|
Meeting Convened. An Adjourned Meeting of
the York County Board of Supervisors was called to order at 6:01 p.m.,
Tuesday, June 24, 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, James S. Burgett, and Thomas G. Shepperd.
Also in attendance were James O. McReynolds,
County Administrator; J. Mark Carter, Assistant County Administrator;
and James E. Barnett, County Attorney.
TAX RELIEF FOR THE ELDERLY
Mr. McReynolds explained that several of the
Board members had expressed an interest in reviewing the County’s
program for tax relief for the elderly and the disabled. He further
explained that the program was based on income eligibility, as well as
total net worth. He asked Mrs. Smith to make a presentation on the
research of tax relief.
Mrs. Anne Smith, Director of Community
Services, gave an overview of the County’s Tax Relief for the Elderly
Program and addressed some of the proposed changes. She explained the
income limits are set according to HUD standards, and exempt a person’s
dwelling unit and one acre of land allowing combined financial worth not
to exceed $100,000. She stated that the County’s program was amended in
2002 allowing a number of families to take advantage of the program.
The Commissioner of Revenue’s Office indicates that 424 people qualified
in 2003, with a total amount relieved of $197,699.00. She listed the
Board’s options for changing the current program as follows: (1) make
no changes, (2) increase the income allowance, (3) increase the
exemption amount, (4) implement a tax-freeze program, (5) implement a
tax deferral program. She explained the implications of some of the
proposed changes and provided a comparison chart with that of other
localities.
Mr. Shepperd asked how much tax revenue
would be given up for this program.
Mr. McReynolds stated it was difficult to
estimate, but based on the increased limits today, it would be
approximately $198,000. The proposed changes should bring another
$30,000-$40,000 worth of benefits.
Mrs. Noll pointed out that other
jurisdictions, such as Virginia Beach, have either increased the
exemption or have forgiven the taxes in part or whole.
Discussion took place concerning a change in
the income limitations.
Mr. McReynolds explained that the average
worth of the properties exempted would be approximately $92,920.
Mr. Wiggins asked how many individuals were
currently taking advantage of the program.
Mrs. Smith indicated that 424 people were
currently participating in the program. She explained that the options
being discussed would further enhance the benefits for current
participants, but would not necessarily expand the program beyond the
current participants. She indicated they would need to look at two
options if they wanted to increase the number of people participating.
They could bring a higher level of benefit to them by raising the
eligibility income limit amount, and raise the exemption amount. She
further explained the tax-freeze program where the tax rate could be
frozen which would offset the rising cost of real estate and
assessments. She noted that it could be combined with a higher income
limit also.
Mr. Wiggins stated he liked the thought of
the tax-freeze idea and felt it had a lot of merit.
Chairman Burgett summarized that the Board
was interested in increasing the limits, and providing the 100 percent
exemption for incomes below a certain level.
Mrs. Noll asked about freezing tax bills.
Chairman Burgett indicated when a tax bill
is frozen all property owners pick up the slack, and he would prefer
using another alternative.
Mrs. Noll expressed what they suggested now
was still passing it onto the other citizens and that whether they do it
through a tax freeze, tax-deferral, or whether the eligibility amount is
raised, it still impacts other people.
By consensus, the Board agreed to increase the income allowance, and
increase the exemption amount.
Mrs. Smith asked if the intent is to stay
with the HUD Section 8 limits and go to the next level.
Mr. McReynolds stated the numbers he had run were based on the current
program; and if the higher HUD amounts are used, the impact would be
$30,000-$40,000. If the Board chose the $50,000, the impact would be
probably somewhere between $75,000 and $100,000.
Mr. Wiggins suggested that elderly people
who make $50,000 could have their tax bill frozen, and he asked how much
it would cost the County.
Mr. McReynolds stated that while it was
difficult to estimate the amount, over time it would increase
dramatically due to the values going up and the benefits increasing each
year.
Mr. Shepperd pointed out that Florida has a
program where it applies to everyone when they become a certain age.
Mr. Wiggins expressed his concern for those
needy, elderly people that may have to move out of their homes if the
Board didn’t approve some type of deferral system.
Chairman Burgett asked what the impact would
be if they implemented the first two proposals.
Mr. Zaremba questioned whether the exemption
should be 100 percent for all three categories.
Mrs. Noll asked if the limit should be
$17,850 and below or $20,000 and below.
Mr. McReynolds suggested they first address
the income limits.
Discussion continued over the possible
income limitations.
Mrs. Smith stated the figure for one owner
is $30,900 and $35,350 for two owners.
Mrs. Noll stated her agreement in using the
HUD figures of $30,900 for eligibility for one homeowner; $35,350 for
two eligible owners. She also agreed to 100 percent for income of
$17,850 and below; $20,400 for two owners.
Mr. Shepperd mentioned $17,800 or below with
100 percent exempt, acknowledging $17,851 would be $600. He stated he
wanted it to balance out.
Mr. Zaremba questioned the three categories,
and suggested having a tax exemption for those people 65 and over with a
net worth $100,000 or less, and an income of less than $32,000 exempted.
Mr. McReynolds advised that the reason these
three categories were chosen was because they matched the HUD brackets.
Mr. Zaremba suggested that the Commissioner
of the Revenue be asked to prepare the numbers to determine the fiscal
impact.
Mr. Wiggins stated the Board should examine
the impact on the County if it froze the taxes of a 75-year-old couple
with an income of $50,000 yearly.
Chairman Burgett directed staff to look into
freezing the tax on a 75-year-old couple with $50,000 or less.
Mrs. Noll recommended they find out how many
people would be impacted and how many thousands of dollars it would cost
the County.
