HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-06-08 OO0270
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin-
ia, was held on June 8, 1994, beginning at 7:00 P.M., Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs.
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (arrived at 7:06 P.M.), Charles S. Martin, Walter F.
Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attor-
ney, Larry W. Davis (arrived at 7:06 P.M.); and Director of Planning and
Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M., by the
Chairman, Mr. Perkins
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were no other matters from the public. (Note: When Mr.
Marshall arrived, the Board took up Other Matters again.)
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. On motion by Mrs. Humphris, seconded
by Mrs. Thomas, items 5.1 through 5.5b were approved, and the remaining items
on the Consent Agenda were accepted as information. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Marshall.
Item 5.1. Adopt resolution to Authorize County Executive to execute
necessary documents for the acquisition of right-of-way and related easements
for the Berkmar Drive North Extension Project. By the recorded vote shown
above, the following resolution was adopted:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors, Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the County Executive, Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., is hereby authorized to acquire for a sum not to exceed
$50,000.00 and to accept on behalf of Albemarle County rights-of-
way and easements deemed necessary for the Berkmar Drive North
Extension project.
Item 5.2. Authorize Chairman to accept conveyance of 6.32 acres of land
and associated approval of license agreement for property adjacent to the
County's closed Keene Landfill in recognition of encroachment on this property
from the former landfill activities. By the recorded vote shown above, the
Chairman was authorized to execute the following agreement:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Chairman of the Board is authorized to
accept the conveyance of 6.32 acres from Nationsbank of Virginia,
N.A., formally Sovran Bank, N.A., Trustee under the Margaret R.
Van Clief Revocable Trust, ("Van Clief") and to enter into a
License Agreement with Van Clief, in consideration of the payment
of $7,300.00 for the property and $7,479.97 as compensation for a
license and expenses related to any Keene Landfill encroachment.
The Deed and License Agreement shall be substantially in accord
with the attached documents unless amendments thereto are approved
by the County Attorney.
This Deed made this 20th day of May 1994, by and between
NATIONSBANK OF VIRGINIA, formally SOVRAlq BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE
UNDER THE MARGARET R. VAN CLIEF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED June 8,
1994 , Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of SEVEN THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($7,300), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable
consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
Grantor does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with Special
Warranty of Title to the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the
following described property:
Ail that certain lot or parcel of land containing 6.032
acres, designated as "Parcel X" on plat of James H. Bell, Jr.,
P.C., dated February 2, 1993, a copy of which is attached
hereto and recorded with this deed, and being a portion of the
property conveyed to Margaret R. Van Clief by deed from Grant
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
Baker and Pauline W. Baker, husband and wife, dated January 4,
1960, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia at'Deed Book 355, page 433.
Margaret R. Van Clief died testate, January 13, 1991, and by
her will probated January 18, 1991 and recorded in the afore-
said Clerk's office in Will Book 71, page 593, the subject
property was devised to Sovran Bank, N.A. as trustee under the
Margaret R. Van Clief Revocable Trust.
This conveyance is made subject to all easements, restrictions
and conditions contained in duly-recorded deedS, plats, and other
instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title
to the above-described property which have not expired by time
limitations contained therein or otherwise become ineffective.
The County of Albemarle, pursuant to a resolution adopted at a
duly called meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, accepts this conveyance.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
NATIONSBANK OF VIRGINIA, N.A., EXECUTOR
BY: (Seal)
(Seal)
WALTER F. PERKINS, CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Exempt from taxes pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-811(3).
This License Agreement made this 20th day of May, 1994 by and
between NATIONSBANK OF VIRGINIA, N.A., formally SOVRAN BANK, N.A.,
TRUSTEE UNDER THE MARGARET R. VAN CLIEF REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED
June 8, 1994 , Grantor, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA,
Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
For and in consideration of SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED SEVEN-
TY NINE DOLLARS AND NINETY SEVEN CENTS ($7,479.97), cash in hand
paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor and Grantee do agree as
follows:
1. Contemporaneously with this Agreement, the Grantor has
conveyed to the Grantee 6.032 acres of property necessary for
inclusion in the closure of the Keene Landfill. This property
shown as "Parcel X" on plat of James H. Bell, Jr. P.C., dated
February 2, 1993, a copy of which is attached hereto (the "Plat"),
was conveyed to the Grantee in consideration of $7,300. The
payment of this license fee is for expenses incurred by the
Grantor directly related to the encroachment, if any, of the Keene
Landfill on the adjoining property of the Grantor.
2. In consideration thereof, the Grantor does hereby release
the Grantee from any additional liability arising from the 6.032
acres of property and from any further claim for out of pocket
expenses of any kind incurred by the Grantee to date as a result
of any encroachment of the Keene Landfill on the adjoining proper-
ty of the Grantor.
3. The Grantor grants to the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
its successors and assigns, at no cost, a license across property
of the Grantor immediately adjacent to the 6.032 acre parcel,
being a portion of the property conveyed to Grantor's predecessor
in title, Margaret R. Van Clief, by deed recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia at Deed
Book 355, page 433 to perform studies, drill control wells, et.
cetera, which may be necessary for continued environmental moni-
toring of the Keene Landfill required by the Virginia Department
of Environmental Quality. This license shall be for a period of
five years from the date of this Agreement. The Grantee may renew
the license for an additional five year term if required by the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, upon written notice
tOia, theon GrantOror beforeat , 19~ 9Charlottesville,. Virgin-
The Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall repair or
replace any ground cover or roadway disturbed, damaged or removed
as a result of any test performed on the Grantor's property, shall
remove all trash and other debris of construction or repair from
the property, and shall restore the surface thereof to its origi-
nal condition as nearly as reasonably possible at the end of the
license term.
4. The Grantor and Grantee agree that this Agreement in no
way releases the County of Albemarle from any liability, if any,
000272
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 3)
arising from any claim by the Grantor that pollutants from the
Grantee's Keene Landfill have affected their property.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
(Seal)
NATIONSBANK OF VIRGINIA, N.A., TRUSTEE
Exempt from taxes pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-811(3).
Item 5.3. Adopt resolution accepting conveyance of Bosley property and
authorize the Chairman to sign the deed on behalf of the County. Mrs. Thomas
asked that a press release be prepared on this item. By the above shown vote,
the Chairman was authorized to execute the following agreement:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Chairman of the Board is authorized to
accept the conveyance of 3.496 acres of property from John Bosely
in consideration of payment not to exceed $9,500.00 for the
property. The property is more particularly described as Albe-
marle County Tax Map 78, Parcel 58L.
This Deed made this 20th day of May 1994, by and between JOHN
BOSELY, Grantor and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, and the
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, Grantee.
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of NINETY FIVE HLrNDRED DOLLARS
($9,500.00), cash in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby ac-
knowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and
CONVEY with General Warranty and English Covenants of Title unto
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the City of Charlottes-
ville, Virginia, as tenants in common, each owning an undivided
one half interest in the following property:
Ail that certain tract or parcel of land in Albemarle
County, Virginia, lying between the Rivanna River and the
center line of the Old Stony Point Road, north of U.S. Route
250 and south of a bridge over a stream which marks the south-
ern boundary of Towe Park a tract of land owned by the County
of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville, which tract of
land, containing 3.58 acres, more or less, and designated as
"Lot 25" on a plat of "Wilton Subdivision" is of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia in Deed Book 201, page 454; less and except those
certain tracts or parcels of land conveyed to the Commonwealth
of Virginia by deeds of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office
in Deed Book 1132, page 343, corrected in Deed Book 1179, page
41, and Deed Book 1284, page 638;
This property is the same property in all respects conveyed to
the Grantor by deed from Fidelity American Bank, Charlottesville
(formally Citizens Bank and Trust Company), Executor under the
will of E.L. Bailey, Fidelity American Bank, Charlottesville
(formally Citizens Bank and Trust Company), Executor under the
will of Robert Livingston Bailey, and National Bank and Trust
Company, Executor under the will of Anne White Bailey, dated
October 15, 1976 and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in
Deed Book 683, page 596.
This conveyance is made subject to all easements, restrictions
and conditions contained in duly-recorded deeds, plats, and other
instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title
to the above-described property which have not expired by time
limitations contained therein or otherwise become ineffective.
The County of Albemarle, pursuant to a resolution adopted at a
duly called meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, has accepted this conveyance and authorized its Chair-
man to sign this deed indicating acceptance.
The City of Charlottesville, pursuant to a resolution adopted
at a duly called meeting of the City Council of the City of
Charlottesville, has accepted this conveyance and authorized its
Mayor to sign this deed indicating acceptance.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals.
(Seal)
JOHN BOSELY
(Seal)
WALTER F. PERKINS, Chairman
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
THOMAS J. VANDEVER, Mayor
City of Charlottesville
(Seal)
Exempt from taxes pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58.1-811(3).
000273
Item 5.4. Adopt resolution to take Watts Station Drive in Watts Station
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the recorded vote
shown above, the following resolution was adopted:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 8th day of June, 1994, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in Watts Station described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 8, 1994, fully incorporated
herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's
Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion to add the road in Watts Station as described on the attached
Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 8, 1994, to the secondary system
of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and
the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident ~Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Watts Station Drive from the edge of pavement on State Route
600, 0.39 mile to the end of cul-de-sac (Station 20+81.79) as
shown on plat recorded 12-21-90 in Deed Book 1133, Pages 661-
667, in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albe-
marle County, with a fifty foot right-of-way. Additional plat
showing revised lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 recorded 4-2-91 in Deed
Book 1146, pages 400-403.
