Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-26 adjJune 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 1) 383 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 26, 1985, at 4:00 p.m., in Meeting Room 11 on the fourth floor of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from June 19,. 1985. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:32 p.m.), and Peter T. Way. Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Executive Session: Land Acquisition. Motion was made by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, for the Board to adjourn into Executive Session for the discussion of land acquisition. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3. Office Building. The Board reconvened at 7:32 p.m. in the Auditorium of the County Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie requested that Item 4.3 on the Consent Agenda be discussed separately. With the withdrawal of Item 4.3 from the consent agenda, Mr. Bowie moved that Item 4.1 and 4.2 on the Consent Agenda be approved and the remaining items accepted as information. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the State Compensation Board for the Month of June, 1985. Item 4.2. Street Sign: Sherwood Farms Subdivision. This matter was brought to the Board by a letter dated June 11, 1985, addressed to Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, from James E. Garrison, requesting a street sign for Overlook Drive (State Route 859). The following resolution was adopted in accordance with the request: WHEREAS request has been receiVed for a street sign to identify the following road: Overlook Drive (State Route 859) at its intersection with State Route 859 0.18 miles south of the intersection of State Route 1106 and State Route 859. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta- tion be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. Item 4.3. Financial Report for Year Ending June 30, 1985 - Albemarle County School system. (This item will be discussed at the end of the meeting.) Item 4.4. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for its June 11, 1985, was received as information. Item 4.5. Letters from Highway Department were received as follows: "June 19, 1985 As requested in your resolution dated June 5, 1985, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective June 19, 1985. ADDITION BRIARWOOD SUBDIVISION Austin Drive - From U. S. Route 29 to 0.09 mile West of Route 29 LENGTH 0.09 Mi." 384 June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 2) "June 19, 1985 As requested in your resolution dated June 5, 1985, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective June 19, 1985. ADDITIONS BRIARWOOD SUBDIVISION - PHASE II Austin Drive - From 0.09 mile West of Route 29 to 0.23 mile West of Route 29 Briarwood Drive - From Austin Drive to 0.16 mile East (Loop) Heather Court - From Whitney Court to 0.12 mile Southeast LENGTH 0.14 Mi. 0.26 Mi. 0.12 Mi." Item 4.6. County Executive's Financial Report for May, 1985 was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-605; along with the following memorandum from Robert J. Walters, Jr., Deputy Director of Finance, dated June 21, 1985: "GENERAL FUND General Fund activities are generally within budget projections. The revenue collected from the Commonwealth increased in May; however, the fiscal year revenues will be less than budgeted. This is primarily due to decreased Public Assistance and Fuel Assistance collections. Revenues from local sources will exceed budget projections due to increased real estate collections. Expenditures for Board of Elections, Police, Sheriff, Inspec- tions, Animal Control, VPA Administration and Soil and Water will be tight but should fall within budget projections. Appropriation transfers have been approved for VPA Administration and Soil and Water. SCHOOL FUND Most School Fund activities are generally within budget projections. Revenues collected from Federal Categorical Aid programs are low and may not meet expectations. Expenditures for Transportation, Vehicle Maintenance and several schools are high and will exceed appropriation balances. Past year appropriation transfers will be required. David Papenfuse has bene notified." Item 4.7. A notice was received from the C & P Telephone Company regarding a change in rules governing installation and location of network interface devices - notice dated June 17, 1985. Item 4.8. Letter dated June 20, 1985 from Senator Paul Trible re: Superfund Law. In this letter Senator Trible expresses his appreciation for being furnished a copy of a resolu- tion adopted by the Board of Supervisors supporting reauthorization of the Superfund, which allows taxes to be collected from petroleum and chemical companies for cleanup of hazardous waste and which authority expires in September, 1985. Senator Trible said that Congress needs to act responsibly so that Superfund's cleanup activities can continue without delay. He assured the Board that he will remember their commen~s when the bill is before the Senate for consideration. Agenda Item No. 5. 1985). ZMA-84-20. Keswick Country Club Land Trust (continued from May 15, Mr. Lindstrom said he will abstain from voting on this item for reasons previously stated. Mr. Donnelly noted that this petition was deferred from the Board meeting of May 15, 1985, in order that many questions of the Baord could be answered. He then presented an additional staff report dated June 19, 1985, as follows: "TO: FROM: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development ZMA-84-20 - Keswick - Additional Information The Board of Supervisors, at their meeting on May 15, 1985, deferred action on ZMA-84-20 Keswick PUD until additional information could be provided concerning specific questions and also to provide staff time for review and clarification of submitted proffers. Staff has met with the developer and the following represents his response and staff comment to the nine questions asked by the Board. June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 3) 385 What is the status of private roads in the PUD and the surroundin roads? Applicant: The private roads in the PUD are now maintained by a Homeowner's Association agreement recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County. The owners of the Lots in the PUD will be required to pay their share of the costs of maintaining those private roads with the appro- priate language being set forth in the Restrictions and Covenants for the Homeowner's Association. Staff Comment: Adjacent state roads and their status include: Route 22 - designated as having current and future road deficiencies in the Statewide Transportation Plan for Albemarle County; Route 744 from Route 731 to Route 22 - presently non-tolerable. Requires a gated crossing at the railroad; c. Route 731 from Route 744 to Route 250 - presently non-tolerable; d. Route 731 from Route 744 to Route 22 - presently non-tolerable; e. Route 616 from Route 22 to Interstate 64 - presently non-tolerable. 