Mrs. Smith suggested that the Board let
staff look at a percentage increase, similar to what was done in 2002.
Mr. Zaremba would like to see the three
categories combined into one.
Mr. McReynolds explained if the categories
were combined, and all of the 424 participants who were eligible
participated this year and were given a 100 percent exemption, the tax
benefit would be approximately $330,000, up from $197,000.
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS: LANDSCAPING PROVISIONS
Mr. Carter outlined the proposed changes to
the Zoning Ordinance regarding the County’s landscaping requirements.
He stated the proposals were based on maintaining the same tree planting
ratios that are in place now but with added flexibility. They reduce
the number of shrubs required, increase the credits available for
planting larger trees, and increase incentives for preserving trees on
existing lots. He discussed the preparation of landscaping plans and
the criteria for requiring that plans be prepared by a professional.
Mr. Zaremba asked if requiring a
professional infringed on a resident.
Mr. Carter explained the requirement would
be used in situations where a site plan would have to be filed, such as
a commercial or multi-family development, and would not apply to single
family residential uses.
Discussion took place citing a particular
shopping center and the problems navigating the parking lot due to
overgrown and inappropriately located shrubbery.
Mr. Carter pointed out that the ordinance
contained a long list of recommended trees and shrubs, but it does not
distinguish the appropriateness of the types of plants to be used for
various applications. The Master Gardeners recommend that the Board
develop a list that is more targeted to specific applications, one that
recognizes some of the limitations of certain types of landscaping in
terms of the growth patterns, root characteristics, or susceptibility to
wind damage. He stated a good example of what is needed is Henrico
County’s ordinance, and, working with the Master Gardeners, he would
like to modify it for the County’s use.
Chairman Burgett suggested that the trees
and shrubs be planted in accordance with the ultimate size of the
vegetation so that it will fit the area in the long run.
Mr. Shepperd voiced concerns over the trees
not being large enough when first planted.
Mrs. Noll agreed with Mr. Shepperd, stating
that when a business comes in, it needs to be attractive; and it would
have to have plants that were sufficient in size and density.
Chairman Burgett indicated that staff should
advise people not to over plant and to contact the Extension Office for
help and suggestions.
Mr. Carter stated staff had basically kept
the same tree planting ratio in the proposal; but in terms of shrubs, it
had been reduced considerably. The ordinance also allows the use of
perennials and ornamental grasses which had not been allowed in the
past. He stated the revised proposal suggests that a credit system be
used that is based on every 100 linear feet of yard area or every ten
parking spaces in a parking lot.
Mrs. Noll asked how the proposed plan
compared with those of neighboring jurisdictions.
Mr. Carter stated comparisons were done two
years ago, and York was on the low end of the spectrum. He then
provided a chart that summarized the credits being offered and discussed
the credits should trees and shrubberies die. He then discussed the
transitional buffers and compared the current requirements to the
proposed changes. He cited examples of landscaped sites and provided
comparisons of the current requirements and the proposed requirements.
Mrs. Noll expressed her approval to group
buffers aesthetically, and she stated it would give greater visibility
to signage and still allow them what they need to see.
By consensus, the Board agreed to send the
proposed changes to the landscaping provisions, along with the changes
in the parking and signage, to the Planning Commission for its review
and recommendations.
CLOSED MEETING. At 7:22 p.m. Mr. Shepperd
moved that the meeting be convened in Closed Meeting pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(A)(1) of the Code of Virginia to consider a personnel matter
involving the appointment of individuals to Boards and Commissions and
the salary of specific public appointees; and pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(A)(3) of the Code of Virginia regarding the use of real
property for a public purpose, specifically pertaining to the
disposition of publicly held real property.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5)
Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins, Shepperd, Burgett
Nay: (0)
Meeting Reconvened. At 8:17 p.m. the
meeting was reconvened in open session by order of the Chair.
Mrs. Noll moved the adoption of SR-1 which
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 2.2-3711 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 24th day of June, 2003,
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: (5)
Noll, Wiggins, Shepperd, Zaremba, Burgett
Nay: (0)
APPOINTMENT TO THE YORK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Zaremba moved the adoption of proposed
Resolution R03-98(R) which reads:
A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO THE YORK
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission
terms of Ann F. White and Michael H. Hendricks will expire on June 30,
2003; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to
make two appointments to fill the at-large seats;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the York County Board of Supervisors this 24th day of June, 2003,
that it appoints the following individual to the Planning Commission, to
serve a term that begins July 1, 2003, and expires June 30, 2007, unless
otherwise noted.
John R. Davis
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5) Wiggins, Shepperd, Zaremba,
Noll, Burgett
Nay: (0)
APPOINTMENT TO THE YORK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Wiggins moved the adoption of proposed
Resolution R03-117 which reads:
A RESOLUTION TO APPOINT A MEMBER TO THE YORK
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission
terms of Ann F. White and Michael H. Hendricks will expire on June 30,
2003; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to
make two appointments to fill the at-large seats;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the York County Board of Supervisors this 24th day of June, 2003,
that it appoints the following individual to the Planning Commission, to
serve a term that begins July 1, 2003, and expires June 30, 2007, unless
otherwise noted.
Frederick W. Harvell
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (4)
Shepperd, Zaremba, Wiggins, Burgett
Nay: (1) Noll
Meeting Adjourned. At 8:19 p.m. Mrs. Noll moved that the meeting be
adjourned sine die.
On roll call the vote was:
Yea: (5)
Zaremba, Noll, Wiggins, Shepperd, Burgett
Nay: (0)
__________________________________
__________________________________
James O. McReynolds, Clerk James
S. Burgett, Chairman
York County Board of Supervisors York County
Board of Supervisors
|
