Board of Supervisors Regular Second Meeting   3/19/2025

We very much appreciate your help with our safety and security.

If all present, could now stand as you are able and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America

Thank you, and if you could now join me for a moment of silence.

Without objection, if the clerk will call the roll.

McKeel?

Yes.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

Thank you.

We'll start with Supervisor Galloway.

Thank you.

Supervisor Malek?

Thank you.

I have nothing at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Professor McKeel.

Thank you.

Supervisor.

Thank you.

Board, this brings us to, well, our next item is Proclamations and Recognitions.

So matters from the public, we have some signups and I'll turn it over to Chair McKeel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Colleen Swingle Titus.

Welcome.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Tom Ekman.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Mark Van Meter.

I would like to submit my notes to the county clerk.

Neil Williamson.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

Make sure, yeah, I just heard.

Can you hear me?

It's really difficult.

to pass it around.

We have waited, as Mr. Williamson said,

Thank you.

And our last speaker for today is Saavid O'Flynn,

Closer every time.

I'm making progress.

Please support a $1 million climate action plan fund.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you.

Without objection, if the clerk will call the roll.

McKeel, Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Galloway

Great, thank you.

Welcome.

And I do want to thank many of our transit partners who are here in the audience today for their partnership throughout the year.

Welcome, Mr. Davidson.

And then some smaller amounts for our other regional transit partnerships that are fully funding their requests.

At this time, this really wraps up the community development functional area, and I'll turn it back to the chair for any questions in this area.

Supervisor Galloway?

Thank you.

Thank you, Professor Mallek.

Thank you.

I will look at Mr. Williams for a nod of approval, but my understanding was, yes, that this is just the existing continuation of existing services, not the expansion.

And while he's walking down, I'll ask my second question, which is the fare-free was to be at the beginning when COVID was on, and what is the plan for having fares return?

I think Mr. Williams is actually best to speak to that.

So that is in your projections.

Or we go back to, so next year, fiscal year 27 is still year 5.

But 26 we cannot.

And does that decision also impact the MicroCat being free?

It does.

Okay, thank you.

And that's the real change that is for additional service.

Thank you both.

Supervisor Pruitt.

Realistically, 500 of that is just the phasing out of the fair-free model, and only 300 of that are attributable to wages, or am I misunderstanding?

So 39% of the 500 would have been credited to the county.

And frankly, the concerns that we would identify through a school pickup system would be, I think, much more mirror to what Nelson County, Fluvanna County might experience.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Can you speak to the challenges around fares, since we're talking about fares?

We're only collecting $400,000 and it's really not helping to really offset our expenses.

So that the riders have a seamless situation and are not having to go from app to app.

That's the piece that we've got to work through.

Yeah, but it's really, we just need it seamless for the riders.

Extremely helpful for the riders.

And I just am taking advantage of having Garland here to have him make a couple of comments for folks for understanding.

I don't know that it impacts what we're looking at the budget today, but down the road, distinguishing Mike and Kat and all the rest is going to be part of our discussion and we'll have you back to speak, I'm sure.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks, Garland.

I think we can move forward.

So with that, I'll turn it again back to the chair for any questions on Parks, Recreation and Culture.

Supervisor Mallek?

Thank you.

Supervisor Pruitt.

And to clarify, operating costs are really just the day-to-day operations of the parks.

Okay, that's all I have.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

But you also said there's $100,000 that has been added to that from the state.

Yes, there's a state forestry grant that we receive funding from periodically one time, and there's about $100,000 that the Parks and Recreation is going to be applying towards that use as well to augment those efforts.

Thank you very much.

We're waiting to hear, or we know we're getting that grant.

We fully expect to get the grant.

That's nuanced.

Yes.

That's all I have.

So thank you very much.

And with that, I will turn it back over to the chair for any questions on administration.

Supervisor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Okay point of clarification the board meeting minutes support is that for the additional I think part-time person we hired for to catch up to our board minutes or is this just a cost extra cost of doing business?

I may be using the wrong phrase, but really now the ongoing cost of what that will be to provide that service will be higher than it was in previous years.

