs the answer to the "big picture". She feels it would be negligent if the County did not do that. Mr. Zirkle suggested as a compromise that rather than making a unilat- eral deferral until February, which is extremely detrimental to CFW'S business, that if the Board wants to employ a consultant to review what CFW has done, CFW, as a company, will pay for that consultant, a consultant of the County's choice, to expedite'the process and get the answers needed so the Board can render a decision. To say that can't be done until February seems unreasonable to him. Mrs. Humphris said that is a generous offer, but it doesn't help the Board with the need to know the whole "big picture." Mr. Perkins said the Board is asking for something it probably never will get. The "big picture" will show that a tower is needed, and it does not make sense to him to hamper people for six months while information is gathered. August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~l (Page 26) Mr. Bowerman asked if the issue is whether the Boyd Tavern tower should be taller or shorter, or moved to a different location. Mrs. Thomas said she does not know enough to answer that question. From what the Board has received in the staff's report, there is another site in Fluvanna County that to an amateur looks like it would be usable, but using concentric circles to show the service area, it leaves a small gap in service. That gap may not be where this tower is located, so it might best be covered by a smaller tower that is not in the same location. The ~big picture" will show whether that tower will be usable by other companies, etc. She appreciates the fact that CFW worked with the task force, and they also spent several hours taking her around to see the various sites under review tonight. Mr. Tucker said the issue for CFW is the date suggested for deferral. If staff can bring back the information as soon as it is available, it may not be necessary to delay until February. He does not know if this bid will have to be put out using State procurement guidelines. He asked if these petitions will need to be readvertised for a public hearing. Mr. Davis said the legal public hearing will have occurred tonight, so there will be no need for an additional public hearing. That could expedite matters. Mr. Tucker suggested just putting a notice in the newspaper when these matters are ready to be heard, and sending letters to adjoining property owners. Mr. Cilimberg said staff still needs to know what the Board is looking for from a consultant. Mr. Martin said he has no problem with voting to approve SP-97-17 tonight. Based on the information to this point, and based on the fact that the applicant submitted proposals based on existing County guidelines, knowing that there is a good chance others will want to use this .location, the height of the tower can be extended so there will be the possibility of co-location in the future. If the Board is going to ~pull the rug" on SP-97- 18 (Covesville), then he feels the Board should first have in place some kind of guideline it intends to stand by. Otherwise, he would have made a motion for approval based on signals send in the past as to what the Board wants. He said the Board deferred SP-97-17 (Boyd's Tavern), and it appears that it may now vote on the others, so how can the Board now change its vote on the deferral of SP-97-17. Mr. Davis said there can be a motion for reconsidera- tion of that deferral. Mr. Martin said he would feel better about that than anything else the Board had done. He then offered a motion, which was seconded by Mr. Mar- shall, to reconsider the deferral of SP-97-17. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas. Mr. Martin then offered motion to approve SP-97-17 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and with the modification of Condi- tion #1 and of Condition #10 as recommended by staff tonight. The motion was seconded by Mr. Marshall. Mrs. Thomas said she will not vote for that motion. She personally does not feel she has enough information to approve what will be a very visible tower in an important part of a dense corridor. She thinks there are alternatives that would be less obtrusive. She understands that if the motion fails, the Board will have deferred the petition instead of actually denying it. Mr. Davis said the matter is back before the Board. If the motion fails, then the petition is denied. Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Thomas if the tower in this location was shorter and a stipulation was added that it could be raised if co-location were found to be necessary in the future, what tha~ would do to her objec- tion. Mrs. Thomas said it disregards the possibility of co-location on the site in Fluvanna, and its effect on this location and the size of the tower. This may be the wrong location. Mr. Bowerman said it is the location the applicant is suggesting. He is afraid that whatever information the Board gets from the consultant will still be arguable as to correctness, and will leave the BOard with having to decide between alternatives which still are not clear. He does not think the Board will get a consultant, the applicant, and the staff, to debate the selection process and make it easy. August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) · 000312 Mrs. Thomas said she thinks SP-97-17 is okay, and she would vote for it. It seems to fit all kinds of criteria. Its location is good, but she thinks it could be shorter than the application requests. She feels very confident about voting for two of the petitions, and about voting down two of the petitions. She has gotten some of the information the Board is looking