2. Who will own the water system? Applicant: The water system will be owned by the developer or by a separate corporation set up for the purpose of owning and operating the water system to meet the requirements propounded by the State Health Department, reserving the right to convey the system to an appropriate public agency at some future time. Staff Comment: The Albemarle County Service Authority in Attachment 91 has reconsidered their position in regard to the reduced number of lots presently proposed. At this time, with sixty-eight (68) lots proposed, the Albemarle County Service Authority has concluded that it is not economically feasible for the Service Authority to operate this central well. Further, the applicant is advised that should any significant expansion of the system be proposed in the future, the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors may recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the developer be prepared to dedicate the water system to the Service Authority along with an endowment (possibly $1,000 per connection). Will water be made available for hook-up to the public system? Applicant: The lines for the water system and all parts of the water system shall be constructed in accordance with the specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority or other public entity that is responsible for setting the standards for construction of the system including the sizing of the pipelines running through the system. 4. Will central wells draw down other private wells in the area? Applicant: It is the applicant's belief based on the professional engi- neering work already performed by Mr. Steve Werner and his company as set forth in his report received by the staff and Board of Supervisors, that the new wells will not draw down the existing wells of the adjoining landowners who have expressed their concern about this during the hearing process. Staff Comment: The applicant has further proffered that the existing wells shall be capped and not used for any purpose. Will there be-development of commercial property? If so what kind of development is expected? Applicant: The development of the commercial property is shown on the PUD as a three-acre tract and the clubhouse tract of 8.6 acres encompassing the commercial condominium for the clubhouse and the guest quarters. There are not specific business uses determined as of this time for the three-acre tract. 6. Will a ~ate be necessary on the railroad property? Applicant: The earlier traffic information given by Mr. Roudabush's firm indicates that a gate will not be necessary on the railroad property. Staff Comment: Staff has requested additional information from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation regarding the need for a gated crossing. As stated, the need for a gated crossing presently exits and any future traffic volumes will only increase the need for improvements. Will development result in overcrowdin~ of Stone Robinson School? Applicant: The Stone Robinson School is at the current time at capacity according to County officials, and our proposal is adding only a few students to the elementary age group. 386 June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 4) Staff Comment: The proposed development would result in the following additions to school enrollments: Existing Additional School Capacity Enrollment Students Stone Robinson 420 420 13 Burley 500 392 7 Albemarle High School 1900 1861 11 TOTAL 31 What is the status of cluster area (80 units on the 35 acr~ tract)? APPLICANT: The latest revision to the plan eliminates the cluster units and shows one unit on the 35 acre tract. Staff Comment: The applicant in the Proffer dated May 24, 1985 (Attachment ~2) has deleted the entire paragraph (1) of the May 13, 1985 proffer. Any additional units, other than the 69 currently proposed, would necessitate a rezoning. e Will the wells located on the ~olf course be used if 67 dwelling units are constructed? Applicant: The wells located on the golf course will not be used if the 67 dwelling units are constructed and will be capped and the sole source of water for the PUD dwelling units and clubhouse will be from the new wells exclusively located at the easternmost part of the PUD property. Addtional Staff Comment: The Keswick PUD is unique in the fact that it is attempting to expand upon an existing development which due to environmental limitations has not developed to its fullest potential. These environmental limitations deal with: (1) sufficient groundwater for domestic use and (2) soil limitations regarding drainfield operation. Under the present RA zoning, the applicant is allowed 63 lots by right. The development as proposed (68 lots) represents an increase of five lots or approximately eight percent. By-right development would in all probability result in individual wells and septic systems as opposed to a planned central water and sewer system. Additional individual wells may result in a negative impact on existing well systems. The impact on existing non-tolerable roads resulting from the traffic generated by the five additional lots would be minimal. Concerning the Comprehensive Plan's objective of directing growth to designated growth areas, the additional five lots would have a minimal negative impact in this regard. The gross density proposed by the development is one dwelling unit per 7.2 acres, well within the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation of one dwelling unit per 2.0 acres. In light of the project area's unsuitability for agricultural or forestal land use and the area's existing development potential by-right, staff is of the opinion the proposed area developed under the PUD concept would provide a planned approach to the area and thereby afford more protection than by-right development." "May 24, 1985 James R. Donnelly, Director Planning and Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 RE: ZMA-84-20 Keswick Country Club Land Trust Dear Mr. Donnelly: This letter modifies the earlier proffer letter of may 13, 1985 on the Keswick Country Club PUD ZMA-84-20. The applicants are deleting the entire paragraph (1) of the May 2, 984 proffer as the latest PUD plan filed with the County shows a total density of 68 units. The applicants proffer the following condition as a part of the rezoning petition which modifies paragraph (2) of the May 13, 1985 proffer: The applicants shall cap the existing wells (the three old wells located (a) behind cottages near tennis courts; (b) capped well near clubhouse; (c) near 17th green). These old existing wells shall not be used for any purpose. June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 5) 387 The applicants are deleting the final paragraph of the May 13, 1985 proffer letter in its entirety. Sincerely, (Signed) Edward H. Bain, Jr. Attorney for Applicants" Mr. Bowie asked whether Item 7 of the staff report regarding over-crowding of Stone Robinson School applies to the entire 68 lots. Mr. Donnelly said yes. Mr. Fisher said according to the "Additional Staff Comment", he understands that staff believes there might be some advantage to approving the PUD at the stated density provided it is not later expanded to a larger development. Mr. Donnelly said yes; staff recommends approval of 68 lots. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any limitation on the area designated for a cluster area to preclude its being developed in additional units. Mr. Donnelly said no; presently one additional dwelling is proposed. At a later date, the applicant has the right to request rezoning in order to increase the density. Mr. Fisher asked if the proffer clearly states that there is only one unit to be located on the entire 35-acre tract, or is that only shown on the drawing. Mr. Donnelly said the application plan, which is part of this rezoning request, shows only one additional lot. The application plan will become part of the rezoning file. Mr. Bowie asked if any citizen could request rezoning at any time, regardless of the outcome of this petition. Mr. Donnelly said that is correct. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing to the public for comments and said the Board would prefer to hear only new comments concerning this request. Mr. Edward Bain was present to represent the Keswick Country Club Land Trust. He said he has no additional information besides that in the staff's report. He said he is present along with the applicant and engineers to answer questions from the Board. Mrs. Cooke asked if the development were achieved by right, if separate wells and septic systems would be used rather than a central well and sewage treatment. Mr. Bain said yes; at this time that is the only way it could be done. Mr. William Orr was present. He said he lives across from the Keswick Club house. In reference to the proffer regarding the 35 acre parcel, (see minutes of May 15, 1985) Mr. Orr said he believes it would be naive to think that extended development will not be requested as originally intended at some time in the future. Mr. Orr said his major concern is the groundwater. He said he would rather risk having development by-right with sixty-three houses and people taking on their own individual wells and septic systems than opening the door to a PUD. The main theme of this issue is to change the zoning from rural to PUD, which may be the first of many rezonings. Mr. Orr referred to a letter he sent to Mr. Richard Burton, Executive Director of the State Water Control Board, stating that Carroll Creek, which runs through his property, goes dry at times. In response to his letter, Mr. Burton wrote that he received an application from Mr. Gilbert O'Neal (he assumes on the behalf of Mr. Curtis) which he considered to be incomplete. The developer needed to establish a fund to study the hydrologic aspects of Carroll Creek. Mr. Burton indicated the State Water Control is aware that the creek has no flow at times. The lower the flow of water, the more treatment will be required before emptying wastewater into the dry creek bed. Mr. Orr said according to Mr. Gene Potter, Operational Engineer of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, the treatment becomes more expensive as the flow lowers. Mr. Orr said if the developer can dedicate the sewerage treatment plant and central water system to the County, he will then unload the potential problems onto the County and the Service Authority. Mr. Orr said he and other Keswick residents opposing the PUD attended the public hearing in May. They have the support of the League of Women Voters and Citizens for Albemarle. He said they wonder how strong a case they must present against this issue. Mr. Orr said he realizes the concern of the Board is what is best for Albemarle County, but he hopes the Board will also consider how it will affect the residents in the immediate area of the PUD. Ms. Irma Jackson was next to speak. She said she was a member of the Keswick Country Club long ago and she feels it should not be allowed to deteriorate. Ms. Jackson said when she lived in the Pantops area, her well there was 500 feet deep. The water in her present home is gravity-fed from the mountains so she has well and no water problems. Ms. Jackson said if a well is deep enough, plenty of water will be found. She does not believe water is a problem in the proposed PUD area. Ms. Jackson said traffic has always been bad on Route 22. It is not a problem that can be blamed on any particular development. She said taxes generated from the PUD are needed by the County. She believes people who are new in the area are not conscious of the fact that the County needs the country club. She said an individual cannot be expected to