Item 5.5. Adopt resolution to take Skylark Court in Whippoorwill Hollow
Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the recorded vote
shown above, the following resolution was adopted:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 8th day of June, 1994, adopted the
following resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the street in WHIPPOORWILL HOLLOW described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 8, 1994, fully incorpo-
rated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transporta-
tion to add the road in Whippoorwill Hollow as described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 8, 1994, to the second-
ary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of
Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
oOo: 74
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is:
Skylark Court from the edge of pavement of State Route 1616,
0.14 mile to the end of the cul-de-sac, with a forty foot
right-of-way as shown on plat recorded 2-7-86 in Deed Book
867, pages 252-253; revised drainage easement for lots 74 & 84
recorded 11-20-89 in Deed Book 1076, pages 614-616.
Item 5.5a. Draft Letter to Secretary of Transportation, Robert E. Marti-
nez, regarding Route 29 North Corridor. Mrs. Humphris suggested the following
change on page 2, 2nd sentence to read: "The crucial question for the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is how can VDoT schedule a date for
advertisement for construction of a bypass in early 1998 (confirmed by Mr.
Hodge's letter of April 5, 1994) and still comply with the CTB's .... " By the
recorded vote shown above, the Chairman was authorized to sign the following
letter:
June 14, 1994
The Honorable Robert E. Martinez
Secretary of Transportation
Commonwealth of Virginia
1401 East Broad Street, Room 414
Richmond, Virginia 23219
RE: Commonwealth Transportation Board, City of Charlottesville,
County of Albemarle and the University of Virginia Agreement
Dear Secretary Martinez:
As you probably know, the County of Albemarle has recently corre-
sponded with Mr. Jack S. Hodge, Director of Engineering for VDOT,
to express its concern regarding the sequencing of construction
within the Route 29 North corridor as outlined in the attached
agreement. The basis for this sequencing of improvements is
derived from the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by
Sverdrup Corporation for VDOT in 1989. To summarize, Sverdrup
states that, with only the Base Case improvements (widening Rt.
29), the level of service on Rt. 29 would remain at F. However,
the base case plus the three grade-separated interchanges would
improve the LOS on average to B. With these improvements and the
construction of a by-pass, the LOS would improve to A or B.
There is apparent conflict between VDOT's interpretation and
action and the attached agreement as it relates to Phase II,
Medium-range Recommendations and Phase III, Long-range Recommenda-
tions found in the CTB's November 15, 1990 resolution. Our
concern is that VDOT appears to be moving forward with the long
range recommendations prior to the completion of the short and
medium-range recommendations, again in conflict with a CTB resolu-
tion (attached) adopted on December 19, 1991 - note first para-
graph, page 2. The intent, as we read it, is to complete the
short (Phase I) and medium-range (Phase II) recommendations after
which assessment for the need of Alternative 10 By-Pass (Phase
III) could be determined and, if traffic on Rt. 29 is unacceptable
and funding permits, then construction of the Alternative 10 By-
Pass would commence. The crucial question for the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors is how can V/DOT schedule a date for
construction of a by-pass in early 1998 (confirmed by Mr. Hodge's
letter of April 5, 1994) and still comply with the CTB's November
15, 1990 and December 19, 1991 resolutions along with the CTB's
intent to follow the sequencing outlined in the attached agree-
ment.
We respectfully request your review of this matter and your
support to delay any advertisement for construction of Alternative
10 By-Pass until the base case improvements - Rt. 29 widening,
etc. (Phase I short range) and grade-separated interchange
improvements (Phase II - medium range) recommended in the CTB's
November 15, 1990 resolution have been implemented and adequate
analysis has then been made to determine if traffic is unaccept-
able in accord with the City, County and University agreement. We
appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your
response.
Sincerely,
(SZGNED)
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
O00;Z?5
SYNOPSIS OF
COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD ' S APPROVED
ROUTE 29 CORRIDOR RECOMMENDATIONS
NOVEMBER 15, 1990
Phase I Short Ranqe Recommendations
O Construct Route 29 Base Case;
O Reserve right-of-way for the three interchanges;
o Encourage the County and City to restrict further development
in the right-of-way;
o If necessary, VDoT acquire right-of-way;
o Develop the North Grounds access facility;
o Alternative 10 be approved as the future corridor;
o Refine preliminary plan for Alternative 10;
o Restrict access to Alternative 10 to preserve the watershed.
Phase II - Medium Ranqe Recommendations
o Build the three grade-separated interchanges when needed;
o Continue to preserve and acquire the right-of-way for Alterna-
tive 10.
Phase III - Lonq Ranqe Recommendation
o Construct Alternative 10 when traffic on Route 29 is unaccept-
able and economic conditions permit.
Item 5.5b. Amended resolution to accept roads in Riverrun Subdivision
into the State Secondary System. By the recorded vote shown above, the Board
adopted the following resolution:
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
in regular meeting on the 8th day of June, 1994, adopted the
following amended resolution:
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the streets in Riverrun Subdivision described on the
attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 8, 1994 (Amended),
fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats record-
ed in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County,
Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the
requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of
County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation to add the roads in Riverrun Subdivision as described on
the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated June 8, 1994 (Amended),
to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229,
Code of virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Require-
ments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and
unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease-
ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded
plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be
forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of
Transportation.
The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are:
Riverrun Drive from the edge of pavement of State Route 768
0.28 mile to the end of the cul-de-sac, with a fifty foot
right-of-way as recorded 12-22-82 in Deed Book 753, pages 715-
755, total length, 0.28 mile. Additional Plats: Deed Book
845, pages 112-119, recorded 07-24-85; Deed Book 1103, pages
141-158 recorded 06-05-90; deed book 1246, page 365-383,
recorded 8-17-92; deed book 1382, pages 113-118, recorded 02-
08-94; deed book 1409, pages 155-158, recorded 6-7-94; deed
book 1409, pages 159-163, recorded 6-7-94.
Fox Crossing from the edge of pavement of Riverrun Drive 0.14
mile to the edge of pavement of State Route 768 with a forty
foot right-of-way as recorded 12-22-82 in Deed Book 753, pages
715-755, total length, 0.14 mile. Additional Plats: Deed
Book 790, pages 725-733, recorded 03-02-84; deed book 1382,
page 113-118, recorded 02-08-94.
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
Item No. 5.6. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for May 10 and May 24,
1994, were received for information.
Item No. 5.7. Copy of VACo's Board of Directors minutes for April 30,
1994, was received for information.
Agenda Item No. 6. Proclamation: Nicole Gercke.
Mr. Perkins presented the following proclamation which was accepted by Mr.
and Mrs. James Gercke:
WHEREAS, the United States Presidential Scholars Program was
established in 1964 to recognize and honor the Nation's most
distinguished graduating high school seniors; and
WHEREAS, selection as a Presidential Scholar is based on
scholastic and/or artistic achievement, demonstrated leadership
ability, service to the community, as well as strong character and
commitment to high ideals; and
WHEREAS, no more than 141 students are chosen annually from
among outstanding graduating seniors to become Presidential
Scholars, these students being chosen by the Commission on Presi-
dential Scholars from approximately 2600 students who are selected
as semifinalists and who receive an invitation to participate; and
WHEREAS, Nicole T. ~ercke, daughter of James and Skip Gercke
of 1035 Rustling Oaks Drive, Albemarle County, virginia, a gradu-
ating senior from St. Anne's-Belfield has been named a 1994 U. S.
Presidential Scholar;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Super-
visors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby extend its most
sincere congratulations to Nicole T. Gercke for this singular
achievement; "the highest national honor that is bestowed upon
graduating high school seniors."
Mr. Gercke thanked the Board for the proclamation. He stated that Nicole
was out of town and could not be present at this meeting. He indicated that
Nicole was looking forward to representing the community at the White House
later this month.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUB-
LIC.
Mr. Peter Scherman, a resident of the Scottsville District and speaking on
behalf of a group of residents from southern Albemarle, expressed concerns
about the odor coming from a farm feed lot in operation on Church Hill Farm,
located on Route 713. He explained that waste is gathered and held in large
holding tanks and then spread as slurry on the fields. Since the owner (Mr.
Kluge) owns several thousand acres in the southern part of the County, this
slurry is spread over a wide area. The smell is intense, acrid and makes some
people feel nauseated. He does not think the odor existed before this opera-
tion began, and it affects the quality of life for hundreds of southern Albe-
marle residents and tourists to the area. The residents will attempt to put
together some more specific information for a future Board meeting and hope
that the Board take the issue under advisement, consider their plight and do
whatever it can to help them.
Mr. Davis said he had an opportunity to review the situation. To the best
of his knowledge there is no violation of any existing ordinances or law. All
existing local ordinances have been complied with. This use does have state
permits. The Department of Environmental Quality issued a Virginia Pollution
Abatement Permit. The permit was issued after a formal state process whereby
people were given an opportunity to submit comments. This is a five-year
permit which was issued last August; it has many conditions which regulate
how the operation works, set backs, amount of animal waste that can be spread,
locational requirements, etc. The permit does not specifically address odor.
He has talked with people from DEQ and they are aware of the situation, have
reviewed the permit and found it to be in total compliance. A subset of that
permit is a Nutrient Management Plan which was approved by the Department of
Conservation and Recreation for this particular use. He has spoken with the
person who wrote that permit and who visited the property last week. Mr.
Davis was assured that the operation was in compliance with the Nutrient
Management Plan, which controls the amount animal waste that can be spread on
the property, when it can be spread and the amount of nutrients. Basically
having met all of these state and local requirements, there is no authority
that the County has to deal with the odor problem at this time.
In his opinion, any action would be a private cause of action by the
citizens under a private nuisance theory in which they would have to prove the
use of their property has been unreasonably interfered with. That would be a
burden for the citizens to bear and not appropriate for him as the County
Attorney or the Board to deal with. Until the County has the authority to
deal with odor, the Board does not have the ability to address this situation
OO02??
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
on the resident's behalf. He added that the last General Assembly recently
adopted legislation which further regulates the County's ability to deal with
agricultural practices. In fact, if the County chose to, next year, the Board
would not have the ability to require special use permits for this type of
operation, and would not be able to impose additional regulations on agricul-
tural practices beyond what the state would require.