for from a consultant on a piece-by-piece basis, so she thinks it is possible to get that kind of information and then make the decisions. She does not believe all of these decisions will be impossible decisions to make. She thinks the Board can deal with these questions in an intelligent way with some professional help. She does not believe it will take a year, and a great deal of money. Mr. Martin said Mrs. Thomas has had access to information that sounds as if it should have gone in the staff's report so all of the Board members could have had access to the same information. Based on what Mrs. Thomas is saying, she thinks something could be done better, etc. This leaves him in a situation where he has to go with his instincts unless he knows he is getting unbiased, staff information, although he does not dispute what Mrs. Thomas has said. Mrs. Thomas said she does not expect to convince the other Board members about the information she has discovered in the last 48 hours except that with a manageable amount of information, the Board will be able to make these decisions. She just thinks the Board needs more engineering help than it has gotten to this point. Mr. Martin said that based on what he knows, SP-97-17 seems to be reasonable because anything else is just "second guessing." Mr. Perkins asked the applicant to explain how he selected this site at an elevation of 400 feet. Mr. Whittaker said CFW had chosen and negotiated a co-location with 3WV on Hanson's Mountain. Next, they had to decide how far their signal would go to provide coverage on 1-64 to the handoff to the next site. In their low-powered PCS environment, they established a search area around Boyd Tavern. That search area is relatively narrow. Within that area CFW had to find a landowner who was willing to lease them a piece of property on which to build the tower. They then used engineering software to select the tower height and in coordination with the staff selected 150 feet. They ran that location at 150 feet and it provided an adequate level of coverage. They then submitted the application. What CFW considers an ~adequate level of coverage" is on the highway, in a car, hand-held portable coverage. What they consider adequate coverage in Charlottesville is hand-held coverage inside of buildings such as at the University of Virginia where they have an RFP for a wireless system. That is what they consider adequate coverage, but other cellular carriers may feel differently. In some urban environments, cellular carriers don't design for portability, although he does feel all cellular carriers in this area do. Mr. Bowerman asked if this site was determined by two co-location sites, the one in Fluvanna and the one with the radio station. Mr. Whittaker said the Fluvanna site is not theirs. The have acquired two sites in Louisa County; Ferncliff and Zion Crossroads. Mr, Bowerman asked if those sites are dependent upon this site. Mr. W/~ittaker said they are all perfectly spaced to provide the best level of coverage. Mr. Marshall said that statement bothers him, He asked if CFW does not get all of the locations, if that means CFW can't operate. Mr. Whittaker said their core market is developed around co-locations and everything steps off of those co-locations. This site steps off of Carter's Mountain and specifically, 3WV. The co-locations are the core of this network and every network that they have built in Roanoke, Lynchburg, etc. Mr. Zirkle said what may be different here from what the Board is accustomed to seeing is that the vendor has provided a master plan rather than making requests piecemeal. If any one of these requests is denied, it is a serious detriment to their ability to provide service. In the case of Route 29 South, if they do not get the sites proposed approved, they will have to return to the Board with requests for four or five sites instead of the three proposed at this time. There is a ton of information available which they can share with the Board members. That information will show that they have spaced their towers and used the type of equiPment to allow maximum spacing and not litter the landscape with towers. Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to get on with the vote. Condition No. 1 would read ~Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. The tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height up to 199 feet. Any increase in August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~l~ (Page 28) , ..... · height above 150 feet shall require amendment of this permit; and" as set out in the staff's memorandum of August 20, 1997. There was a typographical error in No 5. The last words should be "lease area". She asked if in No. 10 the County Attorney's language reading: "The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site." Mr. Fritz said "yes". Mrs. Humphris asked if in No. 11 staff wanted it to indicate what other users might be using the tower. Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission added that condition in order to ensure compliance with Condition No. 6. There was no particular concern expressed about who the user might be, only that it be for wireless communi- cations. At this time, Mrs. Humphris requested a roll call for the vote. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas. Mrs. Humphris said she did not state for the record that she was voting "no" because she does not have adequate information. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below: Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. The tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height up to 199 feet. Any increase in height above 150 feet shall require amend- ment of this permit; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. Ail tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same net- work or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; 5o The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; Tower shall be located as shown on attached plan titled ~'Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utili- ties; Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by ARB; August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) . · ooo3a.4 10. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifi- able evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such loca- tion and will negotiate in good faith with any other wire- less telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site; 11. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless tele- communication service. The Board now returned to discussion of Agenda Item No. 9, SP-97-18, Covesville. Mrs. Humphris immediately opened the public hearing on this petition. Mr. Mike McPherson said this site is part of their Route 29 South plan and is located on the side of Fan Mountain where the Observatory is located. Staff recommended denial because the site is located in the Mountain Resource Area. CFW knew that fact when they selected the site, but did not think it would be quite the problem it has been. Internally, they made a decision to move forward with the site requests in the Mountain Resource Area to avoid building more towers. If they can keep these towers at a certain elevation and keep tower heights as requested, the corridor can be covered with three towers. If the tower height is lowered to ground elevation, four or five towers will be needed in that corridor. In addition, this site has a backdrop. It does not sit on a ridge, so it will blend in with the back- ground. It also has an existing road which will need to be improved. There are not a lot of trees to be taken out. In terms of co-location, there are not many structures on that road, and they exhausted everything that could be looked at. There are no existing towers in the area. Ms. Babette Thorpe said she wanted to clear up a point. There was a question about the number of carriers and whether the figure "88" was a typo. She handed to the Board a communication showing how the figure was derived. Mr. Gary Bibb said the network in general has been designed on optimal efficiency of communications with the minimum capital expenditure for building the towers and the transponders. He does not know if there should be fewer towers, or more towers. He feels there will be towers somewhere. When you look at the forest that is being protected, there must be ugly trees in that forest. Does it matter how many there are or how tall they are? What difference does it make if there are five towers that cannot be seen, or one sticking up 80 to 90 feet above the tree line? He asked the Board members to use their judgment when asking CFW to redesign a system that is going to make communications viable, but at a lesser expense to the citizen's eyes. The value to CFW will be huge when the whole network is put together. It will be worth millions of dollars. These towers are going to be in place for many, many years into the future, so he asked that the Board make them as invisible as possible. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris said the Planning Commission and staff both recommended denial of SP-97-18 because it is inconsistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and it impacts on the Mountain Resource Area. She will say right now that she will not vote for approval because this is not good, and there are other options. August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) 0003:1.5 At this time, Mr. Marshall offered motion, which was seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to deny SP-97-18. Mr. Davis said that because of the Telecommunica- tions Act, it is proper that there be a prepared written record that the Board can base its denial upon. Based on the comments of the Board, and the staff's report, he feels there is a clear indication of the Board's position on SP-97-18. He asked that a record be put together to meet the requirements of the Act. Mr. Zirkle asked that he be allowed to address the Board. Mr. Davis said that would be proper only if he wished to withdraw the application. Mr. Zirkle said that is what he would like to do. Mr. Marshal then withdrew his motion. Mr. Zirkle said in the interest of working with staff, and to avoid putting the Board in a difficult position, CFW will withdraw this application and proceed to investigate every alternative in that area of the County to find something that is in compliance with the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and all the other guidelines which are set forth for that area. Mrs. Humphris asked if there had been a second to the motion. Mrs. Thomas said she had seconded the motion, and would withdraw the second. Mrs. Humphris asked the County Attorney what the Board should do now that the applicant has requested withdrawal of the application. Mr. Davis said if it is the pleasure of the Board to allow CFW to withdraw the application at this time, the Board can simply accept his request and the matter will no longer be before the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked if CFW will have to make a new application. Mr. Zirkle said it will be a different application. Mrs. H umphris asked if the Board should vote on the request. Mr. Davis said "no". Mrs. Humphris asked if it the pleasure of the Board members to allow the applicant to withdraw SP-97-18. The Board members, according