Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-11-07N~ember 7~ !98~ (Resular N~ht M~e,ting) Item No 4.4. Memo from Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, dated November 2, 1984, ~g 1984 tax levies, as follows: "The 1984 tax bills were mailed on October 30, 1984. This mailing included a total of 49,603 bills which were mailed to approx.imately 31,000 individuals or businesses. (The Board has received) schedules and graphs showing 1984 actual tax levies, a comparison of budgeted revenues from local taxes to revised estimates which are based on the actual levies, and comparisons of the 1984 tax levies to prior years.) These schedules point out that the total 1984 local tax levies from all assess- ment types is $18,790,380 and when compared to 1983 represents a 2.72 percent increase. These schedules also show that revised estimates of local tax revenues exceed budget estimates by a very small amount of $12,778. This year, for the first time, the Finance Department has addressed older model vehicles (1967-76) from a car guide published by the National Automobile Dealer's Association which has resulted in some significant increases in assessed values on individual vehicles when compared to prior year assessments. Complaints have been received from a number of taxpayers, however, I feel that our current assessment method is much more equitable than that of prior years. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions you have con- cerning the 1984 tax bills." Mr. Bowie said the County is only anticipating getting 97 percent of the tax levy in its ollections, if he read the report correctly. Mr. Fisher said the collections shown on the ~ :~ hart given to the Board are current-year collections only. More of the assessment is collected ~he years pass. Rarely, however, is all of the money collected in the year it was assessed. · Jones said prior year collections are budgeted each ya~r.~T The County's percentage o~ collec~ ion has moved up over the past several years and is relatively~high. Item No. 4.5. Request from Fauquier County Board of Supervisors concerning proposed ~egislation on the Agricultural Forestal Districts. "October 31, 1984 Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Dear Guy: A recent Attorney General's opinion has interpreted the Agricultural and Forestal District law contrary to what Fauquier County thoUght it to be when over 81,000 acres were placed in districts. According to the opinion, a landowner could be forced to stay in a district for the life- time of the owner if the Supervisors continue the district without modification after each formal reviewW ~e feel the future of Ag and Forestal Districts is threatened under the Attorney General's interpretation. Very few landowners would be willing to take the risk of what could be a lifetime restriction on their property. Enclosed is a proposed amendment which is intended to allow landowners to withdraw from a district whenever the governing body undertakes its formal review. Ail of our districts were established for an eight year review period. We have asked our representatives to introduce and support the legislation. Similar requests to your representatives would be beneficial. Please notify me of your Board's position on this matter. cooperation. Thank you for your Sincerely, (SIaNED) Steve Crosby County Administrator" (Note: No discussion was held concerning this r~Guest and no action was taken.) AEeada~It~n,N ~roval for: ZTA-84-03. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require special use permit a) Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade in 17.0 Ri0, Residential; 18.0 R-15, Residential; 19.0 PRD, Planned Residential Development; 20~2 PUD, Planned Unit Development; 22.0 C-l, Commercial; 23.0 CO, Commercial Office; 24.0 HC, Highway Commercial; 25.0 PD-SC, Planned Development - Shopping Center; 27.0 LI~, Light Indus- trial; and 28.0 HI, Heavy Industrial zoning districts; N~ember 7__~198~ (Regular N~htM~e~) Item No. 4.4. Memo from Melvin Breeden; Director of Finance, dated November 2, 1984, ~oncerning 1984 tax levies, as follows: "The 1984 tax bills were mailed on October 30, 1984. This mailing included a total of 49,603 bills which were mailed to approximately 31,000 individuals or businesses. (The Board has received) schedules and graphs showing 1984 actual tax levies, a comparison of budgeted revenues from local taxes to revised estimates which are based on the actual levies, and comparisons of the 1984 tax levies to prior years.) These schedules point out that the total 1984 local tax levies from all assess- ment types is $18,790,380 and when compared to 1983 represents a 2.72 percent increase. These schedules also .show that revised estimates of local tax revenues exceed budget estimates by a very small amount of $12,778. This year, for the first time, the Finance Department has addressed older model vehicles (1967-76) from a car guide published by the National Automobile Dealer's Association which has resulted in some significant increases in assessed values on individual vehicles when compared to prior year assessments. Complaints have been received from a number of taxpayers, however, I feel that our current assessment method is much more equitable than that of prior years. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions you have con- cerning the 1984 tax bills" Mr. Bowie said the County is only anticipating getting 97 percent of the tax levy in its ~ ollections, if he read the report correctly. Mr. Fisher said the collections shown on the ~. ~ hart given to the Board are current-year collections only. More of the assessment is collected ~s the years pass. Rarely, however, is all of the money collected in the year it was assessed. ~r. Jones said prior year collections are budgeted each y~r.T The County's percentage of collec ~ion has moved up over the past several years and is relatively~high. Item No. 4.5. Request from Fauquier County Board of Supervisors concerning proposed ~egislation on the Agricultural Forestal Districts. "October 31, 1984 Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. County Executive 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 Dear Guy: A recent Attorney General's opinion has interpreted the Agricultural and Forestal District law contrary to what Fauquier County thought it to be when over 81,000 acres were placed in districts. According to the opinion, a landowner could be forced to stay in a district for the life- time of the owner if the Supervisors continue the district without modification after each formal review~ ~e feel the future of Ag and Forestal Districts is threatened under the Attorney General's interpretation. Very few landowners would be willing to take the risk of what could be a lifetime restriction on their property. Enclosed is a proposed amendment which is intended to allow landowners to withdraw from a district whenever the governing body undertakes its formal review. Ail of our districts were established for an eight year review period. We have asked our representatives to introduce and support the legislation. Similar requests to your representatives would be beneficial. Please notify me of your Board's position on this matter. cooperation. Thank you for your Sincerely, (S~) Steve Crosby County Administrator" (Note: No discussion was held concerning this r~uest and no action was taken.) ,~ A~mda~It~m~No. 5. ~pproval for: ZTA-84-03. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require special use permit a) Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade in 17.0 Ri0, Residential; 1U.0 R-15, Residential; 19.0 PRD, Planned Residential Development; 20.2 PUD, Planned Unit Development; 22.0 C-i, Commercial; 23.0 CO, Commercial Office; 24.0 HC, Highway Commercial; 25.0 PD-SC, Planned Development - Shopping Center; 27.0 LI., Light Indus- trial; and 28.0 HI, Heavy Industrial zoning districts; Z 519 November 7, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drivein windows in 22.0 C1, Commercial; ~$~Q, CO, Commercial Office; 24.0 HC, Highway Commercial; and 25.0 PD-SC, P. lanned Development - Shopping Center zoning districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 1984.) Mr. Donnelly presented the staff report: ~STAFF COMMENT: Drive-in Windows: From a transportation viewpoint, not every commercial property is suited to drive-in window uses (i.e., fast food restaurants, banks, remote teller machines). With a dwindling number of prime sites, this problem will become more pronounced. Such uses employ counter clockwise flow, meaning that the entrance to the site should be on the right-hand side of the property, which may be contrary to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommendation and public safety concerns. The County has more discretion to deal with this issue through special use permit (legislative act) than though the site plan process (ministerial act). Parking Garage Structure: May be wholly inappropriate to the area in which it is located. In addition to aesthetic concerns, noise, headlights, trash and litter may become problems. Loitering and vandalism are proven problems at the municipal garage at the Downtown Mall. RECOMMENDED AMENDMENTS: a. Amend 4.10.3.4 as follows: ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS - Except as permitted by the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1, no accessory building in a residential district shall exceed a height of twenty-four (24) feet. In no case shall a parking structure, other than a parking lot or garage located entirely at and/or below grade, be deemed to be accessory to any use in any resi- dential district. Add to R-10, R-15, PRD, PUD, C-i, CO, HC, PD-SC as follows: XX.2.2.X. Parking structures located wholly or partly above srade. c.~ Amend 21.2 as follows: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES - Uses and structures which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental shall be permitted, provided establishment of the same shall not be permitted until construction has commenced on the principal building or the principa~ use has been estab- lished; and provided further tha~ in no case shall a parking structure,~ other than a parking lot or garage located entirely at and/or below grade, b'e deemed to be accessory to any use in any commercial district. ZIn no case Shall a drive-in window be deemed to be accessory to any use in any commerical district.~ d. Amend 26.3 as follows: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES - Uses and structures which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental shall be permitted, provided establishment of the same shall not be permitted until construction has commenced on the principal building or the principal use has been estab- lished; and provided further that in no case shall a parking structure, other than a parking lot or garage located entirely at and/or below grade b'e deemed to be accessory to any use in any industrial district. In no ''c'~s'e''sh~I~ a driVe-in Window be 'dee~e'd to be accessory to any use in any commercial district. e. Add definition as follows: 3.0 Drive-in Window: A facility designed to provide access to commercial ' p'rOd'u'c'ts and/or services for customers remaining in their automobiles. f. Add to C-i, CO, HC and PD-SC as follows: XX.2.2.X Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission at its meeting on OCtober 9, 1984, unanimously ecommended approval of the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance set out above. Mr. Fisher asked if the staff is trying to prohibit parking garages or parking on rooftops. ~r. Donnelly said the intent is to prohibit multi-story parking structures and anything that is ~ot, in fact, a parking lot-type facility, by right. This way, such structures would have to ~ome before the Planning Commission for review. Mr. Fisher asked if there had been a problem ~nd Mr. Donnelly said a parking garage had been proposed for an apartment complex on Hydraulic (oad. The only thing that kept it from being built was that~ the site plan-placed it' across a ~tility easement and that triggered a Planning Commission review. Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing. ~gainst the petition, the hearing was closed. There being no one present to speak for or November .$, 1984.(R~gular N~ght Meei~ting) Mr. Lindstrom made motion to approve ZTA-84-03 as recommended by the Planning Commission, by adopting the following ordinance. Upon a second by Mr. Henley, roll was called and the carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle CoUnty Zoning Ordinance is amended and reenacted as follows: Section 3.0 is amended by adding the following definition: Drive-in Window: A facility designed to provide access to commercial products and/or services for customers remaining in their automobiles. Section ~4.10.3,4 is amended to read as follows: ACCESSORY BUILDINGS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS - Except as permitted by the provisions of section 4.10.3.1, no accessory building in a residential district shall exceed a height of twenty- four (24) feet. In no case shall a parking structure, other ~han a parking lot or garage located entirely at and/or below grade level, be deemed to be accessory to any use in any residential district. Section 21.2 is amended to read as follows: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES - Uses and structures which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental shall be permitted, provided establishment of the same shall not be permitted until coNStruction has commenced on the principal building or the principal use has been established; and provided further that in no case shall a parking structure, other than a parking lot or garage located entirely at and/or below grade, be deemed to be accessory to any use in any commercial district. In no case shall a drive-in window be deemed to be accessory to any use in any Commercial district. ~ Section 26.3 is amended to read as follows: PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES - Uses and structures which are customarily accessory.and clearly incidental shall be permitted, provided establishment of the same shall not be permitted until construction h~s commenced on the principal building or the principal Use has been established; and provided further that in no case shall a parking structure, other than a parking lot or garage located entirely at and/or below grade, be deemed to be accessory to any use in any industrial district. In no case shall a drive-in window be deemed to be accessory to any use in any industrial district. Section 17.2.2.16 is added to the R-10, Residential District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade." Section 18.2.2.16 is added to the R-15, Residential District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade." ~ Section 19.3.2.7 is added to the PRD, Planned Residential District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade." Section 20.3.2.7 is added to the PUD, Planned Unit Development, as a use by· special use permit, reading, "Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade." Section 22.2.2.9 is added to the C-i, Commercial District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade." Section 23.2.2.4 is added to the CO, Commercial District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Parking structures located wholly-or partly above grade." Section 24.2.2.12 is added to the HC, HighwaY Commercial District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade." · ~ Section 25.2.2.3 is added to the PD-SC, Planned Development - Shopping Center District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade." Section 22.2.2.10 is added to the C-i, Commercial District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows." Section 23.2.2.5 is added to the CO, Commercial District, as a use by special use permit, reading "Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows." SectiOn 24.2.2.13 is added to the HC, Highway Commercial District, as a use by · ~ special use permit reading "Commercial uses Otherwise permitted having drive-±n~ windows '" Section 25.2.2,4 is added to the. PD-SC, Planned Development_ Shopping Center District, as a us~ by special use permit reading "Commercial uses otherwise per~ ~tted having drive-in windows." ' ~ ~ Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-84-04. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to delete all density factors except for density increase for dedication of land to public uses, from .0 VR, Village Residential; 13.0 R-I, Residential; 14.0 R-2, Residential; 15.0 R-4, Residenti 0 R-6, Residential 17.0 R-10, Residential; and 18.0 R-15, Residential zoning districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 24 and October 1, 1984.) 521 M~¥~mber 7~ 1984 (~gular Night Meeting Mr. Donnally told the Board that this item has been deferred indefinitely by the Planning ommission, therefore no action can be taken at this time. He said the Commission is still eviewing comments it has received from the public. This petition will be readvertised at the ~ppropriate time. Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion of the development of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to require a Special Use permit for certain industr~ia~ uses not served by public water and/or sewer systems. Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: "1. Recently, the Board requested that staff develop zoning amendments to require a Special Use Permit for industrial uses'not served by public water and/or sewer systems. This matter has been discussed with Bill Norris, Fred Payne and Michael Tompkins and consensus was that, rather than attemp- ting to evaluate specific uses, a general approach would be more appropriate. Proposed amendments are as follows: Amend uses permitted by Special Use Permit in the LI, Light Indus- trial and HI, Heavy Industrial DistriCtS ~o include: HX.2.2.X Uses~permit~ed~by right, not served by public water and/or ~bli~¥se~er$a~n~lving water consumption exceeding ten thousand (10,000) gallons per day and/or involving anticipated discharge of sewerage other than domestic wastes. Basis for, and observations about, these proposed amendments are offered: Ae The 10;000 gallon figure concerning water consumption is related to State regulation and less directly to ComPrehensive Plan recommendations. ? Specifically withdrawal of surface water of !0,000 gallons or more per day is monitored by the State Waterl Control Board. Further, the Com- prehensive Plan recommends a rural residential scale of development not exceeding twenty (20) dwelling units. (Assuming ten, four-bedroom structures, daily water demand would be approximately 12,000 gallons); and, The amendments would address any amount of industrial sewage discharge~. Uses involving substantial domestic wastes would be controlled by the d~ily'~water consumption limit." Mr. Lindstrom asked about the reference to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Donnelly said it ~ ~elates to the scale of development in an RA, rural areas, district,i.e., that which prohibits greater density than 2 acres per dwelling unit, in terms of the water usage those units might ~ave. Mr. Way said it appears that unless public utilities are available, there will be ~bsolutely no industrial development, except by special use permit. Mr. Fisher said that was act what he understood. He felt an industry could locate in an area with one utility or the ~ther, so long as water consumption is low. Mr. Tucker said there could be a single public ~tility (water) without the other, and Mr. Donnel!y said that any sewage discharge other than ~omestic waste would require a public sewer line anyway. Mr. Fisher said this was difficult to ~nderstand and perhaps some other way could be developed to say the same thing. Mr. St. John said the staff will work on the ~anguage problems if the Board approves the ~oncept, and adopts a resolution of intent to refer same to the Planning Commission. He said ~here is a problem when a use is listed as an unqualified right in one section of the Zoning Drdinance and that same use requires a special permit in another section. He said the Board should not try to define the final language of the amendment tonight. Mr. Donnelly said the staff has discussed the problem and decided it would be impossible zo define how much water every type of industry in a district would use, so a general approach as necessary. Mr. St. John said some qualifying ~anguage is needed. Mr. Fisher said the general concept of the amendment is to require a special use permit or any industry that uses more than 10,000 gallon~ of water per day, or discharges anything ~ther than domestic wastes. He said the and/or clause is confusing. Mr. St. John said the ~nd/or would be.eliminated, but he did not know whether it would be "and" or "or". Mr. Lindstrom ~aid he could support the phrase "not served by public water and sewer" and "exceeding 10,000 ~allons per day or involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes." He ~ould not support the and/or statement. After a general discussion of the two changes, Mr. ?isher said he would like to see a redraft· of the ~mendment, since he supports the concept. ~r. Lindstrom said it needs to be made clear that a lack of either public water or public sewer ~ould mean the industry would need a special use permit. Mr, Lindstrom asked if the other ~oard members agreed with the 10,000 gallon figure and was told by Mr. Donnelly that it is the aost reasonable estimate the staff can agree upon. Mr. Henley said he did not think the amount ~f water made much difference if the industry will need public sewerage disposal. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to adopt a resoultion of intent with wording along the lines of ~he staff proposal, but said he is uneasy with the 10,000 gallon figure. Mr'. Bowie said he did not understand the amendment when he-read it. Now that it has been .iscussed, he understands ~t even-less. Under those circumstances, he was unwilling to vote for .t. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the motion was ~lear, a special use permit would be required ~or industrial use on a si~e without public water or sewer and discharging wastes other than [omestic. He said he was Willing to accept the 10,000 gallons of daily water use for now, but ~ould feel better with 5,000 gallons. At this time Mr. Henley seconded the motion to adopt the resolution. the motion carried by the following vote: Roll was called and AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance provisions concernin accessory uses and private golf courses. Mr. Donnelly said that in response to the Board's request to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance With respect to accessory use and special use provisions regarding private golf courses, he had asked Mr. Fred Payne for an opinion on the matter. He said the staff and Mr. Payne feel that the existing language in the ordinance is sufficient for now. In a letter to Mr. Donnelly, dated October 15, 1984, Mr. Payne stated his feeling that any attempt to redefine the ordinance to specifically prohibit the construction of golf courses and other accessory uses that may cause the County problems would be too cumbersome to undertake and that the uses that might be permitted under such an amendment would be too numerous to list. In his opinion, the only practical way to limit the term would be to specify the uses, structures, etc, which are not to be construed accessory, either generally or in particular districts. Mr. Bowie said he does not think Mr. Payne's-answer responds to the question, which is how to deal with accessory uses such as the private golf course under construction at Ivy Creek. He said the golf course is not the problem; accessory use is. The~rm needs ~oib~defi~ He said that a simple accessory use should be what is customarily done in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not