Mr. Marshall said he spoke with Mr. Curry Roberts, the farm manager in
charge of this operation, and he is trying to do something. Mr. Roberts
indicated to him (Mr. Marshall) that a yucca plant is being fed to the cattle
which is supposed to cut down on the odor. Mr. Roberts stated that through
this process 70 percent of the odor in the tank has been cut down.
Mr. Perkins asked if this is the first spraying since the feed lot has
been in operation. Mr. Tucker said the first spraying was done in March,
1994. He also talked to Mr. Roberts who indicated they plan to do this
spraying twice a year, once in the spring and once in the fall. DEQ does not
recommend that spraying occur during the winter months because of the frozen
ground. A woman in the audience stated that since March there has been
spraying on three separate occasions. This yucca additive was put in after
all of the three sprayings. The tank was completely empty before this
additive. The residents do not know yet whether this will work.
A man who did not identify himself said in the past when spraying oc-
curred, it was mixed in with the dirt. This time, it was sprayed on top of
the dirt and it is still sitting on top of the ground. He thinks that is one
of the reasons the smell is so strong.
Mrs. Thomas said this facility is being shown to people all over the
country as a model facility which is a motivation to take care of this
problem.
Mr. Tucker encouraged the residents to work with Mr. Roberts as much as
possible. Me will check with Extension Services to see if there are any other
holding tanks of this type in the state and see how they handle the odor.
The Board asked that it be kept informed.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-94-11. Trinity Presbyterian Church. Public
Hearing on a request to amend a condition of SP-93-01 to allow additional
grading on site. Located on S sd of Reservoir Rd approx 3/10 of a mi W of its
inters with Rt 29/Rt 250 Bypass. TM76,P's17C&17Cl. Samuel Miller Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the
permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on May 10, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-94-11 subject
to one condition.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Tom Muncaster, the engineer
for the project and a member of the church, said he would answer any questions
Board members may have.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-94-11 subject to the condition recommended by the Planning Commission.
Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(The condition of approval is set out in full below:)
1. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that shown on a site
plan titled, Trinity Presbyterian Church, revised 2/15/93 and
initialed WDF 4/27/94 (copy on file}.
Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-94-02. Blue Goose. Public Hearing on a request
to amend ZMA-90-20 on 1.4 acs zoned PD-SC. Located on W side of Rt 240
between Rt 240 & Carter St approx 400 ft S of Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad.
TM56A(1),P's53,54,54A, 55&56. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 23 and May 30, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the
permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on May 10, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of ZMA-94-02.
Mr. Perkins asked what happens to the sidewalk with the requirement for a
turn lane in front of the Blue Goose building. Mr. Cilimberg said part of the
sidewalk will be removed, but also new sidewalk will be constructed.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Sanford Wilcox said his
father is the applicant and he is the developer of the Blue Goose center. Mr.
Wilcox said the Blue Goose center is slightly more than 10,000 square feet in
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
0002?8
the new building and about 3,500 in the renovated Blue Goose building. The
applicant is trying to keep the development in scale with the Village of
Crozet. Rather than have one massive building with one tenant, they are
separating it into a number of spaces. He explained in detail the appearance
of the building. He indicated that the sidewalk has to be adjusted and set
back from the center somewhat as it approaches the entrance for a maximum of
four feet difference. The idea was to connect the parking lots, but that did
not work out. They are also eliminating one of the entrances and upgrading a
second entrance to reduce some of the congestion on Crozet Avenue.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve ZMA-
94-02.
Mr. Marshall stated that he would support the motion. He added that Mr.
Wilcox is a close friend and former partner of his, but they do not have any
financial connections at this time. He does not feel he has a conflict in
supporting this request.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-94-02. Westgate Limited Partnership. Public
Hearing on a request to amend the provisions of the PRD to add by special use
permit all uses permitted by special use permit in the R-15 district under
Section 18.2.2. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30,
1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the
permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on May 24, 1994, unanimously recommended amending Section 19.3.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Donald J. Wagner, repre-
senting Westgate Limited Partnership, said their office has been located at
Westgate since it was built in the early 1970's. At the time the office was
built, the zoning was R-3, offices were allowed by-right. When Westgate
decided to expand the back of the building 14 feet, they found the office use
within Westgate is an existing nonconforming use and could not be expanded.
He would be happy to answer any questions Board members may have.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris said this property lies in her district and she supports the
request. She then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adopt an
ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 19.0, Planned
Residential Development -- PRD, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, to allow the addition of professional offices, under Section 19.3.2.
Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(The adopted ordinance is set out below:)
AN ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING
SECTION 19.0, PLAiTNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT -- PRD
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Section 19.0, Planned
Residential Development -- PRD, of the Code of Albemarle is hereby
amended and reordained by amending Section 19.3.2, as follows:
19.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The following uses shall be permitted only by special use
permit, provided that no separate application shall be re-
quired for any such use as shall be included in the origi-
nal PRD rezoning petition:
1. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference
5.1.6).
2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.9).
3. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or
similar institution (reference 5.1.13).
oOo 79
June 8~ 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
4. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and
related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping
stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange
centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and
relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference
5.1.12).
5. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2.).
6. Churches. (Added 9-2-81)
7. Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade.
(Added 11-7-84)
8. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (ref-
erence 5.1.16). (Added 9-13-89)
9. Professional offices. (Added 6-8-94)
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-94-18. Westgate Limited Partnership. Public
Hearing on a request for expansion of office space in the existing Westgate
Apartment Complex (ZTA-94-02 above). Property on W sd of Rt 743 in Urban
Neighborhood 1 is approx 0.23 mi N of Rt 743/Rt 656 inters is zoned PRD and
recommended for high density residential (10.01-34 du/ac) . TM61,P42D. Jack
Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the
permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on May 24, 1994, unanimously recommended approval of SP-94-18 subject
to three conditions.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Donald J. Wagner representing
the applicant, said he would answer any questions Board members may have.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve
SP-94-18 subject to the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commis-
sion. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Use shall be limited to 2619 and 2621 Hydraulic Road plus
addition shown on Attachment C, dated 5/17/94 and initialed
W.D.F. (copy on file);
2. Addition shall be of similar facade to the existing building;
3. Use shall be limited to property management services.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-94-04. Fees. Public Hearing on a request to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit the Board of Supervisors to reduce fees
in a particular case in order to provide access to the review process by all
citizens. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 23 and May 30, 1994.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file with the
permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its
meeting on May 24, 1994, by a vote of 6:1, recommended passing ZTA-94-04 to
the Board with no recommendation.
Mr. Marshall as if the Board could adopt an ordinance on a trial basis,
for example a year. He is concerned that the Board may be overwhelmed with
requests. Mr. Martin suggested the Board may want to set a time frame.
Mrs. Humphris said she has agonized over this issue. She does not believe
she is equipped to make determinations of financial hardships, and she does
not see how it is possible for this Board to do so without delving into
people's or entities personal or business financial situations. She does not
think the Board has that right. She thinks the Board needs to remember why it
has the fee structure in place. At one time the Board believed that each
person or entity should pay its own way when it makes a request to the County
for something that is for its benefit alone and not for the benefit of the
general public. She thinks the Board lacks any measurable standards to waive
fees, and, therefore, feels the decisions would be subjective and not based on
a fixed policy. She does not think that is the way the Board is supposed to
do business. She thinks the Board should be as objective as possible. She
does not feel equipped to make these judgements based on the reasons staff
outlined as possible drawbacks and the original reason for the fee schedule,
being to offset staff hours devoted to review, and the fact that the Board may
be getting a huge number of requests for relief, and given that the Board
would have to operate on a case-by-case basis which would leave in question
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
00028(1
whether a fair decision had been made. She does not want to do this on a
trial basis because she thinks it will be unfair.
She noted that staff outlined seven issues it felt the Board should give
consideration. She does not agree with the items such as allowing additional
by-right uses and administrative approvals. She believes there probably is
merit to the recommendation to waive the fee for "uses which may be subject to
multiple fees without corresponding multiple effort by staff and some review-
ing bodies." There is no justification for requiring an applicant to pay
twice for one amount of work.
Mr. Martin said he thinks this is one of those situations where staff got
too detailed. In the two and one-half years he has been on the Board, he
thinks there have probably been four situations in which the fees should have
been reduced. Those situations were obvious to Board members. He thinks the
only thing necessary from staff was language that the Board has the authority
to waive fees and leave it at that. He thinks if the Board has the authority,
when the situation arises, the Board will know it. There is no need to notify
everyone up front that the Board waive fees; not everyone is notified up front
about all of the other County ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan, etc. The
information is available. He does not thinks this needs to get complicated;
the Board just needs to give itself the authority to waive fees.
At this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Kevin Cox asked the Board to remember how high the fees are. It costs
$990 for a special use permit for a subdivision right. It is possible that a
Home Occupation Class B will cost $780; $390 for a small day care center. He
will not dispute the staff's assertion that these fees are based on careful
analysis that recovers 100 percent of the cost of issuing the permits. He
pointed out that the applicant is not really gaining anything that the rest of
the public is not gaining as well. In essence the applicant is also paying
for someone to stand and oppose their permit request. The cost for a special
permit for a division right does not cover the cost of surveying; it covers
the process and the process is there to benefit the entire public. The staff
report states that these costs may be more appropriately borne by the general
public as opposed to an individual applicant and thus the fees should be
reduced accordingly. He thinks that needs to be given serious consideration.
A lot of these public hearings occur because special interest groups want to
have input on specific items. He also thinks a lot of these permits should be
by-right whereby the fees would be subsequently reduced if they were by-right
and approved by the Zoning Administrator.
Mr. Cox said at the Planning Commission meeting last night there was a
long drawn out public hearing over a Home Occupation Class B; the request was
ultimately deferred for two weeks. If this use had been by-right use, this
particular case would have been resolved a long time ago by the Zoning
Administrator unless the applicant chose to appeal the ruling to the Board of
Zoning Appeals. He thinks it will take a lot of work by the Board to address
each one of these uses individually and determine how the Zoning Ordinance can
best be refined so that appropriate conditions can be applied to each of the
uses. In the interim, he thinks it is entirely reasonably for the Board to
give themselves the authority to reduce fees in some instances. He does not
want the Board delving into individual's private lives, but for a short period
of time while the Board addresses the greater issue of the fees and how they
should be set, he thinks it is entirely appropriate for the Board to take that
authority and reduce the fees. He was convinced of this because of the
request from the Dunbars which cost them $990. Mt. Carmel Church is currently
in limbo waiting to see what the Board decides to do tonight. If the Board
decides not to adopt this ZTA, Mt. Carmel will have to pay $780. They have a
congregation of about 30 people; 20 of which regularly attend. That is a lot
of money for that congregation and he thinks that needs to be considered. He
thinks this is a temporary compromise that the Board should adopt for a short
period of time.
Mr. Joseph Adlesic said he mentioned his situation at the last Board
meeting and appreciates the Board's attention to his plight. When he first
looked at the special use permit application, he found it staggering that the
fee for his request was $780. Now because this is a multiple application, the
fee is in excess of $1500 to submit an application. He is trying to submit an
application for a bridge crossing over the Moorman's River. He is not sure
how that compares to the review required for a subdivision. The fee is
essentially the same. There is no particular definition of the cost of the
project, the income level of the applicant, etc. He would support the idea of
some measurable standard. He would be happy to come forward with his finan-
cial statements. For this particular application, he also has to file a joint
permit application with the state and federal agencies, and the fee structure
for that is based on the cost of the project. The state has a fee of $25 for
a project under $10,000 and $100 for anything over $10,000, which he thinks is
a sensible approach. Another measurable standard is the time of review. He
has no objection if there is a way to document the cost incurred for a staff
member's time to actually review the application. A lot of technical informa-
tion is required for his application. The County will not design the bridge
nor look at flood plain issues. All of that has to be provided by him in the
application and pay outside engineers to provide that information. Those are
additional expenses that he will incur to submit the application. Another
issue is that there is no guarantee of success when an application is submit-
ted. To pay $1500 without knowing whether it will work or not is a lot of
O00ZS:l.
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
money for him. He intends to build a private residence in which to live; it
is not a commercial use or a money maker. The property has no access. He
wants to build a house to live in.
Mr. Adlesic said he also reviewed the County records and found a similar
case. There was a pedestrian bridge over the Moorman's River that dealt with
the exact issues he face, flood plain impact, crossing a scenic river, and the
fee was somehow reduced to $175. He does not know who had the authority to
make that decision, but his application is similar with the same distance, but
the bridge will be a little bit wider. He supports the Board adopting this
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. He hopes this issue can be resolved
because he wants to submit his application by the end of this month.
Mr. Donald J. Wagner said he agrees with Mrs. Humphris. He is glad this
is not a decision he has to make. When Westgate applied for the zoning text
amendment and the special use permit, a statement was included with the
application that this situation resulted from the County changing the Zoning
Ordinance after Westgate had a by-right use. Now Westgate had to pay two high
fees to get the Ordinance changed back to allow them to do what they could
originally do by-right. Westgate did not think it was fair that they had to
pay those fees. Certainly Westgate will not elicit the same sympathy that a
small congregation of a church will elicit, but it is a tough decision.
There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mrs. Humphris asked when the situation to which Mr. Adlesic referred
occurred. Mr. Perkins commented that the request was in 1993 and was for a
foot bridge for John Alford. The fee was reduced because it was a foot bridge
and not a vehicular bridge. He does not remember how the fee was determined.
Mr. Martin said he believes the Board should not get caught up in compli-
cations. He has no desire to get into anyone's personal financial business.
If the Board wanted to it could amend section of the Zoning Ordinance. He
again said the Board can simply give itself this authority. He thinks Mr.
Wagnerts statements made common sense. He thinks the Board should just use
common sense in its decisions. He is also concerned that the Board may get
flooded with requests, but once the Board make a couple of decisions, the
general public would get an understanding of how the Board is making those
decisions.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks waiving fees could become subjective and hard
to deal with. After listening to this discussion, he thinks the Board should
identify certain cases whereby the fees could be waived. For example, the
Board could waive fees for a concurrent application, special use permits for
an additional lot and churches. He agrees with Mrs. Humphris that the Board
would have to be extremely smart to draw distinctions between individual
requests. If the Board has the authority to waive fees, it will get requests
for a myriad of reasons all of which will probably sound to varying degrees
legitimate.
Mr. Martin said he was thinking about the gentleman who could put a
trailer park on his property but all he wanted was one trailer for his daugh-
ter, but could not afford to apply. It just does not make sense to him, that
the Board cannot waive a fee especially when it is in the best interest of all
concerned.
Mr. Marshall said he feels the Board would be inundated with a large
number of requests and he would have to make decisions that he is not quali-
fied to make. He supports Mrs. Humphris position.
Mr. Martin said if the Board is not going to support the zoning text
amendment he hopes it will have staff to consider the seven items that was
outlined in the staff report. He thinks it is strange that there is a
bureaucracy in such that common sense cannot rule.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks there are certain instances, like Mr.
Bowerman suggested, that the Board could identify. She is concerned about
adding more work to staff when the Board is supposed to be pushing forward the
review of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Dunbar's request was a family division that had
to be approved by the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said the request had to be
approved by the Board because it needed two additional lots. The request
could be processed as family division after approval of the special permit.
Mr. Bowerman said that is a situation that is identifiable along with concur-
rence (joint zoning text amendment and special use permit) and a dual request
(anything where there is more than one use that might require a special permit
or review by the County had the same time). Mr. Tucker suggested that the
County Attorney develop general language that does not give specifics and
allows for some flexibility.
Mr. Marshall suggested that this zoning text amendment be deferred until
the Board can iron out some of the issues.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks churches should also be identified. Board
members agreed.
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mrs. Humphris asked if there is any general relationship between the cost
of review and cost of the project. Mr. Cilimberg said that can vary. Mr.
Martin said there is a certain amount of common sense, that if he is going to
do a project that only costs $3000, he should not have to pay $1400 in fees.
A lot of things paid for in terms of staff time is for the good of the
community.
Mr. Bowerman commented that it would be difficult to single out churches
so there would need to be a broader classification that dealt with situations
like a church and similar.
Mr. Davis said in the State Code there are certain types of organizations
and entities that the Board can make gifts of money. Implicitly if the Board
could make a gift of money to these organizations, he thinks the Board could
waive a fee, because it accomplishes the same thing, he read off the list of
organizations, but stated that it does not cover a situation where a person is
indigent or the situation is unfair.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board starts looking at some of these issues, it
may want to consider either reducing or changing the fees. This is not a
major source of revenue. The fees were derived by looking at the application
and the staff time of that particular planner or engineer. That fee includes
any process or any other department that had some involvement in the review
process and their amount of time. The Inspections Department is the only
development department where fees cover the operations.
At this time motion was offered by Mr. Martin to request staff to bring
back language, on July 6, 1994, for a resolution of intent that the'Board
could adopt addressing fees for uses that may be subject to multiple fees,
small additions to churches and the like, and family divisions that necessi-
tate a special use permit. The language should be written to allow the
decision concerning fees to be handled administratively.
Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
Mr. Tucker said staff would work with Mr. Adlesic to see what can be done
about his situation and to investigate his comments that the Board reduced the
fee for a stream crossing over the Moorman's River in 1993.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt Recapture Plan for Crozet Crossing and Autho-
rize County Executive to Execute.
Agenda Item No. 13. Authorize County Executive to Execute Agreement
Between the County of Albemarle, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and
the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program to Create the Crozet Crossing Trust
Fund.
Mr. Tucker said the Crozet Crossing housing development project is com-
plete, with the construction of 30 single-family units. Twenty-four of the
units are occupied with the remainder scheduled to close during the next
several months. As previously presented to the Board, it has been the
intention to recapture a certain percentage of the funds invested in the
project to create a housing trust fund. The housing trust fund will be used
for other affordable housing projects within Albemarle County.
The Recapture Plan directs that a small portion of the proceeds from
current house sales be placed in a housing trust fund, with the majority of
the funds to come from future resale of the houses in Crozet Crossing.
The Housing Trust Agreement establishes the housing trust fund, which will
be governed by five trustees. The County will appoint two trustees, the
Charlottesville Housing Foundation will appoint two trustees and the Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program will appoint one trustee. The funds will be
managed by the Department of Finance and staff support will be provided by the
Housing Coordinator.
Mr. Tucker said it is recommended that the Recapture Plan be approved and
that the County Executive be authorized to execute the Housing Trust Agree-
ment.
Mr. Martin said he is always in support of programs where people can help
themselves as opposed to programs that are handouts.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
Recapture Plan and authorize the County Executive to execute the Housing Trust
Agreement. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
000P.83
(Set out below in full is the Recapture Plan and Agreement:
RECAPTURE PLAN FOR CROZET CROSSING
(REVISED)
MAY 24, 1994
I. Introduction
The Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Housing and Commu-
nity Development ("DHCD"), the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the
"County") and Charlottesville Housing Foundation, a Virginia non-
stock corporation ("CHF") have cooperated in the acquisition, site
work, financing, construction and development of that certain real
property situated in the Community of Crozet, Albemarle County,
Virginia, commonly known as "Crozet Crossing," as more particular-
ly described.in Exhibit A, attached hereto (the "Property"). The
Crozet Crossing subdivision consists of thirty (30) newly con-
structed three and four bedroom single family residential dwell-
ings being offered for sale to low-and-moderate income first time
home buyers.