invest money in the club only. The surrounding development is needed in order to realize a profit. Mrs. Janet Avrill was next to speak. She said that she and her husband purchased property in Albemarle in 1981 and 1982 on the assumption that the Comprehensive Plan would be followed and Keswick would remain rural and agricultural. She said she agrees that the PUD is the first step to changing Keswick into something very different. Mrs. Avrill said she would like to see the Board support the Comprehensive Plan it set forth, which was made 388 June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 6) available to her when she purchased property. She also said she has seen an increase in traffic on Route 22 since she has lived there. She is concerned that the change in zoning is not for four additional units, but rather to open the Keswick area to development that will increase traffic on substandard roads. Mr. Donald Kupke was next to speak. Mr. Kupke said he lives on the Keswick Country Club grounds and has a well that is 300 feet deep. When the club swimming pools were being filled this month, his well went dry. The club manager, Mr. Schmidt cut off the big well in order for Mr. Kupke to get some water back. Mr. Kupke said he has no problem with water at this time; but his water flow is only one-half to two-thirds of a gallon per minute with a 300 foot well. Next to speak was Mr. Gordon Wheeler. He said at the time the Master Plan was developed, the citizens of Keswick expressed their desires that they did not want Keswick to be a growth area. Mr. Wheeler said he is concerned that if this PUD is approved, there will be pressure to approve others. He said he feels that other areas in Keswick are better suited for a PUD than the land in question. Mr. Wheeler said he does not understand what is gained by capping a useful well. There is nothing to stop the developer from drilling other wells, so why not use the the wells that are already there. He said the Albemarle County Service Authority has indicated that it does want to-expand its service areas to include these water or sewer systems because there are not enough houses to make it economically feasible. Historically the developer will request to develop the thirty-five acres at some point in the future in order to make the system work. If the Board denies the request, the developer may walk away from the project leaving the responsibility to the County. Mr. Wheeler said it does not make sense to approve the PUD if it is not feasible. He said he does not understand why anyone would believe the PUD as presented tonight is all that will be requested. Mr. Wheeler said that is the reason the majority of the citizens in the Keswick area are asking the Board to deny this petition for a PUD. Ms. Nora Haynes was next to speak. Ms. Haynes said she lives in Cismont, approximately three miles from the Keswick Country Club. She described Route 22 as "a death trap" that has too much traffic and too many buses and tractor trailers. Ms. Haynes also said the water supply in the area is poor. She said her well went dry several years ago during a drought. She contacted a geologist at that time who told her one thin band of water could be found in that area if you drill deep enough. Ms. Haynes said she had to have two wells drilled before finding an adequate water supply. Ms. Haynes said there is not much water and the road has too much traffic. She said those are two good reasons not to have more growth in the area. Ms. Caroline Gammon, a resident and landowner in Keswick, was next to speak. She said the question tonight is why there should be a planned unit development in Keswick, not why there should not be. She said the opinions regarding this subject expressed at previous Board meetings by the people in the Keswick area should carry over to this meeting. Ms. Gammon said she told people they would not have to come to the meeting tonight, but they said they did not want to take a chance, they wanted to be here. They are sure the Board will do the right thing. There being no one else from the public who wished to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John made comments at an earlier meeting about central water and sewer systems in rural areas. He asked that those comments be repeated. Mr. St. John said he had given this subject a lot of thought at that time to apply that general thinking to this application, he would probably need to gather his thoughts. Mr. St. John said he is concerned, not specifically as applied to this development, but in general, about the concept of allowing privately owned, but public by nature, water and/or sewer systems to be estab- lished in the County. He said in his judgment you get the "worst of two worlds" by doing that. One of the traditional, and probably the most effective ways of controlling growth that the Board has is its final control over where public utilities are permitted because that is where growth goes. Where public utilities are operated or owned by the county government or a public authority appointed by the county government, it is answerable to and under the control of the public and is under the control of people who are appointed by this Board. If public utility companies are allowed to be established privately in the County, the Board no longer has that control over them. In Albemarle County where the main water source is impoundments and not groundwater, any sizeable public water company is required to be a part of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) and to be within its jurisdiction. Then it is feasible, if necessary, to connect it to the public impoundment. If not, then there is the concept of a private public utility using groundwater for its main and often only supply of water. Although there is nothing wrong with ground water (73 percent of water used in this country is groundwater), but it is an unknown entity. It is finite, but nobody knows where the finite line is until the water supply is depleted. That is not true with a surface impoundment where the water can be seen and measured. The Board does not deny the service authority from servicing a certain area because you don't want growth in the area, and then immediately allow a private