see where there would be a problem in defining an accessory use as what is customarily done in Albemarle County. The ordinance needs to be refined in some way. Mr. Bowie said the Board may find that it cannot improve the ordinance, but he feels no ~. one has even tri~d to improve it. Mr. St. John said he had spoken with Mr. Payne and said he does not feel the intent of the letter is to to urge tha~ no &a~vhe taken, but to point out the pitfalls in too-much defining of the ordinance. He said that if the Board refined the ordinance to state what is customary in Albemarle County, it would find itself in a situation similar to the obscenity trials, where definitions could be argued. The County should not deviate from the corpus juris. He said the County can build up a body of law in the courts on customary uses in Albemarle County, but it would be opening the door to more ambiguity than is already there. Mr. Bowie said, that in light of the community standards guideline, it becomes an insoluble problem. There is another private golf course in Albemarle County, he said, so the point could be argued that the use is customary. Mr. St. John said the Zoning Administrator's best attempt under the definition the Board nas proposed, is no more apt to be correct or in accord with what the Board might deem to be its definition than the best attempt he can make under the existing definition. Mr. St. John said that he would be willing to draft alternative language fGr the ordinance defining the customary use in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said if he were the zoning administrator, he Nould have a hard time deciding that heliports and golf courses were incidental uses in Albe- narle County. He feels that the language further defines what the Board intends. Mr. Fisher said he was beginning to agree with the lawyers on this proposed amendment. ~r. St. John offered to draft new language, but Mr. Lindstrom said it would not be worthw~ilef if he was the only Board member who wants further definition. CMr. Fisher said it seemed to him that the best thing to do would be to define use~ that should be allowed only by special permit, ince no one knows what strange things may be requested in the future as accessory uses. Mr. Bt. John said nouo~dinance would nail down absolutely all the uses that should be permitted only Dy special use permit. Mr. Lindstrom said it would be simpler to use the "customarily inci- dental'' statement and let the zoning administrator use his discretion. He said he felt that ~ use of which there were only one or two in the County would leave little doubt that it is not ~ustomarily incidental. The permitted uses should be defined solely by what is in Albemarle County and that should be specified in the ordinance. Mr. Bowie said there are many things that are customary in other communities but not in Albemarle County, such as television dish antennas, and it seems that the new phrase in the ordinance would make room for even more interpretive decisions than the County has now. Mr. Lindstrom said he foresaw the ordinance )rotecting the county's citizens from inappropriate uses. Mr. Tucker asked Mr. Fisher if it would help if the staff redrafted the language, but also tried to specify certain uses as "objectionable." Mr. Fisher said that is what he had expected this time. Mr. St. John said a ~a~b~d~na~e~use" is currently defined in ~he Zoning Ordinance as ~ne that is "customarily incidental to and located upon the same lot occupied by the main building." Mr. Fisher said the Board should wait for an alternate amendment from the staff. Mr. 5indstrom suggested the staff try to define the ordinance on a performance standard basis. Mr. 5enley said he liked things the way they are now. Mr. Bowie said he feels the Board ~ly~ants~ to take protective steps, but does not want to impinge on the citizens' rights to use their property. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board, by consensus, ask the staff for a list of specif ~ses that might have some impact on the community. Mr. Donnelly said that in tha RA, Rural ~reas ~a~¢t~ ~g~lf~urse is considered under special permit only. Mr. Fisher asked that ~he staff develop an alternative. 523 No~ember 7, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriations: a) Status of Capital Improvement Fund and Request for appropriations; b) County Office Building and parking lot; c) Capital Improvement request ~or' Juvenile Court. Mr. Jones presented the following report from Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance, ~ated October 18, 1984: "Subsequent to the recent appropriations for the Capital Improvement Budget (the Director of Finance has) reviewed the status of the Capital Improvement Fund and would like to bring you~up to date as to the results of this review. Itemized below are the major transactions which have been recorded in the Capital Improvement Fund since July 1, 1984, and several items which I am requesting your authorization to record: Unobligated Fund Balance 7/1/84 Contingency Appropriation Budgeted Revenues: Literary Fund Loan - Broadus Wood Briarwood Street Improvements Non-Budgeted Receipts to Date: Repayment of Fire Departments Proceeds of Energy Grant Literary Fund Loan - Walton School Interest on Investments Non-Budgeted Anticipated Receipts: Interest on Investments $1,357,270.91 1,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 50,000.00 104,300.00 8,377.00 239,317.00 70,448.92 80,000.00 Total Funds Available for Appropriation $4,909,713.83 Appropriations Made Since 7/8/84: Broadus Wood School Briarwood Street Improvements Fire Departments Capital Improvement Budget $2,194,223.75 50,000.00 200,000.00 1,968,158.00 Total Appropriations $4,412,381.75 Balance Available for Appropriations $497,332.O8 In order that the Financial Statements properly reflect the status of the Capital Improvement fund, I am requesting you to amend the Capital Improvement Appropriation Ordinance to recognize the revenues itemized above under "Non-Budget Receipts to Date" and "Non-Budgeted Anticipated Receipts" which total $502,442.92. I am also requesting that you appropriate this additional revenue of $502,442.92 to the Capital Improvement Contingency Account in order that future captial improvements needs can be transferred with your approval, without the necessity of additional appropriations." Mr. Jones said that the County has revenue available for appropriations in the ~mount of $497,332.08 in the Capital Improvements Fund. The Board needs to take two ~ctions: recognizing $502,442.92 in revenue (the total under "Non-Budgeted Receipts to Date" ~nd "Non-Budgeted Anticipated Receipts.") and to appropriate the $497,332.08 that is actually ~ailable?