Meeting Convened.  An Adjourned Meeting of the York County Board of Supervisors was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 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.

Thomas G. Shepperd, Jr., was absent.

Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds, County Administrator; and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.

WORK SESSION

AUTO DECALS

Mr. McReynolds stated there was a preliminary discussion earlier in the year about the auto decal, and staff has worked with the Commissioner of the Revenue and the Treasurer to develop options for the Board to consider.  He noted that 65,000 decals are issued annually, and the payment and filing date is Feb 15.  The estimated FY04 revenue is about $1.2 million. Mr. McReynolds indicated that the options are no change, a permanent decal, a multiple-year decal, or eliminate the decal.  He spoke of Virginia Beach’s decision to eliminate the decal and indicated the City is still working to implement the change.

Mr. Shepperd arrived at 6:05 p.m.

Mrs. Deborah Robinson, Treasurer, spoke of the possible delay of collections if the decal is eliminated in that the resident may no longer file the personal property form because they don’t have to purchase a decal She indicated the issue will arise after the first year if the County goes to a permanent or multi-year decal because there will be no incentive to send in the form or pay personal property taxes.  She stated that during the period of January-February her office collects in delinquent personal property taxes between $850,000-$950,000 dollars for the current year.  The money will still be collected eventually, but there may be a delay.  She spoke of a DMV withholding which means the residents would have to pay their taxes before they can register their vehicles with the state, and this hold could mean collection of the taxes up to 6 months out.  Mrs. Robinson also spoke of the potential cost to delinquent owners because of the administrative fee they would pay to the locality which is $20 per vehicle; there is also a fee for the DMV, which could mean a possible increase of up to $50 per vehicle.

Mr. Wiggins asked what it costs the County to administer the program for decals.

Mrs. Robinson stated it costs $8,000 to purchase the decals, and about $30,000 for the process per year.

Mrs. Thomas noted that the current form is a combined form for decals and personal property. She stated she would still bear the expense for the form and the mailing even if the Board eliminated the decals.  She stated at the current time she and the Treasurer share the expense of the forms and the mailing.

Mr. McReynolds indicated the only thing that will change if the Board eliminates the decal or goes to a permanent or a multi-year decal is that they will not be mailing the decal out.  The Treasurer and Commissioner will still get the same paperwork with the form and the payment.  The processing and administrative work behind it remain about the same.  He also noted that the administrative effort for collection of delinquent accounts will go up because the Treasurer will have to involve VDOT in the process.

Mrs. Thomas spoke of the concern dealing with the state access lines.  She stated her office currently has lines for direct access to the Department of Taxation, Division of Motor Vehicles, and the Compensation Board to post the budget and expenses.   She stated her office monopolizes most of those lines, but the Treasurer uses them for debt set-off with the Department of Taxation.  She indicated if vehicle registration withholding is utilized, more DMV access lines would be needed.

Mrs. Robinson spoke of the impact on collection of other taxes, stating again there might be a potential delay.  She stated some people wait to pay any other taxes they owe until they have to pay their personal property taxes.

Mrs. Thomas noted that the General Assembly has changed the way personal property tax relief is administered in that it is more strict now.  She stated the County uses this form for compliance with the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA). 

Mrs. Robinson stated another concern is the regional agreement for law enforcement.  When citizens are in another locality and there is not a decal on the windshield, they may be stopped by the locality’s law enforcement officers because the agreement is to enforce each other’s decal requirements.  Currently, Virginia Beach is the only locality in this area that does not require a vehicle decal.  She noted that James City County doesn't charge for the decal but issues one so it won't be an issue when the vehicle is in another locality.  Mrs. Robinson stated they are not trying to say requiring a decal is either good or bad; she and the Treasurer were just pointing out the impacts.

Discussion followed on how Virginia Beach handles not requiring decals with regard to the regional law enforcement agreement.

Mrs. Noll stated the Board got started on this because the citizens hate the decals.  She stated it is an annoyance, and it is up to the Board to do away with it.  She indicated there may be some glitches at first because anything dealing with change is going to have a process of adjustment.  Mrs. Noll stated she would like to eliminate the decals, but noted the County can't do away with the income they generate.