to the Chair- man, agreed by a nod of the head. Mr. Perkins asked about other possibilities on Observatory Mountain. Mr. Zirkle said he would let others address that question. Mr. McPherson said they had looked at the Observatory, but because it is much farther off of the road and there is a large ridge which shadows the road, it does not provide any coverage for them in one direction. It would also create a need for another site a little farther down the road. Mrs. Humphris then opened the Public hearing on Agenda Item No. 10, SP- 97-20, Toms Mtn. Mr. McPherson said Toms Mountain is located in the Mountain Resource Area. He said a gentlemen earlier had suggested that CFW have more, but shorter towers. This could be done, but it would eliminate the possibility of allowing co-locators. He feels new vendors will then propose new towers at new locations. He thinks this is something the Board should consider at this point. Basically, that is why they chose the elevations proposed and the tower heights proposed. All of CFW's towers are being built to accommo- date two other providers. The task force asked for one other at this time. Mr. Fritz said the task force had not made a suggestion concerning this point. Mr. McPherson said they are building theirs for two, and Toms Mountain already has a road to the site. This will minimize the impact, and it is also an economic decision for CFW. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Zirkle was asking to withdraw the applica- tion. Mr. Zirkle said he would like to hear some Board discussion on this request. This is an important site, and one where they examined many other alternatives. If it is withdrawn, or denied, CFW will be back with a similar request. Mrs. Humphris asked if anyone from the public would like to speak. Mr. Joe Garifalo, from Indian Hill Subdivision just east of Route 29 directly across from Toms Mountain, was present to represent 11 homeowners who live on or about Route 711 and who are adamantly opposed to this tower. He said no one was notified about this request. He heard about this from two homeowners on the other side of Route 29. He can't believe that they were not notified about something as obtrusive as this tower in a Mountain Resource Area. The sign on the highway (Sign #93) was small and no one knew what it meant. Mr. Garifalo said most of the people in the area live there because of the beauty of the mountains. A tower on Toms Mountain will ruin the view, August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) 0003 6 particularly if the tower will grow like a tree. That will make the Mountain Resource Area look terrible, and it will just get worse over time. You can see the site on Toms Mountain all the way to Cutright's lake about one and one-half miles away. People living on Route 29 South, Route 711 and parts of Route 712, much of Route 710, all of Route 779, Southern Hills Drive, will have to look at this tower from their yards, out of their windows, and as they drive. It is in the Mountain Resource Area. The Open Space Plan calls for protecting those areas. He asked that the Board protect the Area. Mrs. Humphris noted that the Board had received several letters from people in this part of the County. Ms. Charlotte Shelton said the Toms Mountain tower is to be built on her family's property. Wherever these towers are located there will be some visibility. Her family considered carefully and for a long period of time as to whether or not they would grant the lease. They decided to do so since a tower will be built somewhere in the area to provide the service, and they felt that having the one tower serve the larger area would be less of an intrusion onto the scenery than otherwise. Furthermore, there is a question of how her family can hold their 90 acres of property on the Mountain. The options that are available in terms of development are not appealing. The restriction that the Mountain Resource Area puts on the property is one that establishes a policy, but she thinks a common sense application of the policy is needed. The restrictions were put into place, and then the need for these towers occurred. The tower is on a relatively small area which is not on the ridge line, so it will actually be less intrusive than many other things that can take place on the property. The planners did not come up with anything against the petition other than the fact that the property lies in the Mountain Resource Area. She thinks the Board needs to look at these requests on a case-by-case basis when there is a public need. While there may be 11 people in the area against the request, not everyone in North Garden is opposed. Mr. Gary Bibb said he sent the Board a letter last week containing 12 names and tonight he handed in another copy of that letter and it now contains the names of 26 people in opposition. There are people in the North Garden area who don't mind this request. There is an adjacent property owner to Mr. Shelton, Mr. Shannon Clark, who said he would prefer the tower on the mountain instead of in the median strip of the roadway. Also, he would not be able to see the tower from his house. Also, Mr. Shelton cannot see the tower site from his house. Mr. Bibb said he went to Route 710 and talked to many people living there. All the people he talked to objected to the tower. In Southern Hills there are now six occupied homes, and none of those people want to see a tower. Mr. Bibb said he thinks it is the Board's job to let the Comprehensive Plan guide it. This area was designated as a Mountain Resource Area for many reasons. It is what makes Albemarle County beautiful. Approval of this request would go against the