Loading...
08-11-1986 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS August 11, 1986 Supervisors in Attendance: Staff in Attendance: Mr. R. Garland Dodd, Chairman Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Vice Chairman Mr. G. H. Applegate Mrs. Jean Girone Mr. Jesse J. Mayes Mr. R. L. Medrick, County Administrator Mr. Stove Micas, County Attorney Mr. Dodd called the meeting to order at Matoaca Middle School at 7:30 p.m. (EDST). 1. INVOCATI(~ Mr. John Royall Robertson, Chairman of the Charter Committee, gave the invocation. 3. PUBLIC HEARING TO P~CEIVE INPUT P.E~RDING i~O~OSED CH~sT~u~FIELD CO~Y ~ Mr. Dodd stated this date and time had been scheduled for a public hearing to receive citizen input regarding the proposed Chesterfield County Charter. He welcomed and expressed appreciation to these present for having interest in the matter. He introduced the Board and Charter Committee members who were present, Mr. Dodd stated that there have been discussions on tho County's form of government for many years. He stated lest year the Board felt a Charter would be beneficial to the County but because thc issue was of such importance that the citizens should be involved prior to the Board taking any official action such as the County of Roanoke when they took thc matter to the General Assembly. He stated, as a result of trying to obtain participation and involvement, a fifteen (15) member committee was selected to draft a proposed Charter. He stated the Charter Committee met many times in their endeavor to devise a proposed Charter that would serve to Organize the governmental structure of Chesterfield County and, hopefully, benefit all its citizens. He introduced the Co~%~itteo members, commending them for their diligent efforts and dedication in accomplishing the task assigned. Mr. Micas presented a ~lide presentation and overview of the history of the establishment of local government in Virginia. He explained in brief detail the seven forms of government by which the 95 counties in the Commonwealth are governed and how the proposed Charter would affect Chesterfield County, if adopted. One citizen inquired if county officials have considered adopting a city charter sc that the County cannot be annexed again. Mr. Dodd stated there have been discussions, individually and with legislators. ~o stated it is the consensus that the Charter should be the first step and it may be wise to consider a city charter. He stated that although Chesterfield has i~unlty to annexation, at the present time, it is possible that such i~%~unity can be revoked. He stated a Charter could provide some added protection against the possibility of annexation. Mrs. Girone stated there is much turmoil statewide over annexations and agreed that the idea of becoming a ~ity is a 86-587 possible protective measure against annexation and should be investigated as there are other positive advantages as well, including control o~ County roads. Mr. Daniel stated that within the next twenty (20) years the County will be one of the five largest political entities within the State. Ne stated he felt the County should first he chartered and then, if desired, a study committee could be formulated for studying the feasibility of petitioning the General Assembly to become a city. He stated a full, open evaluation Of the criteria for the County to become a city should be conducted prior to any such action taking place and the public should understand all advantages and disadvantages. Mr. Mayes stated that the County can do under the present governing system only that which the State will allow it to do. He stated a Charter would be a contract with the State which would permit the County to govern itself. Ms. Janet Alley stated the Committee utilized four (4) criteria in every deliberation it undertook, which were: accountability, ultimate power belonged to the people, protection of integrity of County government and efficiency of goverr~aent operation, with the protection of integrity of County government being a major consideration. Mr. Martin stated he found the Charter confusing and requested clarification on the issues regarding the Bolice Department and the School Board. Mr. Dodd explained hew the current system works in both instances. Mr. Martin inquired about removal of Board of Supervisor members and Bolice Chief. Mr. Micas stated this provision provides greater proteetlon for the police chief, in that he could be removed only for cause. Ms. Lyn~e Cooper explained the Charter committee's analysis of both issues. Ms. Janet Alley stated the Charter Committee felt that there must be some tlrpe of accountability for the School Board members and explained how members are currently appointed. She stated there is not sufficient provision for public input and the charter Committee felt that there should be better publicity when school board appointments are available as well as public hearings. She stated the Committee rece=~ended five (5) year, staggered terms in order to provide greater accountability and the opportunity for greater public input and to prevent too SeVere changes at any one given time. Mr. Daniel stated that prior to school board appointments State law requires that a public hearing must be held; there is also a lobby in process that will require that all names for such appointments be considered p~blicly prior to elections taking place. Ne added that under the rules of the chesterfield County Board o~ Supervisors, established by this Board of Supervisors, every appointment made has been first a nomination at a Board meeting with the names made public and then the names are presented a second time to the Board prior to the final vote in an effort to have the appropriate names presented to the public in order to receive input prior to making final decisions. Mrs. Sirone stated she felt the portion of the Charter relative to the school Board should be amended to state that the supervisor from the district shall make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors after having a public hearing in. the district where all the candidates shall identify themselves and be heard and that the term run concurrently with the term of the supervisors. 