Chairman Burgett asked how staff will make sure everyone registers their vehicles if the decals are eliminated.

Mrs. Thomas recommended that the fee be collected at the same time the citizens are required to file. She stated as long as they are required to send in their fee, she believed it will keep compliance more accurate.

Mr. Zaremba stated the fact that he still has to send a fee in by February 15 is as much an irritant as the decal itself.

Discussion followed on the possibility of using DMV vehicle withholding to insure registration of personal property.

Mr. McReynolds suggested that another reason the Board might want to consider a permanent decal is that when residents change vehicles, they have the reminder on their windshield that they need to get a new decal and file a new return.

Mr. Shepperd stated the nuisance aspects of submitting multiple payments is a real problem. He indicated the Board should probably get rid of the decal and address a process making it a multiple tax having to be paid once.  Mr. Shepperd stated that during his recent town meeting, the people were in favor of a permanent decal to keep the police off their backs, but he would like to get rid of it completely.

Mrs. Noll stated she would like to do away with the decal altogether.  She suggested that if after three years the County is experiencing problems, the Board can then consider a permanent decal.

Mr. Wiggins expressed his agreement, stating the decals were started to make sure people paid their taxes.  The County is going to get that money plus interest from those who don't pay on time.  He stated if the County can retain the revenue another way, he would agree to eliminate them completely.

Chairman Burgett stated the consensus he’s hearing is get rid of the vehicle decals, and the only concern is regarding implementation.  He suggested that the resident can write a separate check for the fee and carry the receipt in the car.  He stated the irritant he sees to people is having to scrape the decal off.

Mr. Zaremba stated that staff needs to come up with a course of implementation and let the Board know what it is and make it as positive as possible.  He indicated that since the Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue are the mechanisms to make it happen, it is felt they would be better equipped to recommend to the Board how to implement the elimination of the decal and how to recover the $23 fee.

By consensus the Board indicated its desire to eliminate the use of the vehicle decal and for the staff, in conjunction with the Treasurer and Commissioner of the Revenue, to develop an implementation strategy which will also recover the $23.00 fee.

SENIOR HOUSING

Mr. McReynolds stated this amendment was referred to the Planning Commission by the Board of Supervisors, and the Commission set up a study committee. The study committee has made a recommendation to the Commission which will conduct a hearing tomorrow night, May 14.  He indicated the Planning Commission should send a recommendation to the Board in June or July.

Mr. J. Mark Carter, Assistant County Administrator, stated that staff had sent the Board a memorandum with the committee report attached.  He then reviewed the definitions of the four types of senior housing being proposed, the performance standards, and the districts in which these types of housing would be allowed.

Mrs. Noll stated she noticed that 62 is the age included in the definition, and she asked if it was applicable to all the types of facilities being proposed.  She noted that unfortunately some citizens who are not yet 62 are coming down with early Alzheimer’s and need to go into a facility for care.

Mr. Carter indicated that type of facility would be a type of nursing home, and they would not be restricted by age limitations.

Mr. Wiggins noted that the developers set the age limitations.

Mr. Carter explained that the state code provides for the age threshold as low as 55.  He stated the developers indicate the typical move-in age is upper 60's and early 70's.  Mr. Carter stated there is nothing in the proposed regulations that would prevent someone from establishing a facility that is designed to care for special needs.

Chairman Burgett stated the County has Rainbrook Villas and another one is being developed. He stated he feels the County has that market covered, and the need in York County is for older people who need assisted living.

Discussion followed on the age limitation and on different care facilities currently in the area.

Mr. Wiggins stated he feels the County needs the extra step of independent living before assisted living.  He indicated It is not covered in Rainbrook Villas because there is no age restriction.  Mr. Wiggins stated he feels the County seniors need the independent living and congregate care.

Chairman Burgett asked if they couldn’t be tied together to make a complex that includes it all.

Mr. Wiggins noted the project would be too large, that there is not enough land in York County for such a project.