DHCD, the County and CHF have together invested in excess of
$813,000 in the acquisition and development of the Property ("the
Investment"). This Recapture Plan (the "Plan") describes the
manner in which a portion of the Investment is to be (a) converted
to non-interest bearing deferred loans which will enable low-and-
moderate income persons to purchase homes in Crozet Crossing, and
then (b) recovered upon the resale of appreciated homes, with a
portion of the recaptured Investment allocated through a County-
administered Housing Trust Fund (the "Fund") to support future
affordable housing projects in the County.
II. Source of Funds To Be Recaptured
A. $300,000 DHCD Community Development Block Grant
B. $331,500 Albemarle County Investment
C. $181,500+ CHF Investment and Project Development Costs
$813,000+ Total funds invested
The Investment has been or will be expended by CHF and/or the
County in the acquisition of the Property, the construction of the
road, water and sewer infrastructure at Crozet Crossing, and other
development expenses. A portion of the Investment will be con-
verted to non-interest bearing non-amortized deferred loans to
initial purchasers of homes in Crozet Crossing (the "Deferred
Loans"), in varying amounts, determined by the difference between
the principal amount of each purchaser's first lien conventional
mortgage and the sale price of the home, as adjusted for the
purchaser's cash down payment and, in some instances, a second
lien closing cost assistance loan from the Virginia Housing
Partnership Fund. The Deferred Loans will be evidenced by promis-
sory notes made by the initial purchasers at settlement, payable
to the Fund and secured by second or third lien deeds of trust on
their respective lots. The Deferred Loans are subject to the
repayment and recapture provisions described in this Plan. A
portion of the Investment will be recovered by CHF as reimburse-
ment for its reimbursable development costs. Any balance of the
Investment not represented by the Deferred Loans or used to
reimburse CHF will become the property of the Fund.
III. Objectives
A. To enable low-and-moderate income first-time home buyers to
acquire ownership of well-constructed energy efficient homes, with
monthly payments of principal, interest, taxes and insurance
("P.I.T.I.") not exceeding 29% of the purchaser's gross monthly
family income.
B. To recover a portion of the $813,000+ Investment in Crozet
Crossing, and to recycle the recaptured Investment through the
Fund to support future affordable housing projects in the County.
C. To enable CHF to recover a portion of the Investment as
reimbursement for those project development costs incurred by CHF
which have been determined by DHCD and the County to be eligible
for reimbursement.
IV. General Guidelines and Assumptions
A. As of the date of this revision of the Plan (May 24, 1994),
the fair market value of homes in Crozet Crossing, as Determined
by independent appraisal, is as follows:
4 bedroom homes: $87,600.00
3 bedroom homes: $84,700.00
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 15)
000; 84
B. (1) It is anticipated that purchasers of homes in Crozet
Crossing will pay the cost of acquiring their respective homes
with a combination of down payments, low-interest conventional
mortgages, closing cost loans, and Deferred Loans, as follows:
a. low interest conventional first lien deed of trust pur-
chase money loans offered by:
- Virginia Housing Development Authority ("VI~DA") (5%
interest amortized over 30 years); or
- Virginia Housing Partnership Fund ("Vt{PF") (3%
interest amortized over 15 years); or
United States Department of Agriculture Farmers Home
Administration ("FmHA") (3% interest amortized over
15 years); or
- commercial lenders
b. VHPF second lien deed of trust loans for down payment
and closing costs, up to $2,500 per house (3% interest amortized
over 15 years).
c. Deferred Loans, representing a portion of the Invest-
ment allocated to individual homes, evidenced by promissory notes
payable to the Fund and secured by second or third lien deeds of
trust, depending on whether a VHPF down payment loan is involved
in the transaction.
(2) The Deferred Loans will not accrue interest on the
outstanding principal balance and will not require regular pay-
ments of principal. Instead, the Deferred Loans will become fully
due and payable when the initial purchasers re-sell their homes,
if such sale occurs within thirty (30) years of the date of
settlement, or in the event of default under the first or second
lien deeds of trust.
(3) In addition to repaying the principal of the Deferred
Loans upon resale, the initial purchasers shall pay to the Fund a
portion of any appreciation in the value of their respective
homes, as determined by the difference between the initial sale
price and the resale price of their homes. In the event that the
resale price is less than the initial sale price, because the
transaction was not negotiated at arm's length (i.e., a resale to
a family member or friend at less than fair market value), the
resale value for purposes of this Plan will be deemed to be the
greater of the then-current County tax assessment or the fair
market value as determined by independent appraisal.
(4) The recapture provisions of the Plan set forth above
are based upon the following assumptions:
a. the Fund, created by CHF and the County, should realize
a return on the Investment in Crozet Crossing
b. the purchasers should repay a portion of any appre-
ciation realized upon resale as the cost of borrowing the Deferred
Loan funds, i.e. enjoying the value of the Investment
c. the Deferred Loans should not create the possibility of
negative amortization; instead, the cost to the purchasers of
borrowing the Deferred Loan funds should equal the interest that
would be charged if the interest rate equaled the rate of appreci-
ation
d. homeowners should be permitted to realize for them-
selves a substantial portion of any appreciation in the value of
their property upon resale, so that they will be encouraged to
maintain and improve their homes; however, the Plan should dis-
courage initial purchasers from selling their homes soon after
purchase for a large profit.
(5) The method of financing the purchase of homes in
Crozet Crossing should not limit the owners' ability to resell
them in the future, nor should any element of the Plan decrease
the owners' future repayment ability. It is anticipated that most
if not all purchasers will utilize low-interest fixed rate loans
for their conventional first lien purchase money financing.
However, the Plan does not preclude the possibility of adjustable-
rate first mortgages. A decision to make an adjustable-rate loan
will rest with the lender.
(6) The Plan does not require deed restrictions that place
conditions on future sales, as such conditions would have the
potential to create title insurance problems.
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
000285
(7) The Plan should be consistent and fair, both to pur-
chasers and to the County and CHF. To the extent possible, the
Plan should be clearly explained to and accepted as fair by
purchasers prior to their execution of the Deferred Loan notes and
deeds of trust.
V. Repayment of Deferred Loans
A. Computation of Repayment Amount:
(1) The amount due to the Fund upon resale, or any other
event which entitles the Fund to demand repayment of a Deferred
Loan, shall be the sum of:
Loan, and
the full outstanding principal balance of the Deferred
b. a percentage of the appreciation in value of the prop-
erty subject to a Deferred Loan deed of trust, computed as set
forth hereinbelow (the "Recaptured Appreciation").
(2) The percentage of appreciation which is subject to
recapture upon resale will be determined at the time of the
initial purchase, and shall be set forth in the Deferred Loan
promissory note and deed of trust. This percentage is calculated
by dividing the principal amount of the Deferred Loan by the
initial sale price. The resulting percentage is referred to as
the "Investment Factor".
(3) a. Upon resale or any other repayment event, the
gross amount of appreciation subject to recapture will be computed
by subtracting the original sale price from the resale price. In
the event that the property is conveyed in a less-than arm's-
length transaction, the value upon resale shall be deemed to be
the greater of the then-current County tax assessment or the full
fair market value as determined by independent appraisal.
b. The value of improvements made by the owner will
be established from a variety of indicia including, but not
limited to, County tax assessment records, the owners' receipts
for expenditures made on improvements to the property, and other
records of the type customarily relied upon in computing capital
gains for federal income tax reporting purposes. For administra-
tive convenience and record keeping efficiency, owners may submit
to the Fund evidence regarding the cost and value of improvements
which they make to their homes at the time such improvements are
completed, and request that the Fund establish and maintain
records regarding the same to assist in the subsequent determina-
tion of the appreciation subject to recapture. If an owner does
not provide the Fund with such information and evidence at the
time improvements are completed, the owner will be responsible for
record keeping and will have the burden of proving by clear and
convincing evidence at the time of resale the cost and value of
any improvements made by the owner.
c. The value of the owners' improvements will be sub-
tracted from the gross appreciation to arrive at the adjusted
appreciation. This adjusted appreciation amount will then be
multiplied by the Investment Factor to arrive at the Recaptured
Appreciation.
B. Rationale
(1) The repayment and recapture provisions described above
avoid the accrual of unpaid interest on Deferred Loans. This
approach protects purchasers from the possibility of negative
amortization, i.e. that the property will not appreciate enough to
pay accumulated interest at the time of resale.
(2) a. This element of the Plan provides a return to the
Fund in the form of shared appreciation.
b. This element of the Plan is fair to purchasers
because those who receive large Deferred Loans will net less at
the time they resell, while those who have been making larger
mortgage payments will net more at the time of resale.
c. Subtracting the value of subsequent improvements
from the gross appreciation at the time of resale allows owners to
realize the full benefit of improvements they make to their homes.
This provides an incentive to owners to maintain their property in
good repair and to make improvements.
C. Circumstances under which Deferred Loans will be forqiven,
reduced, or become due:
(1) All Deferred Loans shall be forgiven at the end of
thirty (30) years if the initial purchaser has not resold the home
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
within such time. A succession to ownership by inheritance or
testamentary devise shall not constitute a sale which will require
repayment of a Deferred Loan, but a conveyance of any beneficial
interest in the property subject to a Deferred Loan deed of trust,
even if the initial purchaser reserves a life estate in the
property, shall constitute a sale which will trigger the "due on
sale" provisions of the Deferred Loan deed of trust and require
repayment to the Fund.
(2) Anticipation or prepayment of principal on the first
mortgage shall not reduce the amount or affect the terms of the
Deferred Loan.
(3) a. Prepayments of principal only may be made, without
penalty, to reduce the balance of Deferred Loans. Homeowners will
be requested, but not required, to make such prepayments in
increments of at least $500 to simplify the Fund's bookkeeping.
b. In the event that the owner has made prepayments
of principal, the following method will be utilized to determine
the repayment amount upon resale:
(i) the adjusted appreciation will be multiplied by the
Investment Factor to arrive at the Recaptured Appreciation amount
(ii) when the Recaptured Appreciation amount is known,
this variable will be used together with the (reduced) principal
balance and the term of the loan to determine the proper rate of
return to the Fund. This rate will then be applied in the same
amortization formula customarily used to determine payoff amounts
for fixed 30 year conventional loans.