utility to put in what amounts to a public water system. It defeats both purposes. You get the "worst of both worlds." There is more to this from the technical side which he will not discuss tonight. Mr. St. John said he thinks those are the thoughts he expressed to the Board some time ago when this general question was put to the staff. June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 7) 389 Mr. Bowie said when the subject of water arose in relation to the village of Earlys- ville, he found it difficult to support privately owned central water systems, particularly where public water might be needed some day. He said in the past ten or eleven months he has spent much time talking to people concerning this issue in Keswick and has heard some excellent arguments. Mr. Bowie said the Keswick area is beautiful; he lives there for that reason. In fact, there is no place in Albemarle County that is not beautiful. In reference to roads, there is no road in the County that is tolerable in the upper level of traffic. In his opinion, there are few roads in the whole secondary road system that are safe. There are no elementary schools in the County that are not at or near capacity. A study has been commissioned to try to help resolve these school problems. Concerning growth in Keswick, over the past six years, what was an easy trip along Route 250 and across "Free Bridge" is now a twenty-minute wait. The Keswick area is growing. Mr. Bowie said the study he mentioned will show that major growth has been in the east of Charlottesville. He said he believes a PUD is better than a hundred houses scattered around the County. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the five-lot addition (to the 63 lots allowed by-right). Mr. Bowie said that brings him to what he feels to be in the best interest of.the people in Albemarle County. He said he was elected by the people from a magisterial district, but he represents the whole County. There are two issues with this particular request - central water system and a central sewer system. He said from what he has been able to ascertain, no central sewer system is economical to run. Of the two systems, a central water system is the only one that is economically feasible. The ACSA staff says that it is not economical to establish a central water system for 68 houses, so it certainly is not economical to estab- lish a central sewer system for 68 houses. Mr. Bowie said he would have no objection to voting for the rezoning at some time in the future, but he does not want to vote on it when the Board is in a position where it has to approve it or take over the systems. He referred to Item 2 in the staff's report above which mentioned that the applicant reserves the right to dedicate the system, rather than the County deciding whether or not it will take the system. He said there appears to be no advantage to the County, in fact the Board would be placing the County at risk. Therefore, Mr. Bowie said he cannot support the request. Mrs. Cooke said she believes it was a source of concern to many people when she asked that the Board not make a decision on this request at the May 15 meeting. Many people may have misunderstood her reasoning, but the Board made a ruling some time ago that when new information is presented to the Board without giving the Board members and staff an oppor- tunity to review it, the Board would not review that new information until it had those staff comments in hand. It is the duty o the Board to base its decision on the facts before it. It would not have been in the best interest of the County, or Keswick in particular, to have made a decision at that time without knowing those facts in their entirety. Mrs. Cooke said a PUD would probably be in the best interest of the County as far as controlling growth in that area. She said water is a concern to her, not only in Keswick, but in all of Albemarle County. Mrs. Cooke said although the Board may or may not approve this request, she feels certain that development will take place in this area by the applicant. She said she hopes that the advise which as been given to the Board, and the position that she feels is in the best interest of the rest of the areas will not be a false assumption on her part. By the time all the septic systems are put in place and all the wells are drilIed, she hopes there will not be a problem. Mrs. Cooke said it is a gamble and one she is reluctant to take, but it is based on the information she has at hand. Mrs. Cooke said she will, reluctantly, not support the rezoning to PUD, and she hopes it will not be to the detriment of the citizens in the future. Mr. Fisher said the Keswick area was considered as a major growth area for the County during adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 1971. There were plans to put water and sewer lines to that area and people came to the Board by the hundreds in opposition to Keswick becoming a growth area. Mr. Fisher said all of the comprehensive planning was changed because of these ~equests. He feels that was a wise decision and he continues to support it. He said the area has road problems as do many other areas, but the water, and especially sewage problems, in and around Keswick, have come to his attention several times. The argument about preserving the Country Club would be valid if there were any clear connection between the approval of five additional housing units and the survival of Keswick Country Club. He does not see a clear connection. Mr. Fisher said his father had a life-time membership in the Keswick Country Club - twice. Mr. Fisher said he would like the club to be preserved, but he does not believe this application has anything to do with that. Mr. Fisher said this application could be like the "camel's nose". The camel is a large and ugly beast who comes to a tent at night and puts his nose under it. The nose does not seem so bad, it is only when the rest of him comes into the tent that you have a problem. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that this application for five addition units, central water, and perhaps a central sewerage system is indeed the "camel's nose", and we might not like the rest of him if we saw him. He said he will not support the application. Mr. Bowie said if there was any indication that 68 houses could economically support a water system with no additional growth he would consider supporting this application. However, the latest report indicates that there is not enough money tO establish a water system and it would not be economically feasible without more than 68 houses. Mr. Bowie then made a motion that ZMA-84-20 be denied. which carried by the following recorded vote: Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion AYES: Mr. Bo~ie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. At 8:22 p.m., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 8:31 p.m. 380 June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 8) Agenda Item No. 6. Request from Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors concerning the support of the Textile and Apparel Trade Enforcement Act of 1985. This matter was occasioned by the following letter dated June 10, 1985, addressed to Mr. Agnor: "Re: Textile and Apparel Trade Enforcement Act of 1985 This is to request that the Board of Supervisors of your County support the resolution of the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors concerning the support of the Textile and Apparel Trade Enforcement Act of 1985. This is a most important and valuable document as it is designed to try to protect the down trend of jobs in the textile and apparel industry of the United States. It is designed specifically to place a heavier burden and restriction on foreign imports and foreign trade in the use of foreign products in the assembly of apparel in the United States which will allow the existing apparel industries and textile industries to improve their economic status and thereby approving local economies of which we have the most interest. If you have any questions concerning the Textile and Apparel Trade Enforce- ment Act of 1985, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Sincerely, (Signed) William D. Sleeper County Administrator" Mr. Lindstrom said he does not feel that he can support a matter that is as far-reaching in its implications as this Act. Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. He said he has not seen the Act and he seldom supports anything that he does not understand. He does not believe the County has a large textile trade. For these reasons Mr. Bowie said he will not support the request. There being no motion to act on the matter, Mr. Fisher continued the meeting with the next agenda item. Agenda Item No. 7. Appropriation: McIntire Trust Fund. This matter was occasioned by the following memorandum dated June 13, 1985, from Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance: "SUBJECT: McIntire Trust Fund Revenues from the McIntire Trust Fund have exceeded the budget estimates and in order to disburse this money to the various County Schools as provided by the terms of the Trust an additional appropriation will be required. Revenues to date have been $5,341,47 and based on information from David Papenfuse we will be receiving an additional $600 to $1,000 is June 1985. I respectfully request an additional appropriation of $1,500 for the McIntire Trust to be funded from the excess revenues. This will change the appropriation from $5,000 to $6,500." Mr. Lindstrom made a motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors fo Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,500.00 be, and the same hereby is, hereby appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund and coded to 1-8000-63080-541200 entitled McIntire Trust Fund; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1984-85 County budget is hereby amended by the addition of $1,500.00 to Code 2-8000- 15000-150102 entitled Interest on Investments McIntire Trust Fund; and FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8a. Appointment: a) Agricultural/Forestal District Committee. Mr. Henley recommended Mrs. Winston (Joan H.) Jones to serve on the Agricultural/ FOrestal District committee. She and her husband own beef cattle. Mr. Lindstrom seconded Mr. Henley's nomination which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 8b. Appointments - Other. June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 9) 391 Mrs. Cooke said she and Mr. Fisher interviewed selected applicants for several boards and commissions on June 25, 1985. As a result of those interviews, she would like to make the following nominations: Reappointment of Dr. Richard W. Lindsay, to the Jefferson Area Board for Aging for a term to expire on March 31, 1987; Nathaniel Brown for Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT Board of Directors) for a term to expire on September 30, 1988; appointment of Mr. Burton M. Webb to the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation with a term to expire on June 26, 1986; and Mr. Dallas R. Crowe to the Airport Commission for a term to expire on December 1, 1987. Mrs. Cooke urged Board members to make comments concerning these nominations or give names of anyone else they would like to nominate. Mr. Way seconded the nominations for appointment. Mr. Bowie mentioned that one of his constituents contacted him regarding appointment to the Airport Commission, however he did not go through the process. Mr. Bowie said Mr. Crowe has excellent credentials, therefore he supports the nominations. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: February 20 (afternoon) and March 20, 1985. Mr. Henley said he had read February 20 (afternoon) and March 20, 1985, and found them to be in order. He made a motion to approve the minutes, seconded by Mr. Bowie, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES': NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9a. Telephone Rate Negotiations - C&P Telephone Company. Mr. Agnor referred to the following memorandum from Mr. Dick Hall-Sizemore, Executive Director of the Virginia Association of Counties, dated June 14, 1985: "The Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League have sponsored a joint steering committee to oversee the negotiation of telephone rates for local governments in Virginia. This activity is very similar to the steering committee which has successfully negotiated lower electric rates over the past eleven years. At the last session of the General Assembly, the legislature passed a bill which placed local governments under the jurisdiction of the State Corpora- tion Commission in regard to telephone rates. The bill, however, did contain a provision allowing the SCC to establish local governments as a separate class of customer, with a rate structure different than those of residential or business customers. It is the provision that the joint steering committee is now focusing on. There are studies which can be used to show that the type of telephone service provided to local governments is different from that provided to businesses, and, thus, should be priced differently. The steering committee wishes to develop these studies and prepare a case for presentation to the SCC for the establishment of local governments as a separate class. This case must be presented soon, because the law placing us under SCC jurisdic- tion is effective July 1. The steering committee has retained counsel and a consultant, subject to obtaining the necessary financial support from local governments. Accord- ingly, all local governments are requested to contribute three cents per capita to fund this effort. I want to emphasize that this first step of attempting to establish a separate class will affect all counties, whether they are served by C&P, Continental, or any of the other telephone companies in operation. If this effort is unsuccessful, we will continue to have to pay business rates and we would have very little influence over the deter- mination of those rates by the SCC. The steering committee members, based on informal conversations with SCC members and staff, feel that local governments have a very good change at succeeding in this effort. But we need to put on a strong case and to do that, quite frankly, we need financial assistance from all local governments. An invoice, showing the assessment for your county, is enclosed." Mr. Agnor said the invoice referenced in Mr. Hall-Sizemore's memorandum is in the amount of $1,746.00. He said there are funds remaining the Board's 1984-85 budget that can be used to fund the invoice if the Board so approves it. Mr. Fisher said this is a process that the County has supported over the years for negotiations with VEPCO, Appalachian Power, the telephone company, and others. He said the County is requested to contribute periodically and he believes the efforts to negotiate have been successful. 392. June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 10) Mr. Agnor said he agrees that it has been successful. The special rates granted from the power companies to the localities are significantly different from commercial rates. Negotiation requires a united effort by local governments. That is one reason VACO and the Virginia Municipal League joined together in negotiations. He recommended the approval of participation in the program and payment of the requested funding. Mr. Bowie asked how much the County will gain or lose on its telephone bill. Mr. Agnor said it is difficult to estimate because negotiations have not begun. County telephone expenditures are approximately $100,000 per year. He said he believes they are based on a commercial rate but does not know what savings might be generated by a special rate. Mr. Bowie made a motion to participate in the preparation of a case to be presented to the SCC for the establishment of local governments as a separate telephone rate class and to authorize the expenditure of $1,736.00 for this purpose. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley (Mr. Henley prefaced his vote by saying he is not sure the County is helping itself by getting a special rate) Lindstrom and Way. ' None. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Bowie referenced a letter forwarded to him by Senator John W. Warner from Mr. Steven Beatty, Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which states that the County's request for 240 units of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation housing is being reviewed, and the Board will be notified as soon as a decision is made. Mr. Bowie again referred to Item 4.3 on the Consent Agenda. Ending June 30, 1985 - Albemarle County School System. Financial Report for Year The following memorandum to the Board of Supervisors from Mr. Agnor dated June 21 1985 summarized the Financial Report: ' ' "Forwarded herewith for your information is the School System's projected year-end fiscal status as reported to the School Board. It has been reviewed and discussed with Mr. Papenfuse, and is summarized as follows: Revenues are projected to exceed original projections by $133,361. You will recall school revenues were revised in April by $111,836, and the attached year-end projections indicate an additional $21,525 over those April revisions. The increases are derived mostly from recovered costs from the State, calculated on the teacher salary increase, and from sales tax revenues. Expenditures are projected to be $15,221 less than revised appropriations, which assumes that all cost centers will spend 100 percent of their budget. Mr. Papenfuse indicates that this is 'a worst case scenario', and the cost centers will not spend all of their funds. Therefore, there should be more than the $15,221 in unexpended appropriations, but there is no estimate of that amount. The managers of those cost center funds are not being encour- aged to spend the funds just because they are available, but to spend only those funds needed for this year's operations. The April revised revenues (+$111,836) were appropriated for use in funding the additional teaching positions which was reported to you last fall (cost of $267,618). The year-end projected revenue (+$21,525) in excess of budgeted amounts is not being requested for expenditure needs. The combination of $15,221 in unexpended appropriations and the $21,525 of excess revenues provides a projected carry over balance of $36,746. Assuming cost center managers will not spend their total allocations, and no unforeseen emergencies occur, the carry over balance should be greater than the $36,746 projected. There is, however an unfunded liability of $94,189 which is comprised of $79,071 in unused vacation of twelve