Comprehensive Plan. During an earlier part of this meeting, money was discussed. This network is not going to generate many jobs for this County. It will not make it prettier and there will not a significant amount of funds generated for the County. He personally moved to the area for the same reasons that others moved there, for the rural nature. He does not want to see a tower that is going to stand 60 to 80 feet above the tree tops. It will crest the ridge behind it so he could conceivably see a tower silhouetted by a beautiful sunset. He would prefer that there be a lot of towers that he can't see. With no one else rising to speak, the pubic hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mrs. Humphris said she will vote to deny SP-97-20 for the same reasons she stated before, and that is because of the Mountain Resource Area and the impact of the request on the Entrance Corridor District. Mrs. Thomas said this site lies in her district, and although she appreciates the Shelton's point about the uses of their property, she thinks the tower will be obtrusive and there are alternatives that are not as obtrusive and which can provide coverage in the area. She agrees with Mr. Bibb that a number of invisible towers is preferable to towers on the ridge line. She will not make a motion at this time, but she does intend to make a motion later for denial. August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) O00'~l~ (Page 32) Mr. Whittaker said out of respect to the landowners, CFW would like to withdraw the application for SP-97-20. If CFW reapplies at a later date with more towers and still has opportunity to do something on that property, they would like to reserve that right. He asked if this will protect their right to reapply for that same piece of property. Mr. Fritz said a special use permit does not have a one-year waiting period for reapplication as a rezoning request does. Mr. Whittaker said they would still like to withdraw the application. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Board members concurred with the request for withdrawal. According to the Chairman, the Board members agreed by a nod of the head. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 11, SP-97- 21, Joshua Run. Mr. McPherson said this site is basically on Route 29 North. CFW had looked at a variety of other sites including a 3600 Communications tower north of this site. The 360© Communications tower is much lower than their proposed tower and with the separation policy 360o uses, it put the proposed tower much below the tree line. It would not provide adequate coverage. In addition, CFW has an existing site on the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's water tank just south of that point. That is the next site where they would hand off to the Joshua Run site. They did look at every other viable site in the area. The Board does have a recommendation from both the Planning Commission and staff for approval of this petition. He offered to answer questions. No one else from the public rose to speak, so the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Thomas said she actually feels this request is okay. Mr. Martin said he has no problems with the request, and immediately offered motion, which was seconded by Mr. Marshall, to approve SP-97-21 subject to the eleven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and modified by the staff tonight. Mr. Fritz said the tower height for this petition will be 150 feet. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. The tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height up to 199 feet. Any increase in height above 150 feet shall require amendment of this permit; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3 o There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No adminis- trative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or ap- proval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; 6 o The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wire- less telecommunication purposes; August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) 0003 .8 Tower shall be located as shown on attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed W-DF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities; Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Adminis- tration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by ARB; 10. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunica- tions provider requesting to locate on the tower or site; and 11. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service. Mrs. Humphris opened the public hearing on Agenda Item No. 12, SP-97- 22, Piney Mountain. Mr. McPherson said the Piney Mountain site is in the Mountain Resource Area, but the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the site because there are all ready two towers sitting on the crest of the mountain. One is an FAA tower and the other is an AT&T land line microwave tower. CFW looked at those sites, but they did not work from a technical standpoint because the radar tower puts out so much energy it would interfere with CFW's signal, and possibly damage their equipment. CFW is as close to the FAA tower as it can be technically. They also moved the tower down the slope so the tower will be seen against the background of the mountain. Another reason for leaving the tower in the Mountain Resource Area is because the site has an existing road. No trees, or any kind of foliage will need to be removed except for their small compound of 50 by 50 feet. He then offered to answer questions. Mrs. Thomas said she likes the fact that the tower is below the ridge line, but she feels this tower