(4) The Fund will not subordinate its second or third lien
deed of trust to a subsequent first lien deed of trust executed by
an owner in connection with a refinancing transaction. According-
ly, if an owner determines to refinance the initial purchase money
financing, the Deferred Loan will become due and payable, with the
Recaptured Appreciation to be computed based on the fair market
value of the property at the time of such refinancing, as deter-
mined by the independent appraisal customarily required by conven-
tional lenders in conjunction with refinancing transactions.
(5) Any event that constitutes a default or triggers a
due-on-sale clause in the first lien deed of trust will automati-
cally constitute a default or trigger the due-on-sale clause in
the third lien deed of trust securing the Deferred Loan.
(6) In the event that an owner is forced to sell under
circumstances which would result in a net loss to the owner upon
repayment of the entire Deferred Loan in an arm's length transac-
tion, the Fund shall have the right to forgive a portion of the
Deferred Loan in order to avoid such net loss to the owner. The
decision to forgive any portion of a Deferred Loan in order to
reduce or eliminate a net loss upon resale shall rest in the sole
discretion of the Fund's Trustees, who may require the owner to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that circumstances
exist which would make it appropriate to do so.
VI. Settlement; Cash At Closing
A. Settlement Procedure
At the time of settlement on the sale of individual homes in
Crozet Crossing, the settlement attorney will receive funds from
VHDA, VHPF, FmHA or other lenders, representing the proceeds of
the purchasers' conventional first mortgage loan and the VI~PF
closing costs/down payment second mortgage loan. The purchasers
will also deliver the balance of their own cash down payment to
the settlement attorney at closing.
The settlement attorney will be responsible for preparation of
all closing and loan documents, and for computing the financial
transaction between CHF ("Seller") and the individual purchas-
er(s), which information will be set forth on the HUD-1 Settlement
Statement. The settlement attorney will also be responsible for
disbursing payment of all closing costs, such as recording taxes
and fees, title and homeowners insurance premiums, survey costs,
lenders' fees, escrow deposits, prepaid interest, and so forth.
The purchaser(s) will execute at settlement all documents
required to evidence and secure payment of the first and second
mortgages and the Deferred Loan, as well as the HUD-1 Settlement
Statement and all other loan documents required to be executed at
closing by VHDA, VHPA, FmHA and the Fund. The settlement attorney
will deliver to the Fund at each closing the executed original of
the promissory note evidencing the Deferred Loan, along with a
copy teste of the deed of trust securing the Deferred Loan, the
Clerk's official recording receipt from the recordation of said
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
000; 87
deed of trust, and all other Deferred Loan or closing documents
required by the Fund.
B. Net Cash from Closinqs to Payoff Construction Loan;
Escrow of Remainder:
(1) After making all adjustments and prorations between
Seller and purchaser and disbursing payment of all settlement
charges, the settlement attorney will deliver the balance of cash
due Seller at closing, as shown on line 603 of the HUD-1 Settle-
ment Statement, directly to VHDA as a payment to reduce the
outstanding balance of the VHDA construction loan which is cur-
rently secured by a first lien deed of trust on all lots within
Crozet Crossing (the "Construction Loan"). The settlement attor-
ney will obtain from VHDA and any other lienholders a Certificate
of Partial Satisfaction releasing the lien of the Construction
Loan deed of trust and any other liens as to that particular lot
which is conveyed by CHF to the purchaser at settlement.
(2) For as long as any amounts remain outstanding and
unpaid on the Construction Loan, all cash due Seller at closing,
as shown on line 603 of the HUD-1 Settlement Statement, will be
paid directly to VITDA to reduce the balance of the Construction
Loan and obtain releases on the individual lots being conveyed at
each closing. All cash due Seller at closing(s) which is not
consumed in retiring the Construction Loan and obtaining the full
and complete release of the Construction Loan deed of trust shall
be placed in an escrow account to be established by CHF and/or the
settlement attorney (the "Escrow").
C. Disbursement from Escrow; Reimbursement of Expenses to
CHF; Balance to the Fund:
(1) The escrow will be kept open to receive and disburse
the net proceeds of sales until all the houses in Crozet Crossing
have been sold. However, disbursements from Escrow may be made
before all houses are sold, provided that: (a) all construction
and site work has been completed and fully paid for, with properly
executed mechanics' and materialmens' lien waivers having been
received; (b) a Certificate of Satisfaction has been properly
recorded evidencing the full and complete satisfaction and release
of the Lq{DA Construction Loan deed of trust; and (c) the Crozet
Crossing Program Income Plan has been submitted to and accepted by
DHCD.
(2) When the conditions set forth above have been met,
funds held in Escrow may be disbursed to satisfy the claims of any
other lienholders and to reimburse CHF for those project costs
incurred by CHF which have been determined by the County and DHCD
to be eligible and appropriate for reimbursement. The County and
DHCD have agreed and acknowledged that CHF is entitled to be fully
reimbursed for its costs and expenses incurred in the development
and construction of Crozet Crossing as set forth on the attached
Exhibit B and such additional costs and expenses as may be agreed
upon by all parties hereto.
Escrow funds may be disbursed to CHF as reimbursement for such
items as soon as such funds are available, provided the above-
stated conditions have been met and this Recapture Plan and the
documents establishing the Fund have been approved by all parties.
(3) After CHF has been fully reimbursed for all of its
eligible development expenses, any funds remaining in Escrow shall
be delivered to and become the property of the Fund.
(4) When all houses have been sold and all of the net cash
proceeds of sales have been disbursed to CHF and the Fund as
aforesaid, the Escrow account shall be closed.
(5) Notwithstanding the above, CHF agrees that $5,000.00
of the Escrow funds shall be paid to and become the property of
the Fund, even if the Escrow funds are insufficient to fully
reimburse CHF all of its allowed costs following the final sale.
CHF shall not be paid the remaining balance of any reimbursable
expenses, and any obligation by any party for such reimbursement
shall be extinguished.
VII. Crozet Crossing Housinq Trust Fund
A. The County, in cooperation with CHF and AHIP, has estab-
lished the Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund (the "Fund") to
collect, hold, invest, manage and distribute all proceeds from the
Deferred Loans in accordance with the terms of the Fund. The
Agreement between the County, CHF and AHIP creating the Fund is
attached hereto and submitted herewith as a part of the Crozet
Crossing Program Income Plan.
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
000288
Recaptured funds from the Deferred Loans are "program income",
as defined by DHCD and the terms and provisions of the Community
Development Block Grant ("CDBG") which was a component of the
Investment in Crozet Crossing. As such, the management of such
funds is the responsibility of Albemarle County, and is subject to
monitoring by DHCD. The County shall determine whether the Fund
will be managed by the County's own Department of Finance, by
another department within the County, or by an outside firm or
individual.
It is anticipated that the County will manage the investment
of the Fund itself, through its own Department of Finance.
However, the County may elect to delegate the management of the
fund by contract with a competitively procured outside investment
firm, provided that adequate internal controls are established and
compliance with such controls is monitored.
B. The assets of the Fund will be distributed exclusively to
support and benefit housing programs in Albemarle County which are
designed to serve persons of low-and-moderate income as defined by
HUD Section 8 rules and regulations ("affordable housing pro-
grams"). Such programs must be designed to insure that moderate-
income persons and households cannot be benefitted to the exclu-
sion of low-income persons and households.
Affordable housing programs, whether now in existence or
created subsequent to the establishment of the Fund, will be
selected as beneficiaries of Fund assets by the Fund's Board of
Trustees (the "Trustees"). The Trustees will have no responsibil-
ity regarding the investment and management of Fund assets; such
responsibility will rest entirely with the County. The Trustees
will have the responsibility and authority to identify and select
the affordable housing programs which will be the beneficiaries of
the Fund's assets. The Trustees will determine the timing,
amounts, terms and conditions of distributions of Fund assets to
such beneficiaries.
Within the strict requirement that Fund assets shall be used
exclusively to address the housing needs of low-and-moderate
income persons, and cannot be used to benefit moderate-income
persons to the exclusion of low-income persons, the Trustees shall
have broad discretion to make grants or loans of Fund assets to
diverse and innovative housing programs, and to pursue in the
future housing strategies which have yet to be identified. Some
potential uses of Fund assets are as follows:
1. Downpayment and closing costs assistance for new or exist-
ing homes.
2. Scattered site housing.
3. Self-help housing.
4. Housing activities to benefit elderly and/or disabled
people (similar to the Scottsville School Apartments and
the Meadows and Meadowlands developments).
5. Matching funds for a subdivision similar to Crozet Cross-
ing.
6. Home ownership education.
7. Rehabilitation programs.
This Recapture Plan is adopted jointly by the County, CHF and
AHIP, and accepted by DHCD, as a part of the Crozet Crossing
Program Income Plan, as of the last date of the signatures affixed
hereinbelow on behalf of the participating entities.
Date
Date
Date
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By
CHARLOTTESVILLE HOUSING FOUNDATION
By
ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
By
ACCEPTED BY:
Date
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
By
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
000289
EXHIBIT A
All those certain lots or parcels of land, together with the
improvements thereon and appurtenances thereunto belonging,
situated on Cling Lane in the Community of Crozet, White Hall
District of Albemarle County, Virginia, designated as Phase 1,
Crozet Crossing, as shown on a plat of subdivision prepared by
Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc., C.L.S., dated November 6, 1991,
last revised June 11, 1992, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of
the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia in Deed
Book 1255, pages 413-414.