But once we catch up,

I would not expect to drop off barring a change in the market cost of those services when we get to fiscal year 27.

Thank you.

My understanding is the board meeting minutes support the 30k is in addition to what was in the closed budget the draft that we've been looking at and is that true for the 450k as well is that already reflected in?

Yes all of these figures are included in the fiscal year 26 recommended budget.

as previously given to us.

Yes.

Thank you.

So with that, I will turn it back over to the Chair for any questions.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mallek?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jim.

I guess I well I look at this the only thing that I do really appreciate that we get to a net position and we see what's gained and lost but I'm not fully understanding where the administrative positions have gone and what they entail and for example I know we've had some departures and I think I raised this question before I just want to reiterate again that for example a climate position equity positions these are all still maintained but what positions are we where did we save

But the 87 and 88 has the chart with the back history of several years where FTE changes are.

Thank you.

And if the staff would recommend all these technical adjustments be incorporated into the budget, and I'd be happy to turn it over to the chair if there's any questions from the board on any of these items.

Supervisor Mallek.

So $110,000 per officer.

To clarify, that's actually for the salary and benefits of the officers.

Well, that's the 252 up above, and the total is 478, so I'm figuring the difference is the equipment.

Yes, the difference is the equipment.

Supervisor Pruitt?

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Not something that we had already anticipated or was it already anticipated in the budget?

So we level funded CAT and included a million dollar contingency and that full million dollars is not needed.

Thank you.

And then when the board is ready, we can walk through the motions on the tax rate and the proposed budget.

Supervisor Galloway.

Thank you.

Supervisor Mallek.

I'd be very interested in hearing all the information which is coming from the request that Supervisor Galloway has just mentioned and so I will stop there for now.

Supervisor Pruitt.

So I will turn it over so that we can continue to collect initial opinions and have a debate.

Professor LaPisto-Kirtley.

Can I just ask to clarify, what did you say about the tax rate, the amount?

$0.30 would be a little over $2.5 million.

Okay.

Is that?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

Supervisor McKeel.

Maybe we have to have three districts to say that that happened, but we're a trend.

The older neighborhoods in Crozet are exactly the same.

Nod your head, Andy, if you're keeping track and you understand where I am.

Now whether it was local or pandemic relief, I can't quite recall off the top of my head.

So would you address for us and for everybody, just to remind us of what that June tax

That would be allocated $3 million to affordable housing and just under $1 million for the economic development fund.

But we have the ability to do some tweaking of that if we wanted to.

Yes, the board may change that recommendation.

I'm done.

So it is something that so long as we're in agreement that the 3.2 cents goes to public safety, do you need for us to have made a decision today or a recommendation today even as to whether that's an ongoing or not?

Because it's really the change in the value in future years of that 3.2 cents, it would be beyond the fiscal year 26 budget, and we can certainly bring that back to the board, but we do not need to revisit that today unless the board would like to.

I think there's probably three at least on that side, but I'm not sure if there are four.

Can we say anything else before you finish your nose counting?

But please, go ahead.

I just wanted to point that out.

But if you have additional information, please.

But if it's not dedicated, then it goes through the split.

Is that something that would be available potentially for an affordable housing trust fund?

I would just encourage the board as a one-time revenue just to ensure this use for a one-time expense.

I guess to ask the question a different way, where else would additional CIP money come from to go into affordable housing in the fiscal year 26?

Is that what you're saying?

My understanding.

We don't have to decide.

We are also proposing the budget.

So it would be under a million.

I was a little off in the brainstorm earlier about to fund a debt service annually on about $15 million would be about 1.2 million.

but I don't think that we have to decide that.

If you have any additional thoughts, it does look like we're ready to move forward on both.

$2.9 million is what that would be.

Bad napkin, Matt.

I have a team behind me right there.

Almost $100,000 per.

Yes, correct.

I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to be.

and the variation in automobiles that I see a greater variation in homes and see a greater burden on those who have really nice fancy places and so I'm not convinced that simply because the state provides relief for the lower portion of the car value that there's a lot of potential progressive aspects to the personal property tax.

I just threw out point three to start that conversation because now we're talking about it.