month teachers which the School Board authorized for payment last summer, and $15,118 for retirement system payments for three school employees that were never listed in the retirement system. Neither of these costs will be repeated in future years because of corrective action taken by the School Board, but are dependent for payment upon the $36,746 projected carry over balance plus unexpended appropriations in cost centers. Mr. Papenfuse anticipates this unfunded liability to be paid from unexpended appropriations, but he is unable to assure that. Until that is known, which will not be until after June 30, it is more accurate to say the School System could end the year with a $57,443 shortfall, the 'worst case scenario', calculated by applying the $36,746 balance towards the known liability of $94,189, leaving an unfunded liability of $57,443. This is the second year of cost center accounting and management. Each year of its use will provide more reliable data upon which to make projections. Presently, Mr. Papenfuse is operating with one year of historical data, which makes him reluctant to project cost center total expenditures. Some June 26, 1985 (Adjourned from June 19, 1985) (Page 11) 39,,.3 concern has recently been expressed to this office concerning the volume of purchases being made at the end of the school year, when a known unfunded liability exists, and when the school year is ending. The surge of purchases has occurred by deferring 10 percent of the cost center purchases early in this school year until it was determined that revenues would meet budget estimates. That determination was made in April, and the purchases released for this fiscal year's expenditures. Additionally, once the FY 85-86 budget was approved in April, purchase requisitions were prepared and purchase orders written for goods and supplies with long lead times for delivery that are needed for the opening of school in August. Those purchase orders are being designated and charged to the FY 85-86 budget where they belong, with deliveries scheduled after July 1, 1985. In discussing this report with Mr. Papenfuse, I indicated to him that the purchase in April of two automobiles for the administrative staff from funds appropriated for Business and Administrative office expenses was the only purchase, to my knowledge, that seemed to be inappropriate in light of the possibility of ending the year with an unfunded liability, which must be paid. The vehicles replace two used police cars and were needed, but had not been budgeted this year, or next year. When something is needed, making a decision to purchase from unexpended funds is appropriate with School Board approval, but the decision should be based upon the knowledge that those unexpended funds are not needed for some previously approved unfunded liability. Now the payment of the unfunded liability is partially dependent upon a cost center manager's expenditure decisions, and not the administra- tion's decisions. If those cost center expenditure decisions do not provide the funds for the liability, then the School Board will have to request the funds from the Board of Supervisors. If that happens, the purchase of two unbudgeted vehicles will not have caused the situation, it will have contri- buted towards it. That to me, will be the 'worst case scenario'. Hope- fully, it will not happen." Mr. Bowie said he asked that this item be deferred for discussion. He feels the cover memo from the Executive Staff is excellent. He had expressed concern because he had received information about the Schools expending this year's money for next year and that information was not correct. He pointed out that the $178,000 reserve was released by the School admin- istration at the end of April to be spent by the various cost centers. Two vehicles were purchased (there is a memorandum in tonight's packet addressing that)~without any approval from the School Board and they were not budgeted. Mr. Bowie said there is no denying that they were, needed, but they were bought on an administrative decision; approximately $20,000. Then it is found out that three school employees who apparently are going to retire, had never had deposits made in their name to the retirement system to cover. Also, last year the Board of Supervisors approved an accounting exchange that shifted money from one fiscal year to the next and despite waiting twelve months and the release of $178,000, these items were not taken care of. He said 'the worst case scenario' is that this could leave the school budget in the red, even though no one thinks it will happen, and just two months ago, there was more than enough money to cover every emergency that could have occurred, with some money being returned. After going through the entire school year without spending the $178,000, and then spending $300,000 of next year's money already, there is no excuse, no need to spend the $178,000 except for next year. Mr. Bowie said he has discussed this matter with his School Board appointee and he asks for no action except that he wants it in the record that this shows poor financial management. He said he hopes the new school administration and the School Board will not consider the budget a maximum amount that they must spend, but will consider it a target that cannot be exceeded and will try to save some money instead of spending it all in the month of May. Mr. Lindstrom asked when the next installment of the consultants report (KDA) for the School Facilities Committee is due. Mr. Agnor said it is due at the end of this week. It is planned to be cycled through the Committee in time for the Board's work session on the Capital Improvement Program on July 10, 1985. At 9:23 p.m., Mr. Lindstrom made a motion for the Board to adjourn into an Executive Session regarding legal matters re: litigation - Greenwood Chemical Company. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: Before roll was called Mr. Fisher announced that the regular meeting for the Board of Supervisors on July 3 has been cancelled and the Board will meet next at its regular day meeting on July 10. AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. 9:50 p.m. Adjourn. The Board reconvened and immediately adjourned at Chairman 394