Mr. Carter stated the down side of requiring all types being in one complex is ending up with projects that are very expensive.  Usually those developments that are targeted to a specific type can be done less expensively because the developers are specialists in that type of product. He suggested the amendment could still include the proposed definitions because they appropriately recognize the products that are in the industry today, but the density and the opportunities for independent living could be the same as for other types of apartments. The advantage of identifying them separately and making them subject to these performance standards is primarily from the public safety standpoint.

Mr. Zaremba asked what would preclude someone who has a motel on Route 17 to convert it to an assisted living or congregate care facility.

Mr. Carter stated the performance standards include some design standards that a motel couldn't meet.  Also, he noted the individual would need a use permit, and the Board of Supervisors would have to review it and approve it.

Mr. Zaremba indicated his only concern is for the older structures in the County that might be converted into something that doesn't end up to be how the Board conceived it.

Mrs. Noll stated she feels the market will ultimately drive these developments.  There may not be 62 year olds moving in but age 70 some.  She noted 62 is just a minimum age.

Chairman Burgett expressed his agreement with Mr. Carter that if the age is going to be 62, then make the performance standards and zoning to fit it.

Further discussion followed concerning the age limitation.

Chairman Burgett asked if there was a market for the different types of senior housing in York County.

Mr. Carter indicated there is for stand-alone facilities targeted to a specific product.  He again reviewed the performance standards, stating the meaty issues are where will they be allowed and what's the density going to be.  He stated the initial recommendation of 20 units per acre is based on information staff has been able to collect.  He indicated the development community would say it should be higher.

Mr. Shepperd stated he noticed that in most cases the facilities are being put in economic development and business areas.  He indicated his concern is that the County doesn’t have but so much business area, and this proposal is residential in terms of a place to live.  He asked if the Board should consider R20, stating there could be some performance standards tied to it mitigating the requirement of a broader piece of land.

Mr. Carter stated the staff initially looked at the independent living as residential uses, with the congregate care and the CCRC as businesses or institutional type uses.  Staff recommended that independent living be placed in the residential districts and the others go to business districts because to be successful they will have to provide a quality facility and a full range of services for the residents.   He stated the committee also looked at specific pieces of property for which interest has been expressed, and they found that those zoned business for the most part are properties that have some development limitations from a business standpoint.

Mr. Wiggins noted another thing was availability of shopping opportunities.  He stated there will only be one or two of these facilities in York County, and the Economic Development director said that many pieces of property in the County that are commercial are more suited for this type of development economically than anything else that could be developed on it.

Mr. Carter stated the County would get a comparison as to what would be generated in tax revenue from the impact statement.  Staff believes that, at least from a real estate tax standpoint, the tax revenue might be greater from assisted living and congregate care because of the requirement for the actual physical plant for the facility.  He noted they also purchase services from the local community, and the use permit process allows individual case-by-case evaluation.

Mr. Shepperd stated he doesn’t think of limited business and general business as residential, and it is almost like warehousing people.   He asked why limit the density to 20 units per acre; why not stack it up and draw all kinds of taxes.

Mr. Carter stated the congregate care and assisted living facilities will provide transportation services, so the proximity or ability to be served by major roads was discussed by the committee.  He noted that the two senior housing facilities that were reviewed many years ago by the Board of Supervisors were both proposed in residential areas, and both were adamantly opposed b y the area residents.

Mr. Shepperd stated he wanted to balance out taking advantage of the County’s business property and, where opportunities present themselves, placing one of these facilities in a residential area based on some other criteria.  He made the suggestion of using R-20 zoning allowing 10 units per acre and have them close together, providing lots of green space.  He stated he would rather create an opportunity for using up the R-20 zoning.

Mr. Carter noted that one of the components of the proposal is to identify senior housing in the planned development as one of the allowances.  He stated this would be done through the PUD process.

Chairman Burgett stated he felt the Board had made some progress on this issue, and it will be sent on to the Planning Commission for its recommendation.

Meeting Adjourned.  At 7:56 p.m. Chairman Burgett declared the meeting adjourned sine die.

On roll call the vote was:

            Yea:     (5)       
            Nay:     (0)

______________________________                            _______________________________

James O. McReynolds, Clerk                                    James S. Burgett, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors                             York County Board of Supervisors