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
THE CHARLOTTESVILLE HOUSING FOUNDATION, AND
THE ALBE~A/~LE HOUSING iMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
TO CREATE THE CROZET CROSSING HOUSING TRUST FUND
WHEREAS,
the County of Albemarle, a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, ("the County"), the Char-
lottesville Housing Foundation, a Virginia non-stock
corporation ("CHF"), and the Albemarle Housing Improve-
ment Program, a Virginia non-stock corporation ("AHIP")
have cooperated in conjunction with the Commonwealth of
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development
("DHCD") in a project known as "Crozet Crossing"; and
WHEREAS,
DHCD, the County, and CHF have invested in excess of
$813,000 ("The Investment") in the acquisition and
development of Crozet Crossing to provide affordable
housing for low-and-moderate income persons; and
WHEREAS,
the County and CHF proffered that a condition of the
DHCD Community Development Block Grant would be the
implementation of the Recapture Plan for Crozet Crossing
("Recapture Plan") to recover a portion of the invest-
ment, such portion being designated as Program Income,
from the sale and first resale of homes in Crozet Cross-
ing; and
WHEREAS,
a condition of the DHCD Community Development Block
Grant and the Recapture Plan is that the Program Income
shall be used only for housing projects which benefit
low-and-moderate income households; and
WHEREAS,
to meet the requirements of DHCD and the terms and
provisions of the Community Development Block Grant, the
County, CHF, and AHIP, desire to create the Crozet
Crossing Housing Trust Fund ("Trust Fund") to collect,
hold, and distribute the Program Income; and
WHEREAS,
to further meet the requirements of DHCD and the terms
and provisions of the Community Development Block Grant,
the County has agreed to invest and manage the Program
Income.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises,
the County, CHF, and A HIP agree to enter into this
management agreement in order to create the Trust Fund
and to manage the Program Income as follows:
1. Establishment of Crozet Crossinq Housinq Trust Fund
The County shall direct the Albemarle County Department of
Finance to establish an interest bearing fund, referenced as the
Crozet Crossing Housing Trust Fund, which shall be invested and
managed by the County. All Program Income from the Crozet Cross-
ing project shall be deposited in this Trust Fund. No funds shall
be expended unless appropriated by the Board of Supervisors of the
County.
2. Purpose of the Trust Fund
The purpose of the Trust Fund is to provide financial assis-
tance for housing projects which benefit low-and-moderate income
households. Only projects located within Albemarle County shall
be eligible for such assistance. Assistance shall be provided in
the form of loans, grants and equity contribution to qualifying
projects.
3. Use of Trust Fund
The Trust Fund shall be used only for housing projects that
benefit low-and-moderate income households as defined in the
Recapture Plan and the Crozet Crossing Trust Fund Operating
Policies and Procedures ("Policies and Procedures") hereby incor-
porated within, by reference. Provided, however, 77.7% of the
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
000290
funds shall be used for CDBG - eligible projects. Of that 77.7%,
at least 90% of the expended funds shall be used for construction
costs, specifically excluding administrative costs. Only projects
administered by the County, AHIP or CHF or other entity approved
by the County shall be eligible for funding. The percentage
requirements for the use of the funds may be modified by agreement
of the parties and upon approval of DHCD or its successor.
4. Board of Trustees
The Trust Fund shall be administered by the Crozet Crossing
Trust Fund Board of Trustees ("the Board of Trustees"). There
shall be a total of five Trustees, two appointed by the County,
two appointed by CHF, and one appointed by A HIP. The term of the
appointments shall be for four years, provided the term of the
initial appointment of one County and one CHF appointee shall
expire on January 1, 1996, and the terms of the other initial ap-
pointees shall expire on January 1, 1998. Trustees may be reap-
pointed without limitation. Trustees may be removed at the will
of the appointing authority. If any Trustee fails to serve a
complete term, an appointment shall be made to fill the vacancy
for the unexpired term.
The Board of Trustees shall operate pursuant to its Policies
and Procedures. The Policies and Procedures shall be adopted and
amended only upon the concurring vote of four fifths of the mem-
bership of the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees shall
have the responsibility and authority to identify and select the
affordable housing projects which will be the beneficiaries of the
Trust Fund assets. Such projects may be approved by a majority
vote of the Board of Trustees. Three Trustees shall constitute a
quorum.
Upon the dissolution of or the withdrawal from this Agreement
by either CHF or AHIP, the County shall assume the place of the
dissolved or withdrawn party and shall appoint the Trustee or
Trustees in its place as additional Trustees for the County.
5. Procedure for Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees shall annually review eligible projects
pursuant to its Policies and Procedures and submit a program for
disbursement from the Trust Fund subject to appropriation of the
funds by the Board of Supervisors of the County. An annual report
shall be submitted by the Board of Trustees to the County, CHF,
and AHIP detailing the status of any projects funded by the Trust
Fund, the activities of the Board of Trustees, and a financial
statement of the Trust Fund.
6. Staff Assistance
The Albemarle County Housing Coordinator shall provide staff
support and assistance to the Board of Trustees for the purpose of
this Agreement in cooperation with staff from CHF and AHIP. The
Housing Coordinator shall coordinate the annual status report and
annual program for disbursement from the Trust Fund.
7. Terms of Aqreement
The Agreement shall be in force for a period of thirty years
from the date it shall become effective. The Agreement may be
extended beyond the thirty year term by written agreement of the
parties. This Agreement shall survive the dissolution of either
CHF or AHIP. The Agreement shall be extended until such time as
all Program Income has been disbursed from the Trust Fund to
eligible projects.
8. Amendments to Aqreement
This Agreement may be amended from time to time by unanimous
written agreement of the parties, or their successors, provided
that any amendment meets the applicable requirements of DHCD and
the terms and provisions of the Community Development Block
Program for the CDBG Community Improvement Grant #90-29.
This Agreement shall be effective as of the last date of the
signatures of the County, CHF, and AHIP.
County of Albemarle, Virginia
By
Charlottesville Housing Foundation
By
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
B~
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 22)
000291
Agenda Item No. 14. Adopt FY 1994-95 Appropriation Ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said on April 14, 1994, the Board approved a total County
budget of $103,366,271 for Fiscal Year 1994-95. State Codes requires that
those funds be officially appropriated prior to the beginning of the next
fiscal year which starts July 1, 1994.
The attached appropriation ordinance allocates funds for Albemarle Coun-
ty's FY 1994-95 operating budget, which includes appropriations for the
General, School, Debt Service and School Self-Sustaining Funds.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
Annual Appropriation Ordinance of the County of Albemarle for the Year Ending
June 30, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(The Appropriation Ordinance is set out in full below:)
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1995
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expendi-
tures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1995; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions with
respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all
ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances incon-
sistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1995:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS
the sum of fifty-one thousand dollars and no cents ($51,000) is appropriated
from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Refunds and Abatements
$ 51,000
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of four million, two hundred ninety thousand, two hundred
seventy-two dollars and no cents ($4,290,272) is appropriated from the General
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
2
3
4
5
6
7
Board of Supervisors
County Executive
Elections
Finance
Information Services
Legal Services
Personnel
$ 284,861
399,442
128,705
1,952,999
1,110,438
215,902
197,925
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the Function of JUDICIAL the sum of
one million, four hundred thirty-nine thousand, three hundred twenty-two
dollars and no cents ($1,439,322) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Circuit Court $ 67,096
2. Clerk of Circuit Court 438,566
3. Commonwealth's Attorney 303,813
4. General District Court 10,440
5. Juvenile Court 38,035
6. Magistrate 11,100
7. Sheriff 570,272
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC SAFETY the sum of
seven million, five hundred sixty-three thousand, sixty-three dollars and no
cents ($7,563,063) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
000 . 2
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
2.