Yes.

So that's a pretty significant hit.

Again, I looked at my right and left and see if there's additional support for changing that.

And actually, I wouldn't say regrets the right word, but they, when they heard of that idea, they did some other like things to give relief in similar fashion that Albemarle did.

They'd actually provided a mechanism for that.

We can dedicate a portion of that tax to a specific purpose?

Yes, the board would have the ability to do that.

Because I would not be interested in doing it but for a dedication in addition to the 0.4 on the property for affordable housing.

The personal property.

But I mean, I don't think it hurts to have the discussion or to see what the how the public would react to that.

But it will take four votes before we could consider.

I'm a politician, right?

Yes, Supervisor Malek.

So do you have anything to help me with on that or someone?

Do you remember?

If you'd buy me a couple minutes.

Am I correct about that?

But I do want to remind the board what that looked like, because it is complicated.

The board owns the allocation of shared tax revenue formula and the board may revise that as they see fit.

Thank you very much.

Perhaps we should take that 15 minutes and then come back and consider the moment.

Yes, that's right.

15 minutes.

Experience.

I'm going to go around one more time just to see if there are any additional comments before we look to making one or both of these motions, starting with Supervisor Gallivan.

tax rate, but it seemed to be of interest last evening.

Supervisor Mallek.

I am also very interested in what Mike was saying about the 20-year note and the revolving fund, but that's the extent of everything that I know about it, so I would like to know about that sometime future too.

That's all I have.

And Supervisor Bea LaPisto-Kirtley.

Can you just shout it out?

This is actually a question I was going to raise as well because it seems like we're talking about some of these things as if we don't really have the pipeline in front of us.

And so that's one of the reasons why I identified these pipeline numbers as being a little bit squirrely.

Or is that just reality that they say they're going to do it and then they don't, the developers?

In addition, of course, we're in the process of getting our affordable housing study completed with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, which will revise what the target number is for the number of affordable units that we need in our community to meet the existing need.

And when will that be available, that study?

They just got their big bulk of funding from the state, so I would give them eight to nine months to complete that.

Thank you.

Supervisor McKeel.

And I will say that my understanding is, and I'm looking at staff, there's going to be more information coming back to us based on what our discussion was today.

I think this is one if we'd help staff in terms of the time and when to bring that back knowing that there is a planned or intended to be planned I'm not sure if it's been said yet discussion around housing trust funds is that really part of that discussion or is this part of really building into a future budget work session that would be when it decided it's part of the budget process I think some clarity from the board will help staff prepare so that we can be responsive to best support you all

I don't mind sharing some of my time with folks if they want to address because Andy's addressing my question so I mean I get that.

We will go around on this as far as whether this is a trust fund discussion or something.

And we have to understand what all our options are to get at it.

Thank you.

So that's great.

Unless there's additional comment, I'll go next.

So that's the first question.

And so I think just getting to that is a huge step towards a trust fund, even if it's not called that or if it doesn't have all the procedural things that might otherwise be considered.

So I'll just let it stand at that.

We could affect changes in this process if we had the funding to do so and the right developer relationship as far as getting from 15% to 20% or otherwise affecting the affordability.

So those are the four projects we know about for the housing fund.

Go ahead.

4.28 per $100 of assessed value for miscellaneous and incidental tangible personal property employed in a trade or business that is not otherwise classified as machinery and tools, merchant's capital, or short-term rental property, and that has an original cost of less than $500 and $4.20 per $100 of assessed value for machinery and tools.

Without objection, the clerk will call the roll.

Mr. Galloway?

Yes.

And we have an additional motion.

The board does not need to decide that now but I think that could be staff's approach in terms of when we bring that housing discussion related to CIP and borrowing back to the board if that would be agreeable to the board of supervisors.

I like that we would be through half of our town halls by then as well, which is helpful.

But just trying to manage the expectations in terms of our turnaround and how we can support the board through the next couple of months to finalize the budget.

Since we can change it anyway.

I haven't heard a clear consensus on any one particular change, and so I would interpret that to staff as that there are no changes at this time, though certainly the board has every right and ability to continue to modify that.