could be lower than 150 feet in height. She asked if this height is due to co-location. Mr. McPherson said that is about the minimum height for a tower. The towers come in 10-foot sections. An engineer would want a 200-foot pole because it would provide better coverage. When they realized that the Mountain Resource Area was going to become a big issue, they asked their engineer to pull all of the towers out of that Area and run them at the shorter heights. If they could have moved the towers down the mountains, they would have and avoided the Mountain Resource Area all together. The towers did not work at those elevations. Bringing the tower down the mountain will create the need for two towers. That is the minimum height they can use without creating another site in the area. Mr. Bowerman asked if putting the tower at a lower elevation will preclude co-location. Mr. McPherson said he thinks they could probably get one other carrier on the tower at that elevation. Mr. Whittaker said that other technologies (such as paging) require only one antennae. They can be at lower elevations and provide adequate coverage for narrow band and paging technologies. Those users as co-locators cannot be discounted, because low loads do not have to be at a high height. Many carriers could accommodate many of those attachments. This height was chosen due to some of the suggestions by the Task Force of picking a suitable height above the existing tree height. August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 34) 000319 With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris said it seems that the Planning Commission's justifica- tion for approving SP-97-21 was that even though the site is in the Mountain Resource Protection Area, the area has.already been contaminated by other towers. She asked if the other Board members feel that provides justifica- tion. Mr. Bowerman said to some extent. Also, the Commission noted that the tower wil~l be lower than the top of the mountain. Mrs. Thomas said she does not believe that having an existing tower there is justification. The County does have a policy for clustering towers in ~tower farmsx. That is a good policy, but she 'does not think the other towers are close enough to this tower to make it appear that there is a cluster of towers. The fact that it does not extend above the ridge line, and is just barely in the Mountain Preservation Area, speaks to its defense. She wished the Board had its independent consultant on hand, because just "eye bailing" it, she thinks the tower could be lower than 150 feet. She does not know if the other Board members would join her in deferring the request for just that piece of information~ Otherwise, she thinks it meets enough of the County's criteria for approval, but not because it is close to two other structures. It is not that close. Mr. Perkins said the mountain has rock outcrops, etc., on it so they break the tree line anyway. Mr. Perkins then offered motion to approve SP- 97-22 with the 15 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, and modified as the previous requests have been. Mr. Fritz said it would be the same modification to Condition No. 1 and on this petition, Condition No. 14 would also be modified, and the tower height would be 150 feet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Mrs. Thomas said she will vote against it because of her hesitancy about the height of the tower. Mrs. Humphris said she intends to vote against it for the same reason. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mrs. Thomas. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. The tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height up to 199 feet. Any increase in height above 150 feet shall require amend- ment of this permit; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same net- work or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; 5o The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; 7 o Tower shall be located as shown on attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 35) 000320 8 o Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utili- ties; Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 10. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; 11. The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 12. The access road shall disturb no more than 75 feet in cross section; 13. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by ARB; 14. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifi- able evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such loca- tion and will negotiate in good faith with any other wire- less telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site; and 15. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless tele- communication service. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas said she got a letter from the U.S. Postal Service indicat- ing that they wish to move the North Garden Post Office. She would like for the Board to have some input into this question since it is at the heart of a small community. The North Garden Fire Department, which owns the property, is actually asking the Post Office to move so they can use the property. Mr. Cilimberg said it would be helpful if staff knew why the fire department was asking fQr this space. Once there is an answer to that question, alterna- tives can be investigated. Mrs. Thomas said a proposed Federal law which would require the Postal Service to pay attention to local zoning regulations has not yet been passed. Mrs. Thomas said that many communities are having problems with deer. She asked if this is anything the County has ever gotten involved