86-588 Mr. Daniel reguested that Ms. Alley discuss the rationale for staggered terms, appointments hy collective board members rather than individual board members, etc. Ms. Alloy stated she felt opening up the system to the public for nominees would be advantageous. She stated the reason for the five year terms was to remove the School Board selections from the political arena as much as possible. MS. Elmcre stated in nominations for appointments any governing body in the State of Virginia must act as a corporate whole rather than individually. Fir. Mayes stated he views the changes as providing more accountability with respect to the taxpayer and the school board administration. He stated the Charter provides for families that may have an administrative grievance with the School Dcard to be able to get that administrative grievance addressed without having to obtain a lawyer. He stated that currently the only way one can address an administrative grievance would be to obtain a lawyer, which is unfair to the taxpayer since the taxpayer would ultimately be paying for both his attorney and the School Board Attorney who is paid by County tax dollars. Re stated the Charter will place the accountability on the Board of Supervisors where all other responsibilities lie. He stated the County has one of the finest systems and he ass%T~es, with the changes, the School System will still remain in capable hands, Mr. Joe Boisineau expressed concern there is no material with which to compare the proposed Charter, no prear~le as to what the County stands for, and there has not been sufficient publicity to make citizens aware of the Charter in order to p~blicize or explain it. He suggested perhaps a year deferral for this purpose. He stated the issue relative to the Police Department is different than any other divisions of government because of their particular function and it should be left as it is presently; he stated he felt that the School Board should be elected by Districts. He stated he did not feel the Board should be authorized to borrow 15 million dollars and it should be deleted from the Charter. He inquired once the Charter is $~bmitted to the General Assembly for consideration if it can be changed in any way. Mr. Dodd stated ~hat the Charter can be revised, however, historically, such action most likely would not occur. He stated he did not foresee a problem in this respect ae long as the Charter conforms to State law. Ms. Elmore stated all chartered communities in the State, with the exception cf Roanoke, have the authority to borrow. She stated cities have a ceiling of 10% of the assessed value of real property up to which the governing body may borrow. She stated the County's ratio cf indebtedness to assessed value is retained at 3% in order to maintain the bond rating it presently has. She stated the 15 million dollars allows for the 5% annual growth of revenue in the County presently. She stated there are several sources of borrowing from which any municipality does borrow without having to come to a referendum. She stated that in the State of Virginia citizens cannot be robbed of their right of response to the expenditures incurred by the Board of Supervisors because no municipality in the State constitutionally can run a deficit, therefore, annually each year at the public hearing concerning the tax rate citizens have their day of reckoning when the Board of Supervisors asks for votes to pay for the money that is borrowed. Mr. Applegate stated the basic idea in the formation of the Charter Ccn~ittee and their recommendation is well-founded. He stated the public hearings on this issue were designed to obtain citizen input and reaction to the Charter and its recommendations. He stated a work session is scheduled on the Charter at 2:00 p.m., August 13, 1986, in order to receive 86-589 citizen input as well as the Charter Committee's recommendation in order to devise a final draft to petition the Circuit Court to place the Charter issue before the public for a referendum in November. Re stated regardless o~ what is devised as the final Charter submission and voted upon favorably by the citizens of the Cou/%ty there is a possibility that what goes to the General Assembly can be amended or altered. He stated the most appropriate way to deal with this possibility would be to request the support of the members of the General Assembly delegation for Chesterfield County. He stated it concerns him that the County could end up with less than exists today. Mr. Boimineau inquired if there is any consideration given to expanding the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Daniel responded that the Charter provides a provision whereby the Board of Supervisors can expand and redistrict itself in accordance with general law. He stated, however general law through recent legislation prohibits at will redistricting in order to prevent political jerrymandering. He stated redistricting must occur every ten years during census year but the County can, on its initiative, expand itself under certain limitations, as described by general law. Mrs. Girone stated she would like to see the Charter not only develop a sound organizational structure for the County but to also look to the ~uture. She stated the County presently haz ~ive (5) supervisors for approximately 180,000 citizens and by the mid 1990s there will be approximately 200,000 citizens. She stated she would like to see the County, after 1991, divided into six (6) magisterial districts with six (6) Board members, and have the Chairman of the ~oard of Supervisors elected at large by the County. Mr. Mayes stated he agreed that the Board should be expanded to cover the One man-one vote philosophy, however, he felt accomplishing this objective by eleotien at large would be detrimental to some areas. He stated he felt the Board should be expanded to seven (7) districts and seven (7) suporvisors. Mr. Boisineau stated development of the Charter was a difficult task and the citizens did appreciate the efforts. Ms. Ann Anderson, representing the Board of Directors cf the Chesterfield Business Council, stated they conceptually endorse the Charter as an appropriate step to improve County government. she statsd the generous contribution of time and talent, by the Citizens Committee who made the initial draft of the proposed Charter, is oom~endable and appropriate effort in progress. She stated a committee of Business Council members was appointed to study the proposed Charter and during the course of the oo~it~ee's work it became apparent that the Soard of Supervisors, County staff, the members of the General Assembly were actively conferring and csnziderin9, in great detail, every concern raised by interested members of the community. She stated it is the understanding of the Business Council Board of Directors that this joint effort by the General Assembly delegation, Board of Supervisors and County staff is resulting in a revised Charter proposal which will be submitted to the voters. She stated as further evidence of the meticulous approach being taken in this important matter, a member of the General Assembly obtained the assistance o~ the State Department of Legislative Services to review the proposed Charter to minimize the possibility of unintended conflict with other laws. She stated the entire process is most impressive and the Board of Dire¢=ors desires to go on record commending the Board of Supervisors, County staff and the ~eneral Assembly delegation for their hard work and cooperation with one another, and continues to support and confirm the positive process and product in seeking the transition to a government form better suited to the present and future. She stated the Council's final position, with respect to full endorsement of ths proposed 86-590 Charter, will await the mature definition of the Charter's near-final iorm. Ms. Ga~l YOSS inquired about the Planning and Zoning section and Why the five (5) member committee ~hould be appointed for four (4) years as she would rather it be two (2) years. Mr. Applegate stated this number could be a~ended as this was a recommendation from the Charter Committee. Ms. Lynne Cooper stated the four (4) year term ier this committee was determined to be beneficial to the long ranqe planning process as solutions for such problems may not be derived in a two (2) year span. Mr. Dodd stated the Plar~ling Cc~issien terms, by law, are four (4) year terms and the appointment of this committee would coincide with those terms. Ms. YOSS stated, with regard to additional powers of the county, she opposed the provision that a consumer tax could be imposed on utilities (i.e., water, gas, electricity, telephone, heating oil, cable television, etc.) Mr. Micas stated this provision is designed to give the County the same authority as cities. Mr. Daniel stated that all tax measures are brought before the Board of Supervisors and pas~ed only after a public hearing for public in,out. He ~tated that every year a public bearing on the tax revenue issue is held during budget time. Ms. Elmore stated the County already has the right to impose a utility tax, ii it so chooses. She stated she thought Chesterfield is the only local government, within the planning district, that does not impose a utilities tax. Mr. Dodd stated Dinwiddie, Prince George, Henricc, Hanover impose a utilities tax. Ms. YOSS inquired if the budget is balanced at the end of the year and if copies are available. Mr. Daniel stated the budget i~ balanced at the end of each year and is audited. stated the Board of Supervisors has an Audit Committee which reviews such audits to assure that budgets are balanced, as the County, by law, cannot go OVer budget. Be stated the County maintains a 5% contingency to assure it does not go over its budget. MS. Elmore stated copies of both the County Budget and the Annual Audit are available at all County libraries. Mr. Dedd stated the County has received national awards for its presentations of budgets and management prooedure~ and clarity. Mr. Mayas stated the budget is established on an expense basis with line item accountabilities, etc. which require a balancing of the budget. He stated in the event of a natural disaster this would provide the County the instrument to raise necessary funds for the delivery of services. ~e stated, therefore, permitting the Board the authority to borrow an additional 15 million dollars wo~ld serve as an e~ective measure to such situations. Mr. Daniel stated that the law requires that oo~ies of the final draft of the proposed Charter bs made available to the public prior to its submission for voting. Mr. Jerry Journigan stated that i~ would have been most beneficial if the members of the Charter oorm~ittee addressed some Of the key issues as most of the citizens are not aware of how the present governmental system functions or what the major changes, as proposed by the Charter, may be. He stated he supports the proposed Charter as written and feels it is exceptionally well prepared. Ms. Alley and Ms. Lynne Cooper addressed briefly the key issues and changes regarding the School Board and Police Department. Mr. Dodd stated copies cf the Charter Committee,s summaries are available for the public and address the background and rationale of ~hese key issues. 86-591 Mr. Mayes expressed his appreciation to Mr. Baskerville and his staff for their attendance and assistance with preparations ~or the meeting and the citizens of Matoaoa who attended the meeting to indicate their concern and interest for the Charter. 2. p?.~nGE OF A?.?.~IANCE TO TH~ FLAG OF 'r~ UNITED STATES OF The Pledge o~ Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. O~ motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Daniel, the Board adjourned at 9:00 p,m. until 2:00 p.m. on August 13, 198~, at the Courthouse. Vote: Unanimous Richard L. He~r~k County Administrator 86-592