|
Adjourned Meeting
October 23, 2001
6:00 p.m.
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of the York County
Board of Supervisors was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, October
23, 2001, in the East Room, York Hall, by Chairman James S. Burgett.
Attendance. The following members of the Board of
Supervisors were present: Walter C. Zaremba, Sheila S. Noll, Donald E.
Wiggins, and James S. Burgett.
H. R. Ashe was absent.
Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds, County Administrator; and
James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
WORK SESSION
REGIONAL TOURISM IMPACT (Not on Agenda)
Mr. David Schulte, Executive Director, Williamsburg Area
Convention and Visitors Bureau, briefed the Board members on the impact
to the travel industry since the events of September 11 and to let the
Board know what the plans were for the future. Overall, the travel
industry has been affected more than any other industry, and the effects
of the September 11 events will be seen for quite some time. Before
September 11 the hotel industry was already having a bad year. The
number of people staying overnight has been flat, if not declining; but
when the events of September 11 hit, the industry shut down for about
three weeks. During that time-frame there was a 15-50 percent drop in
travel which was very hard on conference hotels be-cause of entire
groups canceling completely. Consensus in the industry is that nothing
can be done to help salvage the 4th quarter. The big concern is what
happens next spring and summer because schools are canceling field
trips, and they make up a big portion of spring business. Group tours
are down; 90 percent of the member companies have experienced
cancellations this year. Usually the Williamsburg area benefits because
of its connection with Washington, D.C., but that is not where people
want to go now. The good news is that the Williamsburg area is perceived
to be a safe destination that is within an easy drive of most markets
feeding the area. Mr. Schulte noted the Williamsburg area will be facing
incredible competition next year in that every state is now planning
major media events to get people traveling to their states. He then
briefed the Board members on what the Convention and Visitors Bureau is
doing now, including an advertising campaign regarding the security of
the area. He noted that Busch Gardens is allowing all Public Safety
employees and their families in the park free through the end of the
year, and they have been seeing record attendance. Busch has also gotten
a good response from its HallowScream program. Mr. Schulte stated a task
force has been established to determine what can be done next year to
increase travel, and it is looking for resources to pay for a strong
advertising campaign. He noted it will be interesting to see how the
room and meals taxes will be affected.
Mrs. Noll asked what the state was doing.
Mr. Schulte stated the state was putting together an emergency
package of about $1.2 million. He indicated he did not know how the
money would be used, but in some way it will be used to get people to
travel in Virginia.
Discussion followed about targeting the areas within driving
distance of the Williamsburg area.
Mr. Zaremba asked Mr. Schulte to look beyond the immediate
timeframe and ask the hotels and motels throughout the area to determine
what they are getting to date in terms of group travel reservations for
the spring and summer of next year. He stated his sensing was that there
is an upspring of reservations for after the winter season. He also
asked Mr. Schulte what the region was doing collectively to address the
slump in tourist-related activities.
Mr. Schulte indicated the travel industry has been meeting for the
past several months to try to find a way to stop focusing on the next
six months and be able to focus on 10 years from now to see what
proactive steps can be taken to insure the stable economic growth of the
region. He stated the industry expects to be very busy with this
initiative next year.
REDISTRICTING
Mr. McReynolds noted that the population of the County has grown
too the extent that election district boundaries must change in order to
equalize the numbers of residents in the districts to meet federal
requirements. The staff has presented the Board and the residents four
alternatives and has held seven different informational meetings
throughout the county. At these meetings there were 21 people who came
to present their comments, a summary of which the Board has received.
Mr. McReynolds stated he hoped the Board will now come to a consensus on
an alternative for formal consideration and public hearing.
Mr. Barnett reviewed the federal regulations for preclearance
through the Justice Department. He stated he has been working with the
County's planners and the Registrar's Office on the kinds of information
that will be helpful for the submission.
Mr. Zaremba indicated that the word "preclearance"
implies there is a subsequent clearance.
Mr. Barnett stated that actually there is no other clearance. It
only means that the public has the right to challenge the submission in
court.
Mr. Wiggins asked if the 21 people who attended the meetings
provided staff with any useful comments on the plans.
Mr. J. Mark Carter, Planning and Zoning Manager, stated the most
prevalent comment was the suggestion that the districts be as compact as
possible. Mr. Carter then briefly reviewed the boundaries for the
districts in the four alternatives. He noted that the main difference in
the alternatives involved the interplay between District 1 and District
3 and whether the boundary was north or south of Yorktown.
Discussion followed on the boundaries of District No. 1 under
Alternative No. 2.
Mr. Carter suggested that with whatever alternative was selected
the Board extend the District 1 boundary down to its current southern
boundary, which is Old Wormley Creek Road, so that it will coincide with
one of the State election district boundaries. Doing so it won't change
any of the numbers to exceed the deviation thresholds. It will also
eliminate the need for the Electoral Board to set up split precincts.
Mr. McReynolds also suggested that the Board include the Belmont
Apartments area in District No. 5 as it currently is.
By consensus the Board selected Alternative No. 2, as adjusted, to
advertise for public hearing and potential adoption at the November 20
Regular Meeting.
Mr. Zaremba asked when the redistricting plan would go into
effect.
Mr. Barnett stated after the Board of Supervisors adopts the
ordinance it becomes effective, but there cannot be a general election
under the new plan until the Justice Department gives its preclearance.
Mr. McReynolds stated the staff has been working with the
Registrar's Office on precinct boundaries, and a version has been
developed using Alternative No. 2.
Mr. Carter pointed out that a scheme has been developed that would
maintain 13 precincts in the County, as presently exists. Staff has
attempted to stay within the Registrar's guidelines in setting the
precinct sizes, and has also configured the boundaries to stay within
the state district boundaries to eliminate problems in state elections.
The Electoral Board members are now taking a look at the scheme, and
they may have recommendations coming to suggest slight modifications of
these precinct boundaries. Mr. Carter asked for the Board's approval to
incorporate these minor modifications, if presented.
By consensus the Board agreed that any minor modification to the
precinct boundaries, as recommended by the Electoral Board, should be
included in the final version of the ordinance and map presented for
public hearing on November 20.
UPDATES ON YORKTOWN REVITALIZATION TAX CREDITS
Mr. McReynolds noted the Board had been briefed on several
occasions that staff was planning on using tax credits to fund some of
the improvements to the Yorktown waterfront area, which could result in
nearly $300,000 in savings to the County. He stated at this time the
staff would like to brief the Board on how the tax credits work.
Mr. Barnett indicated that tax credits exist on both the state and
federal level, and they allow someone who is planning on renovating an
historic building to generate tax credits. The mechanism by which they
can be sold under applicable tax laws is relatively complex. He
introduced Ms. Fiona Tower, an attorney with Kutack Rock, a firm that
deals in this type of tax law. Mr. Barnett stated that some have been
able to recoup one-third of their renovation costs through the use of
tax credits, and the County has retained Kutack Rock to see it through
the process. He noted the process includes consent from the York Town
Trustees to convey the freight shed to the County to make the
renovations, and it will be conveyed back to the Trustees once the
renovations are complete.
Ms. Tower presented the Board with a diagram to help explain her
overview of the structure of the tax credits. She noted that both the
state and federal governments have tax incentive programs to encourage
the rehabilitation of historic buildings, and the tax credits are
dollar-for-dollar offsets for tax liabilities. She explained in detail
how the tax credit structure works and how it would work specifically
for the renovation of the freight shed.
Discussion followed on how the tax credits are purchased and used,
the market for tax credits, ownership of the limited partnership and the
rules prohibiting governmental ownership of such a project.
Mr. Barnett indicated that much of the initial work has already
been accomplished with the National Park Service in getting its approval
for the renovations of the building.
Mr. Zaremba asked what types of documents would be prepared and
who would be responsible for each.
Ms. Tower indicated there would be the conveyance agreement which
Mr. Barnett was already preparing; the loan documents between the IDA
and the limited partnership which would be prepared by the IDA counsel
in conjunction with Mr. Barnett; and the partnership documents between
the limited partnership and the tax credit investors which would be
prepared by the tax attorneys with Mr. Barnett's input.
Discussion followed concerning the kinds of risk to the County.
Mr. Zaremba then asked if the County was prohibited by law from
doing something with the freight shed other than renovating it.
Mr. Robert Kraus, Director of Yorktown Projects, stated the
National Park Service will not release the building unless it is to be
renovated.
Mr. Zaremba noted the vast amount of money that is planned to be
expended on renovating the building, and stated he did not want the
Board and the County to look foolish when something else could have been
done with the building or it could have been leveled and something else
built in its place for far less money. He asked if there was anything in
writing from the National Park Service indicating the County could only
renovate the building.
Mr. Kraus stated he had nothing in writing, but he would request
that the National Park Ser-vice put its position in writing tomorrow.
Chairman Burgett directed that Mr. Kraus secure documentation, but
that staff continue with putting the tax credits program in place.
CLOSED MEETING. At 7.26 p.m. Mr. Wiggins moved that the Board
convene in Closed Meeting pursuant to Section 2.1-344(a)(1) of the Code
of Virginia regarding a personnel matter involving the employment of a
specific public officer; and Section 2.1-344(a)(3) regarding discussion
on the acquisition of real property for a public purpose.
On roll call, the vote was:
Yea: (4) Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins, Burgett
Nay: (0)
Meeting Reconvened. At 8:05 p.m. the meeting was reconvened
in open session by order of the Chair.
Mr. Zaremba moved the adoption of proposed Resolution SR-1 that reads:
A RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THE FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT REGARDING MEETING IN CLOSED SESSION
WHEREAS, the York County Board of Supervisors has convened a
closed meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and
in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information
Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a
certification by the York County Board of Supervisors that such closed
meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the York County Board of
Supervisors this the 23rd day of October, 2001, hereby certifies that,
to the best of each member's knowledge, (1) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the closed meeting to which this certification resolution
applies, and (2) only such public business matters as were identified in
the motion convening the closed meeting were heard, discussed, or
considered by the York County Board of Supervisors.
On roll call, the vote was:
Yea: (4) Noll, Wiggins, Zaremba, Burgett
Nay: (0)
Meeting Adjourned. At 8:06 p.m. Chairman Burgett declared the
meeting adjourned sine die.
_____________________________
_______________________________
James O. McReynolds, Clerk
James S. Burgett, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors
York County Board of Supervisors
Back to Index
|