with. Mr. Tucker said deer and geese are both major issues now. The Game Commission has been working with neighborhoods to resolve these problems. Mr. Bowerman emphasized that the consultant to be hired for the telecommunication tower questions should be hired as quickly as possible. The problems surrounding the towers will not go away. Mr. Marshall said the August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 36) Board has not decided how this expense will be paid. Mrs. Humprhis said the Board members had come to a consensus on this question at one of the past work sessions. Mr. Tucker said staff was to have put together a RFP for a consultant, but they have not done it yet. After that was done and approved by the Board, staff was to decide how this would fit into the work plan of Planning Department staff. Mr. Bowerman said whatever needs to be done, needs to be done immediately. Mr. Bowerman said he wants to set the record straight. He has gotten many telephone calls and letters regarding Mr. Heischman's letter about the decision of this Board on the South Pointe petition. Mr. Heischman wrote a letter to all of the residents between Willoughby and Red Hill along Old Lynchburg Road, and there are a number of statements in that letter which are not factual. In the first paragraph Mr. Heischman said the Board denied a request for R-15 zoning, and that is true, but he went on to say he can build 364 apartments by right, but they would all be four-bedroom, low-income apartment units. Mr. Bowerman said the R-15 zoning requested 420 apartments and Mr. Heischman really wanted a larger number of apartments than what he was granted. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant can only get a 30 percent bonus density increase for including low- or moderate-income or subsidized housing. Mr. Bowerman wondered if Mr. Heischman has financing with HUD or the necessary programs to do that because the implication in Mr. Heischman's letter is that it is going to happen. The letter also states that the highest and best use of the property would be for commercial development. Mr. Bowerman said there are 28 acres left there that he believes Mr. Heischman is proposing as commercial development, although no plan has yet been submitted for that acreage. A year ago the Board saw a petition for commercial development on the apartment acreage (or part of it), and the community spoke out strongly against that development. Mr. Bowerman said he does not believe the commercial development is a panacea for that site. Continuing, Mr..Bowerman said the letter states that ~if you agree that 364 low-income, government-sponsored housing units would not be in keeping with the good character of your neighborhood .... " Mr. Bowerman said he would like to know what program Mr. Heischman is talking about and would like to know if Mr. Heischman has approved financing, and what is the realistic situation in terms of financing these units. The letter goes on to instruct the homeowners to ~contact Forrest Marshall or David Bowerman or Charles Martin or Walter Perkins who voted to shift the burden of low-income, government-subsidized housing from their districts to your neighborhood." Mr. Bowerman pointed out that this Board has all ready approved approximately 300 apartments as low- and moderate-cost housing on Rio Road, which is in the Jack Jouett district, that Whitewood Village (which is all subsidized housing) is in the Rio District, Wilton Farms is in Mr. Martin's district (Section 8 and other types of subsidized housing), and in Crozet there is CrOzet Crossing which was an attempt by all districts to aSsume their role in providing housing for all citizens of the County. Mrs. Thomas noted that Mr. Bowerman's vote had nothing to do with low- cost housing. Mr. Bowerman agreed. He said the Board did contemplate that there were three bonus provisions that could be used to increase the density from R-10 to something higher. Low- and moderate-cost housing was one. Significant landscaping was the second. Public improvements, which could be off-site improvements, was the third. The three together could have in- creased the density from R-10 to R-15. Mr. Bowerman continued by reading: "The Supervisors have the power to recall the Board's decision for rezoning if there is enough public concern about development of low-income, government-subsidized housing at this site. Mr. Bowerman said this is not true. The Board's decision was not appealed by the applicant within 30 days so that decision stands. The request cannot be reheard for 12 months in the same fashion. In any event, there is nothing the Board can do to recall it, the applicant has to make an application to do something different. Mr. Marshall said if the Board recalled the application, it would only be for R-15. The applicant can submit a new plan for that site, perhaps as highway commercial or something else without the Board doing anything. He said the letter seems to be an attempt to gather support for that from the Approve Date Initials August 20, 1997 (Regular Night Meeting) 000~2Z (Page 37) neighborhood. From the number of telephone calls Mr. Marshall has received, Mr. Heischman seems to be succeeding very well. Mr. Bowerman said the characterization of the letter was not correct. Mrs. Humphris said there were many errors in the letter and many implica- tions. The Board has nothing before it to approve or disapprove. She gathers that Mr. Heischman wants to use scare tactics against the people in the neighborhood. She does not think that is a nice thing for any business person in this community to do. Agenda Item No. 14. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 P.M.