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ambulance, Rescue Squads
Community Attention Home
Correction and Detention (Jail)
Fire Department (City)
Fire/Rescue Administration
Forest Fire Extinction Service
Inspections
Emergency Operations Center (911)
Juvenile Detention Home
Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR)
Police Department
SPCA Contract
Volunteer Fire Departments (JCFRA)
Offender Aid and Restoration (Flow-thru Grants)
$ 161,595
59,060
163,105
586,305
245,865
13,800
608,369
425,130
66,000
36,670
4,618,179
15,960
426,125
136,900
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC WORKS the sum of one
million, nine hundred sixty-seven thousand, two hundred ten dollars and no
cents ($1,967,210) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Engineering $ 781,691
2. Refuse (Landfills) 292,167
3. Staff Services 893,352
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN SERVICES the sum of
four million, six hundred eighty-eight thousand, one hundred thirty-three
dollars and no cents ($4,688,133) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Charlottesville Free Clinic
Children and Youth Commission
Children, Youth & Family Services
District Home
FOCUS-Teensight
Health Department
Jefferson Area Board on Aging
Jefferson Area United Transportation
Legal Aid Society
Madison House
Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)
Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA)
Shelter for Help in Emergency
Social Services
Region Ten Community Services
4600
22250
9 180
37 500
19 615
584 000
130 030
242.435
13,030
4,120
7,310
19,595
54,470
3,298,443
241,555
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of the Function of PARKS, RECREATION AND
CULTURE, the sum of two million, six hundred eighty thousand, nine hundred
twenty-three dollars and no cents ($2,680,923) is appropriated from the
General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Library
Literacy Volunteers
Parks & Recreation
Piedmont Council of the Arts
Darden Towe Memorial Park
Teen Center
Virginia Discovery Museum
Visitor's Bureau
$ 1,487,195
10,060
922,343
7,585
96,795
40,475
20,000
96,470
Paragraph Eight
For the current expenses of the function of COMMITNITY DEVELOPMENT the sum
of two million, twelve thousand, eight hundred twenty-six dollars and no cents
($2,012,826) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
Extension Service
Community Action Agency (MACAA)
Housing
Housing Coordinator
Planning
Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
Route 29 Bus Service
Soil and Water Conservation
Zoning
Gypsy Moth Program
353.385
107 726
42 320
231 056
45.271
733 916
48 595
34 800
28 604
363 032
24 121
Paragraph Nine
For the current expenses of the function of CONTINGENCY RESERVE, the sum
of twenty-five thousand, six hundred sixty dollars and no cents ($25,660) is
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
00029,3
appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Contingency Reserve $ 25,660
Paragraph Ten
For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of
one million, three hundred sixty thousand dollars and no cents ($1,360,000) is
appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to:
1. Capital Improvements Fund
$ 1,360,000
Paragraph Eleven
For the current expenses of the Annual Payment to the City of Charlottes-
ville, pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City and the
County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1995, in the amount of
four million, four hundred seventy-five thousand, one hundred twenty dollars
and no cents ($4,475,120) is appropriated from the General Fund as follows:
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement
$ 4,475,120
paragraph Twelve
For the current expenses of OTHER USES OF FUNDS, the sum of forty three
million, six hundred fifty thousand, eight hundred twenty-five dollars and no
cents ($43,650,825) is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to:
1. School Fund $ 36,804,945
2. Debt Service Fund 6,845,880
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995 $ 74,204,354
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Revenue from General Fund Balance
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 67,779,010
5,286,844
213,500
925,000
$ 74,204,354
SECTION II - REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1995:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the REGULAR SCHOOL FUND the sum of sixty
million, eight hundred thirty-seven thousand, five hundred thirty dollars and
no cents ($60,837,530) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
Instruction
Administration, Attendance & Health
Pupil Transportation Services
Facilities Operation/Maintenance
Facilities Construction/Modification
Other Uses of Funds
$ 46,811,974
2,235,441
4,603,866
6,208,433
108,306
869,510
$ 60,837,530
SUMMARY
Total Regular School Funds for Fiscal
Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 60,837,530
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund Transfer)
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund Balance)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Miscellaneous Revenue
$ 36,804,945
798,118
22,238,752
547,404
448,311
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 60,837,530
SECTION III - Other School Funds
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1995:
000
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM the sum
of one million, eight hundred twenty thousand, three hundred seventy-one
dollars and no cents ($1,820,371) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $ 1,820,371
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 1,820,371
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from Refunds and Rebates
Revenue from the Federal Government
Revenue from Fund Balance
1,219,677
35,000
10,000
450,000
105,694
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 1,820,371
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of ALBEMARLE FOOD SERVICE, the
sum of three hundred twelve thousand, nine hundred fifty-three dollars and no
cents ($312,953) is appropriated from the Albemarle Food Service to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Food Service $ 312,953
SUMMARY
Total ALBEMARLE FOOD SERVICE appropriations For
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995 $ 312,953
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Sales) 312,953
Total ALBEMARLE FOOD SERVICE resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995 $ 312,953
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of PRE-SCHOOL GRANT, the sum
of seventy-two thousand six hundred dollars and no cents ($72,600) is appro-
priated from the Pre-School Grant Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Special Ed Pre-School Program $ 72,600
SUMMARY
Total Pre-School Grants appropriations For
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
Paragraph Four
$ 72,600
72,600
$ 72,600
For the current expenses of the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the
sum of ten thousand dollars and no cents ($10,000) is appropriated from the
McIntire Trust Fund as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools $ 10,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations For
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 10,000
10,000
$ 10,000
000295
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of PREP PROGRAM the sum of nine hundred seventy-
one thousand, six hundred three dollars and no cents ($971,603) is appropriat-
ed from the PREP Program Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. E.D. Program $ 576,193
2. C.B.I.P. Severe 395,410
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations For
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 971,603
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees.
$ 971,603
Total PREP PROGRAM FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 971,603
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of FEDERAL PROGRAMS the sum of seven hundred
eight-four thousand, two hundred fifty-six dollars and no cents ($784,256) is
appropriated from the Federal Programs Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Chapter I $ 537,931
2. Chapter II 43,263
3. Migrant Education 74,517
4. Title II 27,225
5. Carl Perkins 101,320
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 784,256
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
$ 784,256
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FLrND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 784,256
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of COMMUNITY EDUCATION the sum of one million
thirty-one thousand seven hundred seventy-five dollars and no cents
($1,031,775) is appropriated from the Community Education Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Community Education
$ 1,031,775
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FIIND appropriations For
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Tuition
Revenues from Driver's Education Fees
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
Paragraph Eight
$ 1,031,775
923,932
107,843
$ 1,031,775
For the current expenses of SUMMER SCHOOL the sum of two hundred eighteen
thousand dollars and no cents ($218,000) is appropriated from the Summer
School fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Summer School $ 218,000
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations For
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Tuition
Total SUMMER SCHOOL FI/ND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 218,000
218,000
$ 218,000
000
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
SECTION IV - DEBT SERVICE FUND
For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of seven
million, three hundred fifty-three thousand, three hundred seventy-five
dollars and no cents ($7,353,375) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund
as follows:
Debt Service Payments $ 6,845,880
Lease/Purchase Payments-Capital Equipment-Schools 465,439
Lease/Purchase Payments DP Equipment General Govt. 42,056
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations For
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd)
Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Sch Fd)
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans from
Information Serv.)
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1995
$ 7,353,375
6,845,880
465,439
42,056
$ 7,353,375
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I THROUGH IV IN THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1995:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
General Fund
School Fund
Other School Funds
Debt Service Fund
$ 74,204,354
60,837,530
5,221,558
7,353,375
TOTAL
$147,616,817
Less Inter-fund Transfers
General Fund to School Fund
General Fund to Debt Service Fund
School Fund to Debt Service Fund
General Fund (Infor. Serv.) to Debt Service Fund
36,804,945
6,845,880
465,439
42,056
GRAND TOTAL
$103,458,497
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies
become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made
to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION V
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions,
and provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said terms and those
set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro-
priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria Fund,
the Albemarle Food Service Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Pre-School Grant
Fund, the Debt Service Fund, Prep Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund,
Community Education Fund, Summer School Fund, are declared to be maximum,
conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the
appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and
then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during
the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are sufficient to pay
all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such
proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective
funds is to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the
said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Social Services Board not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as
000297
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency
under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the
Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being
first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures
which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers
between specific items of appropriation without the consent of the Director of
Finance being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General fund of the
County treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June,
1995, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into
the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the appropriations
which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year,
beginning July 1, 1995. However, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed
to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital Improvements Fund, Cafeteria
Fund, Albemarle Food Service Fund, Pre-School Grant Fund, McIntire Trust Fund,
Debt Service Fund, Prep Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Community
Education Fund or Summer School Fund, but any balance available in these funds
shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these funds for the
fiscal year beginning July 1, 1995.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual
services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or
individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by
requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and
membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that
no requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract
on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be
approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or
individual and the Purchasing Agent, who shall be responsible for securing
such competitive bids on the basis of specification furnished by the contract-
ing department, bureau, agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate
action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures pre-
scribed in the Albemarle County Purchasinq Manual shall not be consid-
ered obliqations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not
issue any warrants in payment of such obliqations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the
Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automo-
biles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be
subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according
to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and
ninety-four.
Agenda Item No. 15. Appointments. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 16. Cancel Board meeting for June 15, 1994.
Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to cancel the
Board meeting for June 15, 1994. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
AYES:
NAYS:
000298
Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mrs. Thomas commented that tonight is Matt Lee's (reporter with the Daily
Progress) last meeting with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lee is moving to
Cambodia to work as a freelance reporter. Board members thanked Mr. Lee and
wished him good luck.
Mr. Tucker said in the future, the Clerk's office will let all Board
members know in advance when a decision is being made to cancel a Board
meeting.
Mr. Martin commented that he received a summary of the minutes from the
Leadership Team Meeting held on May 20, 1993. He attended the first meeting
held about a year ago and he felt the County was starting off on a journey in
terms of arranging County government so it would be more efficient. He is
glad to see this is continuing to move forward. He thinks that in about five
years a difference will be seen. Board members asked that they be provided a
copy of these minutes.
Mr. Perkins asked if Board members wanted to proceed to public hearing
with an increase in the salary for Board members.
Mr. Bowerman asked what were the cumulative increases in salaries for
County employees for the last two years. Mr. Tucker said the average increase
this year, including vesting and scale adjustment of two and one-half percent,
will be between three and three and one-half percent, and last year the
average increase was in the range of two and one-half to three percent. Mr.
Bowerman asked what the percentages the Board adopted in previous years
reflected. Mr. Tucker said the percentages reflected Consumer Price Index
cpi).
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks it is important that the Board's salary
increase remain relatively the same as the employees. The Board did forego an
increase last year because of the tough nature of the budget process. It
seems to him that a reasonable increase would be in the five percent range.
The Board's salary needs to reflect that there is some costs to all Board
members for doing this job.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks Mr. Bowerman's comments make sense. She has
always thought it was important that the Board's salary reflect the fact that
Board members do give up a lot in terms of work and other opportunities. It
is also important that this salary not attract people who want to serve on the
Board just to collect a paycheck. She thinks a five percent increase would
reflect part of the time involved and is justifiable.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks it is important that the Board's salary be
increased some amount each year. If there are special cases circumstances,
then the salary can be foregone, but if it is not done, then the salary gets
so far behind and when it has to be increased, it really attracts public
attention.
Mr. Martin said it is hard for him to vote to give himself a raise. He
voted against it two years ago, last year and will do the same this year.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris, to SET a public hearing for July
6, 1994, on an ordinance to amend Section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of
supervisors, of the County Code, to increase the Board's salary five percent
for FY 1994-95. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Mrs. Humphris asked that staff include in its next legislative packet,
enabling legislation that would allow the Board to appoint six members to the
Board of Equalization.
Mrs. Humphris asked that the Board discuss at its meeting on July 6, a
letter Board members received from Piedmont Environmental Council concerning
reviewing amendments to the Comprehensive Plan on the eve of the Plan's
review, and accelerating and coordinating the entire review of the Comprehen-
sive Plan. She also asked that the Board discuss PEC'S letter to the editor
of the Daily Progress concerning the land use tax program in Albemarle County.
'000299
June 8, 1994 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
Agenda Item No. 18. Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
Chairman