~n~p~aaCapital Improvement Reserve Account. He said the word "contingency", as requested in the memorandum, can mean too many things. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones why he and Mr. Breeden wanted to place this money in a reserve ~ccount and if there are other funds in said account. Mr. Jones said the staff has received a number of small projects that will be coming up in the Capital Improvements Budget (about six ~n the next three months). Rather than advertising each separate project for an appropriation, ~el~sa~ZMr~ Breeden is asking that the Board appropriate the entire amount and then transfer~ ~oney to the individual projects as the needs arise. By making an appropriation to a Capital ~mprovements Reserve account, the Board would get away from having to advertise and hold a sublic hearing on every small reques~ The Board still has to approve the project and make the ~ransfer. Mr. Fisher said his question is, if a project needs $50,000 that is not already appropriate ~ould that amount have to be transferred from a Capital Improvements Reserve Account to the .ctual Capital Improvement Fund from which it can then be disbursed. Mr. Jones said each project is set up as a subsidiary account in the Capital Improvements P~o~ram~Mr~aF~sher r~m~rkad~that~ha waaanow thoroughly confused. Mr. Jones said the issue has come up because of ~ new law which says the Board cannot appropriate any amount in excess of one percent of the ~udgeted revenue without holding an advertised public hearing. A lot of localities are finding that they are getting hung up in red tape by having to advertise for public hearings and ~hereby delay the appropriations. By putting the funds in an already approved reserve account, Zhe Board can just make an appropriation by motion and transfer directly to the project. Mr. ?isher asked if this is a means of getting around the advertising process and Mr. Jones r~plied ~hat this was correct. Mr. Jones said the fund would be used for small projects under $100,000. ~e said a problem arises when a project is bid and then an appropriation must be advertised for hearing and all of this completed within the thirty days that the bid price is walid. Mr. Jones said the Board can h~ld ~na~puhti~--haarington~this entire appropriation and then t would be free to appropriate money to projects without any more advertised hearings on this ~mount. Mr. Lindstrom said this gets around the intent of the statute, except that these may be little projects that nobody really cares about. Mr. Bowie said he did not see in the memorandum 5'24 November 7~ 1984 (Regula~r Night M~ting) anywhere that this amount has to be advertised. Mr. Jones said that the first appropriation to the Reserve Account must be advertised. Mr. St. John said~he feels the proposal complies with the intent of the statute, but he is not familiar with the best accounting procedures to apply. He said this complies with the statute because the appropriation is what requires a public hearing, not the transfer. Mr. Fisher said the Board would be holding a public hearing for a lump sum and it has no idea of the way the money will be spent. Mr. St. John said the Board knows it will be spent for Capital Improvements. Mr. Fisher said the public would not know whether the projects are good or not. Mr. Bowie said it is not a matter of accounting, but one of management, and in any system one must have a way to handle the little stuff. He said by holding the first hear- ing the Board could be saying "we've got half a million dollars and we are going to put it in a fund to fund small projects." If the public says that the Board should not do this, it will not be done. Mr. Jones said because of the law stating that the Board cannot approve any appropriation ~reater than one percent of the total budget without a public hearing, many localities have actually included reserve funds within their operating budgets.Counties have particular problem~ with small amounts, since those funds are frequently needed in a hurry and cannot be obtained quickly. He mentioned that-the chiller in this building and the sewer line at McIntire School need work and these projects cannot wait until the next update of the Capital Improvements Program. The Board and Staff have no effective way to deal with these types of things. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the County suffers other than the inconvenience of advertising. He asked if the County had lost good bids for various projects because the money could not be made available in time. Mr. Jones said a lot of the situations he had been referring to were emergencies and if the time frame is wrong on the advertising, the County might have to wait two months before the money becomes available. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Jones he did not believe a case had been made for the necessity of this reserve account. Mr. Bowie said he had no problem with appropriating to this reserve fund. Mr. Jones said the Board has final approval on all projects funded from the Reserve Account. Mr. Lindstrom said whether the Board likes it or not, it appears that the General Assembly ~ecided the public should have more information about these types of appropriations. In an smergency, it would be better to have funds available, but he said he would feel better if the ~mount the Board is being requested to appropriate were smaller, somewhere around $100,000, not secause he does nov trust the staff, but because the public should know how the money is spent. He did not mind setting up a small fund for emergenc±es, but if the matter is not an emergency, ae would feel better if the Board held a public hearing. Mr. Way said he had no problem with the Reserve Account as long as the projects funded from same are projects that have been previously approved by the Board during previous public hearings. Items that have never been mentioned to the Board would cause him problems in approv- ing payment from the fund without a public hearing. Mr. Fisher said he agreed with Mr. Way that ~f the Board was going to approve the money being spent on projects that have already had ~ublic hearings, that is one thing. But to put several hundred thousand dollars in a reserve ~ccount and just have it available for whatever comes along without a public hearing worries him. This would keep the county citizens in the dark and he did not see the reasoning behind ~he request. Mr. Bowie said the Board could consider the fund for'use on.pre-approved projects that have not yet gone to bid, projects that have been approved but are not funded.~ Mr.~ Jones said~ ~his would be a correct consideration. He suggested the reserve be set up for those projects ~hat have previously been approved under the Capital Improvements Program. He requested that ~he Board go ahead with the advertisement of a public hearing on the~appropriation to a reserve ?und for projects that have previously been approved in the Capital Improvements Program. , Mr. Fisher said the Board should stick with the projects that have already been heard in ~ublic hearings. He said he did not think a case had been made that this is a serious problem ~hat cannot be dealt with by the normal public hearing process. Mr. Jones then asked the Board for funding for the County Office Building parking l°t and the juvenile court. Mr. Fisher ~sked if those projects could be acted on tonight without a public hearing and Mr. Jones'said ~es. Mr. Bowie made motion to recognize receipts in the amount of $502,442.92 from "Non-Budgeted ~nticipated Receipts" as set out in the memorandum above. Seconded by Mr. Way, the motion ~arried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. ~¥S: None. ~BSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Fisher then asked'Mr. Jones if he had a different amount to be appropriated to the ~eserve Fund. Mr. Jones said he would like to have the enti~re $497,332.08 ±n a reserve account ?or future capital improvement needs.which have been previously approved, Mr. Fisher asked if ~here is a list of such projects. Mr. Jones said the County has a list of carryover projects. ~r.~ Fisher asked if Mr. Jones wanted the Board to set a public hearing to approPriate money ~nt'o a reserve fund in excess of what is already on the books for various projects. Mr. Jones ~aid that was correct. Mr. Fisher.then asked why Mr. Jones wanted to appropriate more moneY ~han is actually needed for the projects that have been approved. Mr. Jones said the Board is ~oing to get some requests for projects that have actually had allocation in a previ~ous year to ~e funded in this year. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board ought to hold a publmc~on~very ~pecific expenditure for a capital project, whether a public hearing has been held in the past ~r:will be held in the future. Mr. Jones said the County has projects every year that'are ~tated for funding but do not get it because there is not enough money. Mr. Fisher replied ~ha6 is not the general case, and the Board needs to address the general case. He asked how 525 November 7~ 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) ~uch money would be involved with projects that have been approved for this year. Mr. Jones ~aid those projects would not reach the $497,332.08 figure. Mr. Fisher instructed the staff to Idraft a list of approved projects that will need funding during this year. He said the Board could appropriate that much money into the reserve account. Other items need to be dealt with specifically. Mr. Jones asked if the Board could then deal with the two specific items he had previously mentioned. Mr. Fisher asked if these projects are included in this appropriation. Mr. Bowie said he felt a public hearing would be needed. Mr. Jones said the original projects had gone through a public hearing process; these are merely additions to those projects. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Jones that a serious communication problem seems to exist on this issue. He said he did not know what Mr. Jones wanted the Board to do. Mr. Jones said he is asking for the reserve account because only one percent of the total budget can be appropriated without a public hearing and the staff is left with no way to pay bills that have already been received. Mr. Jones said this is the case with the bill for the County Office Building Parking lot: the contractor wants to be paid, but the County cannot spend the money until after a public hearing. ME. Fisher asked why the Board cannot go ahead and schedule a public hearing on these requests~haut~pp~oving a hearing on the whole fund. Mr. Jones said this would cause a two-month delay. Mr. Fisher asked why the Board cannot schedule a public hearing for ;he next reasonable time and pay these two bills. Mr. Jones said that can be done, but the ounty is getting calls now from the contractor who will not pay the subcontractor because he .imself has no money. He will have to be put off. Mr. Bowie said the staff must have known ;hat these bills were coming for some time. Mr. Jones said the original appropriation for the County Office Building was made in 1978. ~umerous change orders have driven the price up over $9 million. LittHe projects outside the ~eneral contract have been going on all the time. The allocation has been exceeded by $32,000 pecause there were underground springs in the parking are'a and drainage was expensive. The ain contractor is waiting to be paid. · ! Mr. Fisher asked if the Board is being asked to act at 'this time on something that has I~een in the works for six years and is going to be a critical situation in two to three weeks. Mr. Jones said the actual reconciling of all the change orders has been made only recently. He said the main problem and delay is that three or four people were dealing with the main contrac~ ~r. Fisher said he understood the need, but still felt the Board should hold a public hearing. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board had to hold a public hearing on the requests and was told ~hat it did, since the amount is over one percent of the total 1984-85 Capital Improvement ~udget. Mr. Way made motion that the Board set a public hearing for payment of these funds set ~orth in the memo; $38,474.22 for the County Office Building - Phase II and $3,000 for the Yuvenile Court. Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the motion passed by the following vote: ~YES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. ~AYS: None. ~BSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 10. Interim Report: Albemarle Resource Recovery and Management Committee Mr. Bowie said his purpose in presenting this report is twofold: He does not,want to wait ~fthe life of the two-year charge to the committee before making a report, and he wanted to ask that Ms. Mary Munsen be appointed to the committee. He said he is very pleased with the wealth of background information that is available to the Committee. The Committee is trying to tackle the most critical problems first, and the first one concerns the Keene landfill, a permit for which will run out in two years. He said there might be a way to extend the life of the site, but if that is not possible, the Committee will look for an alternative. He said this area needs some increase in the use of recycling and in some litter reduction. It will benefit the County as a whole and the area. The City- County contract on operation of the Ivy Landfill is being reviewed, he said. Some aspects of the original agreement have become obsolete through usage practices. This, coupled with increa~ mng costs seem to make a review appropriate. The committee met with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission on Resource Recovery to look into ways of generating energy from local wastes. At present, however, Mr. Bowie said it is not practical because it would require almost $20 million in local funds. He said this figure was taking into account that the University of Virginia would take the money it has appropriated for its new power plant and include it in the funding for the facility, about $15 million. He announced that on November 15, 1984, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Community Commission is holding a drive for volunteers and an informational meeting at 7:30 p.m. in Room 12 of the County Office Building. On Au-gust 10, 1984, .the Board of Supervisors took action authorizing the Committee to seek ~ssistance from the University, and Mr. Bowie said that attempt struck gold in the form of Ms. ~ary Munsen, a graduate student in environmental sciences and urban planning. He said that she ~lans to condense a number of studies for the committee's review and he recommendedZhhata~e~be included in the Committee's membership. Mr. Bowie made motion to that effect. The motion was ~econded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. ~AYS: None. ~BSENT: Mrs. Cooke. November 7~ tg84 (Regular NiMht.Meet~i~) Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. ' Mr. Fisher said he had been advised that there are no scheduled agenda items for November 21, 1984, the night before Thanksgiving. Mr. Bowie made motion to cancel that meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote: A~ES: Messrs. Bowie, Fi'sher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjournment There being no other business to transact, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. CHA~j~N ~$M~m~b~r 1~:$m~84 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on November 14, 1984, at .9:00 a.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 410 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. F. R. Bowie, Gerald E.. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke. Officers Present: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr, Deputy County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; Mr. James R. Donnelly, Dir- ector of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. at 9:05 a.m. Call to Order. The Chairman, Mr. Fisher, called the meeting to order Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Alliegiance. Moment of Silence. Not Docketed. Mr Fisher noted that Mrs. Cooke would arrive later in the day due to an illness in her family. He also brought to the Board's attention the fact that Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, is still hospitalized but doing well. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to accept and approve the consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth' Attorney, and Jail for October, 1984; also for the Jail for September 1984, were approved as presented. Item No. 4.2 Street signs - Dorrier Drive and Gasoline Alley. · tem No, 4.2&.~ .Street Name Sign Resolution. On request of Mr. John R. Dorrier, who has agreed to purchase the 'sign, a street sign was approved for State Route 1422 identifying it a Dottier Drive. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Dorrier Drive (State Route 1422) at the southwest corner of U. S. Route 20 at its northern intersection. Dorrier Drive (State Route 1422.) at the southwest corner of U. S. 20 at its southern intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the County Executive an 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 Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs.