1993-05-05May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000052
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on May 5, 1993, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman (arriving at
9:02 a.m.), Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.,
Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg; and County Attorney, George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC.
Mr. Kevin Cox was present to speak against the Board holding work
sessions during the day meeting when the public cannot be present, particular-
ly when the subject is development of a significant public policy. He hopes
the Board will consider this before setting the next such work session.
Ms. Ginny Decker, President, League of Women Voters, was present to
compliment the Board and staff on the full schedule of budget hearings held
this Spring. There was an opportunity for public input, but there was no
chance for a dialogue with the Board or with staff. The Board listens and has
no chance to respond, so during the whole budgetary process there were
speakers who quoted misinformation or person'with ideas which are already in
progress or in practice, and there were even some new, good suggestions. The
League suggests the Board respond at this time in some manner through the
media to put out more information, and maybe correct some of these mis-
perceptions.
Ms. Decker also handed out a copy of a study the League did on appoint-
ment of boards and commissions. She noted that the report contains recommen-
dations to the Board which the League offers to help in implementing.
Mrs. Humphris said she is quite often frustrated during the public
hearings when there is misinformation or misperceptions, by having to sit
without responding. If staff had time to work on it, doing it after the fact
may be a good idea.
Mr. Bowerman said he felt this would be looked on as being self-serving
and he thinks it would be more effective coming from a third party who is
unbiased. Mr. Martin agreed. He thinks publishing something after the fact
noting the misstatements and trying to correct same would be looked on as
using the taxpayer's money to indoctrinate the citizens. Mrs. Decker said she
can understand that. The League was trying to think of a way to get the
correct information out to the public.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board would no longer have a process if the
hearings were conducted in a different manner. He agrees that it leaves a lot
of misinformation uncorrected and a lot of outright untruths in the public
domain. He suggested the League work with County staff on this question.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mrs. Humphris asked that Items 5.8
and 5.10 be discussed later in the meeting. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve Items 5.4, 5.15 and 5.16 as
presented, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Letter dated April 20, 1993, addressed to Mr. Joseph Conte,
from Mr. Hugh C. Miller, Director, Department of Historic Resources, stating
that the State Board of Historic Resources has placed Michie Tavern on the
Virginia Landmarks Register and has endorsed its nomination to the National
Register of Historic Places, was received for information.
Item 5.2. Copy of memorandum dated April 13, 1993, addressed to Mr.
David Benish, Chief of Community Development, and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
County Executive, from Mr. Forrest D. Kerns, Charlottesville Housing Founda-
tion, re: Report on Crozet Crossing Housing Project, was received as informa-
tion.
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~.~,~
(Page 2)
Item 5.3. Copy of minutes of the Transition Team for the Scottsville
Boundary Line Adjustment of April 3, 1993, was received as information.
Item 5.4. Financial Management Report for March, 1993, was received as
information. In the report it is noted that the projected local revenues have
been reduced and state revenues increased by $267,000 as a result of the
change in funding for the Clerk of the Court's office through the Compensation
Board. Projected General Fund expenditures for all General Government
operations have been reduced by one percent. Projected School Fund expendi-
tures for certain accounts were previously reduced ten percent. The Education
holdback was reduced from ten percent to three percent in April. The average
daily membership estimate was finalized at 10,200 which will result in a
reduction of $121,000 in state funds. There has been no activity for the Fund
Balance.
Item 5.5. Memorandum dated April 15, 1993, addressed to Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., County Executive, from Mr. Tex Weaver, Information Resource
Planner, re: Enhanced 911 project status, was received for information.
Item 5.6. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond
Program Report and Monthly Report for the month of March, 1993, received for
information.
Item 5.7. 1993 First Quarter Building Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for informa-
tion.
Item 5.8. Letter dated April 23, 1993, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, re: monthly update on
projects currently under construction, received for information.
Item 5.9. Letter dated April 26, 1993, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Mainte-
nance Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, re: Route 786. Mr.
Mills states that it is the intent of the Department of Transportation to
repair the existing structure over Little Ivy Creek during the period of
May 10, 1993, through May 14, 1993.
Item 5.10. Memorandum dated April 27, 1993, from Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., County Executive, entitled: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Reports,
received for information.
Item 5.11. Minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County
Service Authority for March 18, 1993, received for information.
Item 5.12. Letter dated April 26, 1993, from Mr. Alexander L. Rives,
Acting Assistant Superintendent, Shenandoah National Park, re: information
regarding certain issues at Shenandoah National Park, such as: how Shenandoah
National Park programs are being managed; how lands are added to the Park; how
relations with adjacent landowners and government entities are carried out,
was received for information.
Item 5.13. Summary of the FY 1993-94 Adopted Budget incorporating all
the changes made during the Board's final work sessions, received as informa-
tion.
Item 5.13a. Letter dated April 29, 1993, from The Honorable John G.
Milliken, Secretary of Transportation, re: location of the northern terminus
of the Route 29 bypass, received as follows:
"April 29, 1993
Mr. David P. Bowerman, Chairman
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Dear Chairman Bowerman:
Thank you for your recent letter regarding the location of the
northern terminus of the Route 29 Bypass.
Consideration is being given to relocating the northern terminus
of the project farther to the north in order to reduce the impacts
to the properties and businesses on Route 29 and in view of the
location of the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway connection to
Route 29 north.
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) ' 000084
(Page 3)
An initial assessment of an alignment has been performed by the
Department of Transportation. This alignment was developed taking
into consideration the location of the Sheraton Hotel and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's water treatment plant. The
Berkmar Drive Extension was considered based on the proposed
location taken from a plan prepared by Roudabush, Green & Gale,
Inc. (June, 1987). The alternative 10 Bypass alignment would tie
into Route 29 north at the same location as the proposed Meadow-
creek Parkway Extension.
This relocation of the alignment would eliminate the impacts to
the businesses in the Rio Hills shopping center and the adjacent
businesses at this location on Route 29.
The alignment was developed as a concept only, and no in-depth
study has been prepared. This revised alignment will be developed
by a consultant firm that will be contracted by the Department to
develop final design plans for the Alternative 10 Bypass align-
ment.
I hope this information will be helpful to you.
Sincerely,
(Signed) John G. Milliken"
Item 5.13b. Memorandum dated April 30, 1993, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilim-
berg, Director of Planning and Community Development, addressed to Mr.
Robert B. Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive, re: Historic Resources
Survey Cost Sharing Agreement Proposal, with attached Executive Summary,
received for information.
Hill
~-~-~c ~ ..~ .....: This item was
withdrawn from the agenda when the Engineering Department found, upon field
inspection, that the road did not meet state qualifications.
Item 5.15. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk of the Circuit Court, for the
month of April, 1993, were approved as presented by the vote set out above.
Item 5.16. Proclamation: National Correctional Officers' Week, was
adopted by the vote set out above.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 4, March 18(N), April 8
and September 16 (Night), 1992; January 6, February 3 (Adjourned) and
February 3(D), 1993.
Mr. Bowerman reported that he had read March 18, pages 1 - 13, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Martin said he had read January 6, 1993, pages 13 to the end and
found only small typographical errors.
Mr. Perkins had read September 16, 1992 (Night), pages 1 - 11 and found
only typographical errors.
Mrs. Humphris had read February 3(D), 1993, pages 1 - 10 and found one
typographical error.
Mr. Bain had read February 3 (Adjourned), 1993, and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Marshall had read March 4, 1992, pages 1 - 5 and found them to be in
order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the minutes read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Highway Matters: Route 769. Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, was present to report that he has met with Mr. Cropp and
others on the site to review the road and the spots where these citizens feel
some grading might open the sight distance. They also looked at drainage
problems. He has requested personnel at the Culpeper District Office to
review the drainage items. They have looked at them, and are in the process
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~'.~
(Page 4)
of working on a report, so there is no rep6r{ available yet. He will write
the Board a letter when there is something to report, so this item can be put
back on the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Adopt Resolution in support of Hydraulic Road
(Route 743) Improvements.
Mr. Cilimberg said this item has gone to public hearing and staff
concurs with the recommendation of the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Roosevelt said he has received no calls about the public hearing, so
he feels the public is supportive of what is proposed. Mr. Bowerman asked a
question the night of the hearing about the traffic signal, so he had the
traffic planner in Culpeper look at including an all-red phase in the traffic
light at Albemarle High School so pedestrians can cross the street while all
traffic is stopped. The planner wrote, that based on the planning year, which
is ten years into the future, the intersection will function at a Service
Level "F" during the P.M. peak hour, but operation during off-peak hours
should have a level of service "C", or "D". "C" is the level of service wanted
on major roads outside of the central business district of a city. During
off-peak hours, an all-red phase would not severely limit traffic, but during
the peak-hour, it would cause congestion.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to pursue the concept of doing it at the
high pedestrian use times in the morning and p.m. The morning time would
conflict with traffic, but the evening time would not. He thinks that with
the high use by pedestrians, it should be attempted. Mr. Roosevelt said one
problem the Highway Department has found is that there is little control over
where pedestrians cross the road.
Mr. Bain suggested the pedestrian crossing go under the road from the
northeast corner of the High School property to the southwest corner across
Hydraulic. He does not like the idea of putting a walkway overhead. Mr.
Roosevelt said he had recently received a similar request from Western
Albemarle High School, and he believes this would entail putting a box culvert
under the road, which would be cost prohibitive. It also creates an area that
cannot be seen and this leads to vandalism and people being accosted. He also
does not believe it would be used by the students.
Mr. Bain said the saving of even one life means a lot to him. He also
suggested the crossing could be blocked off at night since he is interested
only in getting the students to school safely. Mr. Bowerman said he would
prefer that this be an overhead crossing. Mr. Marshall felt the overhead
crossing would invite mischievous behavior.
Mr. Bowerman said he attended the public hearing, and there was little
public input. He wanted to be sure that the people in the mobile homes were
aware of their options and the process the Highway Department would use in the
event the mobile homes have to be relocated. There were a couple of business
owners present and they were satisfied with the proposal.
Mr. Bain said the cost of the project overwhelms him, but he offered
motion to adopt the following resolution of support for the Route 743 project
as presented by the Highway Department. The motion was seconded by Mrs.
Humphris. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation held a
Location and Design Public Hearing on March 11, 1993, to consider
the proposed location and design of Hydraulic Road (Route 743)
from its intersection with Lambs Road (Route 657) to its inter-
section with Rio Road (Route 631) (Project No. 0743-002-153,
C502); and
WHEREAS, approximately ten people attended the public
hearing, and no one spoke concerning this proposed improvement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Board does
hereby endorse the project as proposed by the Virginia Department
of Transportation.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Other Highway Matters.
Mrs. Humphris said now that there is the concrete retaining wall in
place at the corner of Barracks and Georgetown Roads it is apparent that it
will be a target for graffiti. She asked if there is any plan to plant ivy or
some kind of growth that would trail down over this wall. Mr. Roosevelt said
the Highway Department had only a construction easement at this point. The
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000086
(Page 5)
land itself belongs to Hessian Hills Apartments. The Highway Department does
have a material that can be brushed over the walls occasionally to cover the
graffiti, but there is little they can do to keep this from happening.
Mr. Marshall referred to other areas of the country where artists have
painted such walls. He suggested talking to some of the students at Albemarle
High School about such a project. Mrs. Humphris asked if the Highway Depart-
ment would allow this to be done. Mr. Roosevelt said it sounds like something
that could be studied. He will make a reply at a later date.
Mr. Martin inquired about reinstallation of a street sign at the Proffit
Railroad bridge. Mr. Tucker said that is a street name sign and has to be
done by the County.
Mr. Marshall said a "No Littering" sign posted by the Highway Department
near the entrance to his farm on Route 20 has been covered with graffiti.
Mr. Marshall said there is nothing happening at the project at the
intersection of Avon Street and Route 20. Mr. Roosevelt said the material
where the construction is taking place is wet, and the borrow pit area back
off of the road is wet. The contractor is waiting for the material to dry
out.
Mr. Marshall said the project at the "S" curve on Route 20 is supposed
to be started in July, and he is afraid that both of these projects will be
going on at the same time. Mr. Roosevelt said he still hopes to meet the
original schedule proposed, and thinks the advertisement will occur on July 1,
with the project not beginning until September.
Mr. Bain asked for a list of the major resurfacing projects on paved
roads. Mr. Roosevelt said those projects have all been advertised and work
has begun. Work on Route 614 west of town has been completed. At the moment,
the contractor is working on Route 29 south of town.
Not Docketed: At this time, Mr. Bowerman ihtroduced students from
Albemarle High School who are present at this meeting participating in Youth-
In-Government Day. They are: Morgan Foley, Amy Proctor and Tony Quandros.
Agenda Item No. 8. AHIP Presentation. The Board skipped this item
temporarily since the presenters were not present.
Agenda Item No. 9. Adoption of Resolution approving issuance of bonds
by the Industrial Development Authority for Hydraulic Road Apartments/FHA
Insurance Project (Arbor Crest).
Mr. Tucker said the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority
recently agreed to assist in the refunding of the Hydraulic Road Apartments/
FHA Insurance Project, Series 1983 (Arbor Crest) by issuing its elderly
residential revenue refunding bonds in an amount estimated at $1,995,000. The
purpose of this issuance is to refinance this project in order to obtain a
better interest rate as well as to extend the maturity date of the 1983 issue.
The current interest rate is just over nine percent, and it is hoped that they
will get an interest rate at about six and one-half percent. None of the
equity in the project will be removed. Since this is a refinancing issue,
there will be no need to advertise for an amendment to the Industrial Develop-
ment Authority ordinance.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Carroll Mason is present to answer any questions the
Board has. Mr. Bain said it seems to be "pretty cut and dried". Mr. Marshall
offered motion to adopt the following resolution. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Martin. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
None.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE~ VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "Authority"), has considered the request of
Richmond - Albemarle Limited Partnership (the "Applicant"), for
the issuance of the Authority's elderly residential facility
revenue refunding bonds in an amount now estimated at $1,995,000
(the "Bonds") to refund the Authority's $1,995,000 Elderly Resi-
dential Facility Revenue Bonds (Hydraulic Road Apartment/FHA
Insured Project), Series 1983 (the "Prior Bonds") which were
issued on June 2, 1983 to finance the Applicant's acquisition,
construction and equipping of a 66 unit residential facility for
~ay 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000087
(Page 6)
the elderly located at Hydraulic Road, across from Albemarle High
School in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Project") and to fund a
debt service reserve fund, and has held a public hearing thereon
on April 22, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested the Board of Supervi-
sors (the "Board") of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the
"County"), to approve the issuance of the Bonds to comply with
Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended;
and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to terms to be agreed upon, a
record of the public hearing and a "fiscal impact statement" with
respect to the Project have been filed with the Board
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board of Supervisors approves the issuance of the
Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Applicant to the
extent required by Section 147(f), to permit the Authority to
refund the Prior Bonds.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required
by Section 147(f),' does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds
or the creditworthiness of the Applicant, and, as required by
Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, the
Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor the Authority
shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or
other costs incident thereto .except from the revenues and moneys
pledged therefor, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing
power of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be
pledged thereto.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
(Note: The following two items were discussed concurrently, with
separate motions occurring at the end of the conversation.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Adopt Resolution approving the issuance of Refund-
ing Bonds for Martha Jefferson Hospital by the Industrial Development Authori-
ty.
Agenda Item No. 11. Set public hearing to amend and reenact Chapter 2,
Section 2-51, of the Code of Albemarle, to allow the Industrial Development
Authority to issue tax exempt bonds for a facility located within the City of
Charlottesville.
Mr. Tucker said the Martha Jefferson Hospital has requested this Board
to amend the Code of Albemarle to allow the Albemarle County Industrial
Development Authority (IDA) to issue bonds for a facility located within the
City of Charlottesville, and to approve the issuance of the refunding bonds by
the Authority. Representatives of the Hospital have stated that they are in
the process of refinancing $37.0 million in bonds issued in 1990 to finance
improvements to their acute care facility and other related expenses. Market
conditions are such that it is advantageous for the hospital to refinance that
debt. They also found that because of a technicality in the tax law, if the
City issued the refunding bonds, some of the City's debt being issued this
calendar year, as well as debt being issued for the Community Action Agency
(MACAA) to purchase the YMCA property, would not receive what is known as
"bank qualified" preferential treatment (this status allows the borrower to
receive .15 to .25 percentage points lower on the rate). This preferential
treatment is given to borrowers financed by jurisdictions who plan to issue
less than $10.0 million of debt per calendar year. The City plans to issue
less than $10.0 million this calendar year thereby providing this "bank
qualified" status for their own debt, as well as the MACAA financing.
Mr. Tucker said the County plans to borrow in excess of $10.0 million
from the Virginia Public School Authority in the Fall of 1993 for school-
related projects. The County is not able to issue "bank qualified" debt to
any entity, and, therefore, the Martha Jefferson Hospital issue would not in
and of itself have any affect on the County's ability to issue this preferen-
tial bond financing since it is not available for any entity until the
beginning of calendar year 1994.
Mr. Tucker said the Martha Jefferson Hospital is requesting this Board
to consider a policy change. The Industrial Development Authority did not
make a recommendation on the request due to policy implications. As the Board
realizes, the Martha Jefferson Hospital is a regional facility which actually
services more Albemarle County residents than it does City residents. It also
provides jobs for a great number of Albemarle County residents then it does
for City residents. In order to allow the IDA to issue these bonds, this
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000058
(Page 7)
Board must approve an amendment to the Code of Albemarle by making an excep-
tion for this one bond issue or by changing the language so that the IDA could
approve other non-county issues with this Board's approval.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends that the Board consider an amendment to
Section 2-51 of the Code of Albemarle to allow future requests to be taken on
a case-by-case basis subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors. The
County Attorney drafted some new language which was previously sent to the
Board for review.
Mr. Tucker then introduced Mr. Donald D. Sandridge, Acting President,
Martha Jefferson Hospital, Mr. J. Michael Burris, Senior Vice President,
Corporate Services, and Mr. David Richardson of the law firm of McGuiret
Woods. Also present was Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman of the Albemarle
County Industrial Development Authority.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the amendment is just for this issue, or would it
be an overall amendment. Mr. Tucker said the amendment would allow others to
come in, but it would require Board approval of each request.
Mrs. Humphris asked if it is usual for one locality to issue bonds in
another locality. Mr. Tucker said this one is different because the City is
trying to stay under the $10.0 million limit, whereas the County is already
over that limit. Otherwise, he thinks the bond issue would be occurring in
the City.
Mrs. Humphris said she sees the benefits to this request as all posi-
tive. Mr. Bain said it is a policy change for this Board, and that bothers
him. Will this change allow others to issue bonds for facilities in the
County?
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Murray for comments. Mr. Murray said the
Industrial Development Authority considered this request two weeks ago and did
not act, but passed the issue to this Board. There was a split among the IDA
who felt there were philosophical and political issues that belonged
this Board. Their first concern is that the ordinance as drafted
financing facilities in other jurisdictions. He has been told that
is the only jurisdiction in the state that has its ordinance drafted
in such a manner. Every other IDA, except Charlottesville and Albemarle, have
authority to issue bonds anywhere in the state. The provision in Albemarle's
is the result of anomalies which have been taken care of in other parts
the ordinance through the years. Originally, IDA's had authority to issue
without coming to the governing body. At the time Albemarle's ordinance
enacted, there was grave concern by this Board that the City IDA would
financing of developments in Albemarle County. In establishing the
an accommodation was worked out with the City where both entities enacted
ordinance with this restriction.
Mr. Murray said that since then, by Federal changes in the Internal
Code, it is required that all IDA's take requests to the governing
and that elected officials approve all bond issues. There is no longer a
that the City IDA or the County IDA could act without going to the
body. Federal statute, and state codes, also do not allow another
urisdiction to finance in Albemarle County without this Board's approval.
Mr. Murray said the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority
'ill consider, at its next meeting, several revisi~hs~t~ the ordinance to
this and other questions. They have asked the County Attorney to help
the language in the ordinance. The second reason the IDA was
on this question was that it did not know the County had financing for
new middle school coming up this Fall, and they thought the County would
under the $10.0 million limit. 'He had received a telephone call from
saying that they are coming to the IDA with a $3.0
issue which would have qualified for this small issue exemption. The
would have had to choose which entity would get the lower interest rate.
is no longer an issue. The third reason is that two members of the IDA
philosophical questions about competitive issues between the two hospitals
town. In conclusion, Mr. Murray said there is no longer a danger that
)royal of this request will endanger any other financing. The modification
the ordinance is something that is no longer required statutorily at the
level.
Mr. Martin asked if the Board approves this issue today, if the City
also approve the issue. Mr. Murray said that is his understanding.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Murray for a very clear summary of the issues.
asked if Mr. Sandridge would care to speak. Mr. Sandridge said he would
to any question the Board members might have.
The Board decided to vote on Agenda Item No. 11 first. Mr. Martin
motion to adopt a resolution of intent to advertise for public hearing
amendment of Section 2-51 of the Code of Albemarle. The motion was
~econded by Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Bain asked about the suggested language "any facility financed by
industrial development authority". He asked why it says the. Mr. St.
said the ordinance speaks to the Albemarle County Industrial Development
y in the first sentence. The last sentence recites what is already a
~ay 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~'~9
(Page 8)
matter of Federal law with respect to any facility located in this county,
whether another authority did it, or Albemarle's authority did it. Mr. Bain
said he would spell it out.
Mr. St. John said the first sentence is okay as it is written because it
applies only to the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority. He
then suggested changing the second sentence which addresses facilities located
within Albemarle County to read: "The board of supervisors also must approve
any facility located within Albemarle county prior to any financing of such
facility by any industrial development authority."
It was agreed that this language was adequate. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
The Board returned to a discussion of Agenda Item No. 10. Mr. Martin
then offered motion to adopt the following resolution approving the issuance
of refunding bonds for the Martha Jefferson Hospital. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Marshall.
Mr. Bain said the motion should be subject to approval of the Albemarle
County Industrial Development Authority and approval of the zoning text
amendment. Mr. Bowerman restated the motion. Mr. Bain asked how essential it
is that the Board adopt the resolution today. Mr. Richardson said that in a
refinancing situation the interest rates are such at this time that there is a
savings of almost $1.5 million. If the market changes just slightly on either
the interest rate or the reinvestment rate on the escrow, then the savings go
away.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board cannot take final action for a month. Mr.
said there must be a public hearing held by the Industrial Develop-
Authority, so that can be scheduled in the meantime. This must also be
scheduled with the City. This is basically a blessing of the concept so they
can go forward,
Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr.
Marshall.
: None.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Charlottesville, Virginia (the "City Authority") has previously
issued its Hospital Revenue Bonds (Martha Jefferson Hospital
Project) Series 1990 (the "Prior Bonds") to (a) finance, among
other things, the acquisition, construction and equipping of
additions and improvements to the acute care hospital facility
located in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia and owned and
operated by Martha Jefferson Hospital (the "Hospital"), and (b)
refinance certain outstanding debt of the Hospital (collectively,
the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia (the "Authority") has considered a request from
the Hospital to issue its refunding bonds in an amount not to
exceed $39,500,000 (the "Refunding Bonds") to refund all or a
portion of the outstanding Prior Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that the issuance of
the Refunding Bonds will help to reduce the Hospital's interest
costs, thereby assisting in the reduction of the cost of Health
Care to the residents of Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has requested guidance from the Board
of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "Board")
regarding the issuance of the Refunding Bonds by the Authority.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia:
1. The Board hereby approves the issuance of the Refunding
Bonds by the Authority.
2. The Board hereby directs the Clerk of the Board to
proceed with an amendment of the ordinance creating the Authority
to permit the issuance of the Refunding Bonds.
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0'00040
(Page 9)
Not Docketed: At 10:11 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:25
a.m. Mr. Bowerman said he will pass around a menu, since it is clear that the
Board will not finish the meeting before lunch. Mr. Martin said he will
probably have to leave after the executive session.
Agenda Item No. 8. AHIP Presentation. Ms. Teresa Tapscott and Ms. Jane
Andrews were present to show slides outlining some of the work of AHIP over
the last year. They showed slides of five different rehabilitation projectS:
1) Batesville; 2) Crozet; 3) New Town; 4) Miller School Road; and 5) Yancey
Mill.
At the end of the presentation, Mr. Bowerman said he thinks AHIP does a
super job.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowerman recognized Ms. Christie Ann Belter, another
student participating in Youth-In-Government Day from Albemarle High School.
Agenda Item No. 12. Request from Jaycees for funds for Fourth of July.
Mr. Bill Haney was present. He said that since 1946 the Jaycees have
performed hundreds of service projects for the community. For the past 25
years, they have put on a fireworks demonstration at one of the local parks
for the community. Since the price has risen so dramatically over the past
five years, they were going to ask for money, but they understand the fiscal
pressure the County and the Board is under. Instead, they have decided to ask
the Board for a resolution of support. In researching the attendance at the
last ten celebrations, they found that often the Jaycees were not even men-
tioned. They feel that if the community were made more aware, they would have
a better chance of raising funds toward this year's $7000 goal for the
fireworks show.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board appreciates being "taken off the hook", but
would like to have some time to review the resolution. It can be adopted at
next week's meeting.
Agenda Item No. 13. Set public hearing to amend and reenact Chapter 6,
Section 6-2, of the Code of Albemarle, to create a new voting precinct, and to
adjust the Berkeley and Woodbrook precincts, in the Charlottesville Magisteri-
al District.
Mr. Tucker said in an effort to remedy the problem of the split precinct
in Ivy, House Bill 2031 was passed in the 1993 Session of the General Assem-
bly. Although this remedied the split precinct in Ivy, it created the poten-
tial for a split of the Berkeley Precinct in the Charlottesville Magisterial
District. In order to avoid this, the Electoral Board, election officials and
individual supervisors concur that the northern portion of the Berkeley
precinct should be merged with the western portion of the Woodbrook precinct
to create a new precinct that would vote at the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School.
Staff suggested that the precinct be named "Rio Hill" in keeping with the
historical significance of the immediate area. The Board will need to
authorize staff to advertise for public hearing to amend the County Code in
Section 6-2 in order to accomplish this change.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a
public hearing for June 2, 1993, on an amendment to Section 6-2 of the
Albemarle County Code in order to create a fourth voting precinct to be known
as "Rio Hill Precinct" in the Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Set public hearing to amend and reenact Chapter 12,
Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of Albemarle, to authorize the
issuance of parking tickets on vehicles failing to display a current local
vehicle decal, to increase the bad check fee to $25 when paying a fine, and to
update references to State Code sections.
Mr. Tucker said Virginia Code Section 46.2-752(G) has been amended
effective July 1, 1993, to allow the issuance of parking tickets for vehicles
failing to display a current local vehicle decal. This change was requested
by the County for many years and should have a substantial Positive impact on
revenues collected for decals and personal property taxes. Although this
change will allow the issuance of parking tickets in private parking areas
which are generally open to the public, there will be no effort made to
enforce this ordinance on an individual's private property.
Staff is recommending that the Board set a public hearing to make
several amendments to the Code of Albemarle: 1) authorizing the issuance of
parking tickets; increasing the fee fOr a bad check from $15 to $25; and,
updating references to Virginia Code sections.
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mo%ion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set a public
hearing for June 9, 1993, on the above mentioned changes. Roll was called,
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Review of County Ordinances pertaining to hunting
regulations (deferred from April 7, 1993). This item was deferred to June 2,
1993, without discussion.
Agenda Item No. 17. Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission.
Present were: Mrs. Ellen Anderson (arriving at 11:30 a.m.), Mr. Thomas Blue,
Mrs. Jacqueline Huckle, Messrs. Phil Grimm, Thomas Jenkins, Walter Johnson and
Bill Nitchmann. Mr. Grimm called the meeting of the Planning Commission to
order.
Agenda Item No. 17a. Review of Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman asked
Mr. Cilimberg to summarize the item for discussion. Mr. Cilimberg noted a
memorandum mailed to the members from Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development, dated April 28, 1993.
In his memorandum Mr. Benish noted the issues which were considered
during the last review of the Plan, plus the studies which have taken place
since that time. The staff feels that with the level of review which took
place during the last review and subsequent analysiS/Planning efforts, this
review should be more focused. Staff recommends that the review focus on the
Goals/Objectives/Strategies of the plan, and several issues which have not
been addressed in a detailed fashion or which need to be reconsidered. The
priority issues should include:
1. Evaluation of the Goals and Objectives of the Plan.
2. Review of the Rural Development Policy.
3. Emphasis on Water Resource Protection, revisiting
the groundwater study.
4. Introduction of Social/Human Services Planning.
5. Land Use Plan and Map Reevaluation.
6. Redrafting of Neighborhood Plans.
Mr. Benish also discussed various ways that public participation could
be obtained using existing staff (no consultants), such as:
1. Joint Board of Supervisors/Planning Commission Meeting.
2. Conduct a series of meetings on major issues under study,
3. Upon completion of review of issues/topics, the Planning
Commission should consolidate recommendations and hOld a
series of public meetings.
4. Planning Commission public hearing on draft of the Plan.
5. Board of Supervisors conduct work sessions.
6. Board of Supervisors hold a public hearing on the
final draft.
Mr. Benish notes that the time frame for review will depend on the scope
of the review to be undertaken and 'the methods chosen to get public participa-
tion. Based on the items set out above, staff anticipates the review begin-
ning in September, 1993. The Planning Commission's final public hearing and
recommendation to the Board would be in December, 1994.
Mr. Cilimberg said this time frame was based on the idea that if there
are six topic areas and a committee addressing each of the six, there could
probably be two committees working at one time on different areas, and it
would take three months to do each study.
Mr. Bowerman said that is a short time frame to go over something like
this. Mr. Bain asked if this amount of detail is needed during this review
considering the amount of work that went into the last review. He would like
to see this Board adopt the amendments by December, 1994. Mr. Cilimberg said
the six areas set out above are those the staff felt were necessary to be
reviewed based on their every day work with the Plan. If the Board feels that
too many areas are being considered, staff needs to know that. How the public
participation process is structured will have an effect on the time needed to
complete the work. The process presented today was structured on what the
staff can handle. Otherwise, consultants would need to be brought in.
Mr. Tucker said he has discussed public participation with Mr. Cilim-
berg. They would like to try some creative ideas; such as using the public
access channel on cable television or talk shows on the radio. There are some
creative things they can do using existing staff.
Mr. Bowerman asked if staff was not anticipating this work beginning
until late Fall or early Winter, 1993. Mr. Cilimberg said they would like to
start in September as soon as the urban area and Hollymead question is
settled.
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000042
(Page 11)
Mr. Bowerman asked how this proposed process is different from what the
Planning Commission did five years ago. Mr. Cilimberg said it is similar, but
the Planning Commission did not have outside membership on the committees, and
did not go out into the county. Mr. Tucker said this structure is similar to
what was done in 1977 in seeking input from people in the neighborhood,
community, and village groups.
Mr. Grimm said he thinks some of the six issues could be done briefly if
they were limited to just a couple of meetings. There has been a committee
meeting on water resource protection and there is already a lot of information
that could be used from that study.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board will deal later today with the economic
development policy presented by the Planning Commission. He asked if there
are any other initiatives planned by the Commission. Mr. Walter Johnson said
he would like to suggest an initiative by the Board of Supervisors. He thinks
it would serve the program well if the Board itself conducted a philosophical
review as to the Plan and what the results have been over the last five years.
He thinks the Board might want'to address increased identification and
emphasis on: 1) management practices in the county, 2) identification and
evaluation of the impact of current plans and operations, 3) operational
accountability of significant projects, and, 4) identification of relative
priorities by functions or projects based on need and social and cost effec-
tiveness. He thinks there is a modus operandi here that could be more
explicitly defined by the Board. He thinks this would improve the productivi-
ty of the overall plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Johnson felt his idea should be a component of
the plan. Mr. Johnson said the definition of the plan includes a statement
"to define the physical development of the territory." Maybe this is not the
proper place to put this type of information, but he feels it should appear
somewhere. Lastly, somewhere in the County's overall operation, he thinks
there should be some identification of the development process being followed
to control the cost of county government. He thinks there is a need for more
basic philosophy and concept of how to control it before going into specific
items.
Mr. Martin asked if Mr. Johnson wanted the Board to review the goals and
objectives from a philosophical point of view and pin them down as a means of
making it clearer as to what the rest of the plan should be about. Mr.
Johnson said there may be no change, but the Board now has five years of
experience with the Plan. Is it appropriate, before going into this review
again, to review and take advantage of the experience of those five years?
Mr. Grimm said part of the review just mentioned is listed as No. 1.
Mr. Bowerman said that is true, but the Board might do the review with the
Planning Commission rather than the Commission undertaking the review indepen-
dently.
Mr. Nitchmann said before he would agree to look at social and human
resources planning, he would like to have a definition of what would be
addressed. He feels public participation is a goodly portion of the process,
particularly from the working class, and from those living in the far reaches
of the county, people who do not normally come before the Board. He would
agree that valuable information can be obtained from a properly constructed
survey. He thinks the rural development policY, the neighborhood plans, and
the land use revaluation should be studied in-depth. These are all important
to the future growth of the County. He feels it is important that the rural
development policy and the five lot limitation set in 1980 be revisited in
great detail. He said the Planning Commission members have discussed other
areas which have a direct impact on affordable housing, and on the state of
the economy in the County, as well as the way of life of the average citizen
in the County. By this he means to review building codes to get costs down
for the homebuilders and for subdivision developers. That idea may not fit in
this review.
Mr. Bowerman said affordable housing is a part of the Plan. What Mr.
Nitchmann is referring to should be undertaken outside of the Comprehensive
Plan review process.
Mr. Nitchmann said he feels it is very important in evaluating the goals
and objectives of the Plan, each should be reviewed along with the strategies
in the Plan. These all change with time, and if some have already been
accomplished, they should be updated to reflect the present time. Mr. Bain
said it is a twenty-year plan being reviewed every five years, but it is
possible that some of the strategies have been accomplished, so should be
either deleted or modified.
Mrs. Huckle said in view of the comments already heard, it occurs to her
that there is potential for great change in the Plan. She would like to see
the public involved at all levels including evaluation of goals and objec-
tives. She thinks the public needs to have input into what their vision of
the County is.
Mrs. Humphris agreed. She said this is the all encompassing guidelines
for the whole process, so the public needs to be involved from the beginning.
000043
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bowerman said that is what he heard discussed as part of the
process. The committees to be selected will hold their meetings with the
public, so the public is involved at every step. Mr. Bain said he heard that
this Board and the Commission should look at the goals and objectives first
~ taking public input before going to the other items. If a consensus can't be
reached on these, there is no use going into the other items.
Mr. Bowerman said a couple of joint public meetings with the Board and
the CommiSsion reviewing the goals and objectives, and taking public input,
and then discussing the content should set the direction for the upcoming
review. That is the type of guidance the Commission is looking for, and the
public has a right to participate. Mr. Marshall suggested that these meetings
be held at night. Mr. Bowerman said they will be.
Mr. Cilimberg said that part of the process, from the staff's stand-
point, will not be as involved as later work on the Plan. It will be a
question of what the Board and the Commission can handle. The staff can
conceivably get into that this Summer. He suggested that the County Executive
and he meet with the two chairmen to work out a schedule.
Mr. Johnson suggested that the subject matters be divided, and then each
one of these items be advertised for public hearing, rather than just having a
blanket advertisement. He feels there will be better participation in this
case. Generally when the Planning CommiSsion advertises for a public hearing
on a major plan, few, if any, members of the public appear to make comments.
He thinks these advertisements should be identified in such a way as to
encourage public participation.
Mr. Bowerman said it seems that the general outline presented by staff
seems to be an appropriate way to begin the process of amending the Comprehen-
sive Plan. There have been some concerns expressed by the Planning Commission
about focus and how the Board views these goals and objectives. Having a
series of joint public meetings out in the County, if they are well publi-
cized, is a good way to go. He agrees with Mr. Johnson that if the meeting
topics can be specific that would be good, but the Comprehensive Plan is non-
specific as it affects individual property owners. Mr. Tucker's comments on
how to use innovative ways to publicize this are well taken.
Agenda Item No. 17b. Discussion: CPA-93-02 - Economic Development
Policy. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include goals, objectives and strate-
gies for economic development that would replace the existing economic
development section of the Plan.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg to explain this item. Mr. Cilimberg
handed to the Board members a staff report on this item dated April 20, 1993.
Mr. Cilimberg said this process began earlier in the year with the Planning
Commission delegating the chairman and Mr. Nitchmann to work with staff on a
policy. After initial development there was a work session held by the
Commission and it was distributed for comment. Last night, the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on CPA-93-02, and recommends it to the Board
for adoption to replace the current section of the Plan which discusses
economic development, by a 5/1 vote.
Mr. Cilimberg said the "Goals" statement is very broad, and covers the
whole policy. There are various objectives covering wide areas which include
cooperatively working with the business community and other interests the
community and coming up with the best strategic plan for addressing economic
development in the future. That would include utilizing a department of
economic development, as well as, an economic development council to be
appointed by the Board. It also discusses ways to work with businesses to
insure their retention in the community, and set up programs of support
through education and training to provide the labor force existing businesses
need.
Mr. Cilimberg said it contains land use and infrastructure emphasis
where land would be looked at to see if it provides the necessary capacities
for business growth in the community. An important part of the process would
be putting together a data base as to what labor force, labor skills, and
needs in jobs would be. Decisions could be made based on this information,
and strategic planning could be done based on what is good for the community
and meets its needs.
Mr. Cilimberg said there is a component for a marketing program that
would try to attract economic activity in association with the strategic plan
mentioned earlier. There is an objective which calls for a regional approach
to economic development when the County's program is in place.
Mr. Marshall said he recognized immediately upon taking his seat as a
Board member that there is need for an economic development policy. He
mentioned that at the first County/City meeting he attended, he stated that
these two localities should be working on this together. This proposed policy
will not leave the County wide open for development, yet it gives an opportu-
nity for development. All must realize that capitalism is what we live under,
and in order for capitalism to function, there must be a free enterprise
system, and in order for that work, the locality must see that it has an
opportunity to work. Mr. Marshall said many people in Albemarle County have
000044
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
been left out of the so-called "quality of life" the last few years. Hopeful-
ly, this policy will bring some quality of life back into their lives by
attracting the type of industry that is needed and wanted, without causing
expenses to go up in the way of schools, fire, policemen, and everything else.
He thinks the Planning Commission did a wonderful job, and he commended the
Commission for its work.
Mrs. Humphris said she was happy to be able to attend the Planning
Commission meeting last night. She had heard this process was going on but
was not sure of the timing of it in light of the position the Board took a
year ago on the development of a new Albemarle County Economic Policy. She
then read her statement from the Board's minutes of March 11, 1992, a state-
ment which was informally endorsed by the Board at that time.
One principle which the Board affirmed was: the policy should be
effective in solving the identified problems the policy is intended to
address. Mrs. Humphris said she is not sure the Planning Commission has
formally identified the problems their policy will address. It disturbs her
because information that went out with the amendment said the University of
Virginia had lost about 2000 jobs. In actuality, the univerSity has gained
200+ jobs. It was also stated that State Farm Insurance had lost some 200
jobs; that is not true, they are building a huge new building to accommodate
more than 400 people by the end of the decade. That is the reason she feels
the problem should have been identified before creating a solution for
unidentified problems.
Second, any change in County economic policy should be consistent with
other existing goals of the Comprehensive Plan. She does not know if this
change would be consistent with those goals.
Third, any change in the County's economic policy should not increase
the existing burden on local taxpayers without providing some benefit to those
taxpayers which is identifiable, predictable and significant. This Board has
just gone through the budgeting processing and heard the outcry from the
public about the pressures on their real property taxes, and on affordable
housing. There is no way to know if this proposed change would increase that
burden or not.
Four, any change in County economic policy should be preceded by formal
public hearings. At the public hearing of the Planning Commission last night,
there were two groups represented, people with a vested interest and those who
felt the proposal was environmentally unsound. There was no comment made
about the people who were not represented last night, the people who will not
benefit in any way, people who are in ordinary jobs, and those people who are
living on fixed incomes. What can this policy do for these people? It is not
going to increase their income. This policy will definitely increase the
pressure on their real estate taxes and their cost of living, and do more of
the negatives the members of this Board have said they do not want to see.
Mrs. Humphris said she proposed last year that if this Board accepted
those principles as guidelines in considering this proposal which is now
before the Board, that these steps be taken prior to acting on the proposal to
insure that any changes made would be consistent with the principles which
most Board members said were the right things to do. First, identify the
problem which the policy change is intended to address, such as: is the
problem insufficient population growth, or is it insufficient residential
construction, or is it unemployment, or is it underemployment? Is it underem-
ployment among people who live in this region? The County needs to know how
many County residents are unemployed, what are their skills and abilities? If
a company with 200 jobs in technology wanted to locate here, would there be
200 people skilled in that particular technology ready to take those jobs?
Mrs. Humphris said she does not think there would be the people available to
take those jobs. If not, would they be trained, and who would pay for that
training? She thinks the impacts on all of the other Comprehensive Plan goals
needs to be identified. Also, the impacts this would have on the rural areas
in terms of development. What effect will the policy have on the cost of
housing? Mrs. Humphris said a person at the public hearing last night said it
would have no effect on the cost of housing, but how could it not? Anytime a
number of new people come into the community putting pressure on housing,
there is an increase in cost. What effect will it have on infrastructure?
Will more have to be built, and if so, where is the money coming from?
Mrs. Humphris said the character of the businesses and industries which
would best solve the problems need to be identified. How can this be done
until the problem is first identified? A citizen speaking at the public
hearing last night intimated that the County could decide who could come into
the community and who could not. Mrs. Humphris asked who gave the County the
right to do that? Anybody who wants to come into this community can do so
today as long as they come in under the conditions which have been set. That
leads to the fifth item, which is to identify legally defensible and practi-
cally enforceable zoning methods which will help insure that the identified
characteristics are realized.
Mrs. Humphris said although the reason for the development of the policy
is understandable, a response to a down turn in the economy, she feels the
"cart is being put before the horse". There has been no cost benefit informa-
tion presented. There is no way to determine if this is a good thing~ and she
does not know how the Board feels it can move ahead without this information.
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14) ._~.
000045
She proposed that the Board determine how to answer the questions she posed
before going ahead with the establishment of an office. That office will be
expensive. She saw a figure of $40-$60,000, and said that is ridiculous·
That amount would not even cover the cost of the head person, much less the
secretary, travel expenses, and wining and dining required when moving into
the mode of recruiting.
Mrs. Humphris said the State Department of Economic Development says
businesses and industries are not recruited locally. They select the locality
firSt without it even knowing it is in the running. They know all about the
locality first, and then they approach it. Mrs. Humphris said she had asked a
rhetorical question before and will again. If anybody knows of any place in
the United States which has done this very thing and not had negative fall out
on a large part of their population, on taxes and affordable housing, she
would like to know where it is and how they did it, because that would be the
plan this County needs.to adopt.
Mr. Marshall said he and Mrs. Humphris are about as far apart as they
can get on this issue. He said he can "shoot holes through half of the stuff"
Mrs. Humphris mentioned. She gave figures about employment increases at State
Farm Insurance, but did not mention the fact that Centel might close and take
their jobs with them. Obviously, he and Mrs. Humphris have to find somewhere
between what she has said, and what he has said, to compromise.
Mrs. Humphris said that is what she is asking for. Mr. Marshall said
the proposal before the Board is not going to do the things Mrs. Mumphris
mentioned. He feels the proposal is open-ended enough to allow the Board to
stop anything that will be negative to Albemarle County. Mrs. Humphris said
the Board cannot stop anything going into a piece of land where the zoning is
already in place. Mr. Marshall agreed, but said the County is perceived as
being negative toward business, so the State Department of Economic Develop-
ment is sending inquirers elsewhere in the state. Mrs. Humphris said the
Chairman has said he was told they are not steering people away from Albemarle
County, that is a myth.
Mr. Martin said the list Mrs. Humphris just read came from the meeting
where this Board established the Fiscal Impact Study Committee. What is being
looked at today came from an initiative of Mr. Nitchmann and the Planning
Commission, so the two are not connected. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Nitchmann's
proposal is legitimately before the Board because it was an initiative of the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Martin said he mentioned this because it did not come from the
meeting where Mrs. Humphris listed all of the things the Board agreed to.
Second, the goal in the Comprehensive Plan says "allow expansion of industry".
The proposed language is: "Promote a comprehensive economic development
program that is consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals and achieves a
stable, sustainable economic environment within which the citizens of the
county can pursue economic well being." This proposal is not a huge change
from the existing goal. Mr. Martin said he is positive that when the Board
decided to have an open space plan as part of the Comprehensive Plan, no one
went through the Plan and asked how the Open Space Plan would effect each and
every homeowner. Before putting in a goal, Mrs. Humphris wants every little
question answered way into the future. He does not think that can be done.
When the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, there was no study done to see how
the Plan would affect every single person in Albemarle County. For some
reason, in this case, it seems to be important to know everything about the
future before submitting to even one little goal.
Mrs. Humphris said she does not think it is that simple. This proposal
costs money to the County taxpayers in the way of setting up an office on
economic development. Mr. Martin said the Planning Department costs money,
and if there were no Comprehensive Plan, there would not be as many employees
required in that department.
Mr. Bain said the fiscal impact model should be ready soon. He asked
why there is urgency to adopt this change at this time. Mr. Martin said he
doesn't know because he does not think it is that important that the Board
take action on this at this time.
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the Board feels this policy needs to be a part
of the Comprehensive Plan review. This idea was first brought to the Planning
Commission as a general comment in 1992, was brought up later in the year, and
the Planning Commission members asked Mr. Grimm and himself to put something
together and they did. They went through this is a logical way. It was
advertised to the public. The public and the staff participated. Copies of
the proposal were sent to many citizens through the Chamber of Commerce, and
many people in the banking industry. He has talked to many citizens about
- this policy.
Mr. Nitchmann said people way out in the county are not going to
participate. It will always be the same group of people as that present at
the Planning Commission meeting last night. Many who were present are
private, small business owners, and they employ the people who will be
affected by this policy. They have a finger on the pulse of the community,
much closer than most Board and Planning Commission members do. He does not
believe they were present putting forth their own agendas in order to line
their pockets as has been implied. He believes they were present to help make
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000046
(Page 15)
this county be perceived by businesses throughout the United States and the
Virginia Economic Development Council as someone who wants businesses to
locate here. He agrees with a comment made last night that this policy is the
same as the part of the Comprehensive Plan put into effect to help the
agricultural/forestry industry. He would bet that what Mrs. Humphris is
proposing today was not done prior to adoption of that policy.
Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks the proposed economic development policy is
consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. As far as putting a
burden on the taxpayer, he is not proposing that any money be spent. He
thinks this Board can utilize the Chamber of Commerce, the ad hoc committee
working on economic development for the last year, and the Thomas Jefferson
Area Economic Development group. This can be put into effect with little cost
except additional staff time. The Board can do that by just putting into
place the Council. The Council will be made up by people not only in the
business community, and not only in the Chamber of Commerce, but can be made
up of whoever the Board wishes to appoint as long as there is an equal
balance.
Mr. Nitchmann said he does not believe anybody on the Planning Commis-
sion is recommending that a department be created immediately. The proposal
follows where the County is with the fiscal impact model, but that model is
not an economic development model or plan. The fiscal impact model will help
determine what the impact is on the cash flow in and out of the county for a
new business, but it will not tell whether that business is good for the
citizens of the county. Mr. Nitchmann said that 75 to 80 percent of the real
estate tax burden in this county rests on the ordinary citizen, while only 13
to 14 percent comes from businesses. This burden is scaled too far in one
direction. He believes that if this policy is put into place next year, or
five years from now, the burden might be changed to 70/30. Mr. Nitchmann said
the participants can talk about infrastructure and the decaying roads, but he
knows that when the Route 29 North expansion, the 29 North bypass, and the
Meadow Creek Parkway were studied, it included not only the increase in
residential housing, but the impact that new businesses moving into this area
would have on roads. Therefore, a lot of those issues have already been
studied. He feels this is just a delaying action, and is not needed. This
document is open-ended enough to permit all the input that is needed, but
gives a structured place to start from and is only a moderate expansion from
what is already in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Humphris said her comments were not intended as a delaying action,
but is an attempt to see that if there is a change being made in the economic
development policy, that the problems be known. Nothing has identified the
problems specifically to show what is needed to do to create the solution. Is
there some way the Board can insure all the necessary information is gathered
and put into a form where it has the identification of the problem(s) and the
answers to go along with a change in policy?
Mr. Bain said he would like to have a work session on this proposal.
There is no way all of the issues can be addressed today. He asked how the
Chairman had planned on the Board considering this issue.
Mr. Martin said he thinks a work session would be okay, but he does not
feel there is any way to answer all of the questions posed by Mrs. Humphris.
He reiterated that when the goal was put in to discourage rural residential
development, all of the questions stated today were pertinent to that goal and
they were not answered. If they had been answered, those answers could be
used now for economic development.
Mr. Bain said a lot of the questions were answered at that time. Mr.
Martin said he does not believe all of these questions can be answered.
Mrs. Huckle said this proposed document is more than a goal. It is an
active agenda. It's first strategy is to establish and fund an economic
development department. She had hoped that when the Planning Commission
reviewed this document, it would have done so on an item-by-item basis, but
the rest of the commissioners looked at it as a packaged deal. She said some
parts could be helpful, but it is much too broad both in scope and possible
interpretation as it stands. Other Virginia areas investing taxpayers money
in this economic development concept have more than twice the unemployment
rate of Albemarle County. She cited statistics concerning Louisa County and
Waynesboro. Mrs. Huckle said she is not saying there are no people who are
unemployed, but she feels the problem has not just been local, but has been a
nationwide and worldwide down turn in business. She is also concerned about
the concessions that would have to be offered in order to compete. Tax free
bonds are another concession that might be necessary. She asked how the
County can come out ahead if industry gets a tax break. County taxpayers and
Service Authority users must provide the infrastructure, and then industry
brings in families with children so these same taxpayers have to provide more
schools. The County is having a taxpayers revolt now by people who can't
support the development already in the County.
Mr. Grimm said part of the discussion last night centered around a
mixture of both large and small businesses being desirable. One .of the
indicators they had initially for the policy proposal came out of the afford-
able housing studies where there were many comments made about the hidden
unemployment in this county, people who are not even on the employment rolls
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000047
(Page 16)
any longer, so are not even a part of the system. People think the unemploy-
ment rate is higher than that being reported. That was part of the impetus
for this policy, and another was the Fortune 500 company. When that company
came to the county, there was no organization that could review the applica-
tion objectively, and no one on County staff available to take that up. In
the past, the State Department of Economic Development did not target Albe-
marle County because there was a perception that the County was opposed to
economic growth. That was another impetus behind this proposal. They looked
at the issue several ways.
Mr. Perkins said if the Board is looking for all of the questions and
all of the answers, then nothing will be done because these change continuous-
ly. One thing to keep in mind about what has been discussed today is that
there are families that come in with anybody. Look just over the borders of
Albemarle County'and you will find that the County lost a lot of good indus-
tries to adjoining counties, yet these people probably live in Albemarle
County, and the County has to provide all the services.
Mr. Bowerman said nothing is going to be decided today, so he would like
to make a couple of comments. The issue which the Planning Commission has
brought to the Board is a legitimate issue. He is not personally prepared to
implement what is basically a policy change in the Comprehensive Plan. This
is a basic, fundamental change in the Plan which is not that unreflective of
the way the community perceives the problem. He thinks the amendment before
the Board is basically out of order. A year ago when the Board discussed this
situation, it was decided that there was some basic information needed in
order to determine a policy covering the type, the scale, the scope and the
location of any industrial development.
Mr. Bowerman said the Board formed the Fiscal Impact Committee. That
committee's charge has been amended to include additional items which go
beyond just fiscal impact, as recognition that there are other issues which
need to be looked at. The Comprehensive Plan amendment generated by the
Commission which is before the Board now, is out of order in the sequence. He
does not think there is an emergency to be addressed by the proposal. He says
this because when the Fortune 500 company was trying to locate here, they
needed 100 acres and there was no site level enough to accommodate them. The
Board changed the Comprehensive Plan in order to allow them use of a site.
It was found that the State Economic Development Office had a wrong
impression about Albemarle County. He and the County Executive have met
several times with officials from that office this past year. When the
printing company wanted to come to Albemarle to a site that was already zoned,
and in a location already being developed industrially, he and Mr. Marshall
and staff talked to them. They chose for reasons of wages to locate in
Lynchburg instead. He and staff certainly did everything possible working
with the Chamber of Commerce, and with the structure s already in place. Mr.
Rick Huff has now been assigned as the staff contact person to work with
interested people when they come to town, and when they are identified to the
staff by either the Chamber of Commerce or the City's Economic Development
Office.
Mr. Bowerman said at this time, there is a procedure in place to get
information out to interested people. Ms. Kate McGuinness is coming back to
town this week to meet with the University, the City, and him, to go over the
State's economic development policy and the climate for economic development
here, and he will make a report to this Board about that meeting. A lot has
been going on this past year, but to approach a Comprehensive Plan amendment
as large as this out of context wi~h the rest of the Plan is not the way to go
about it. However, the economic development policy could be looked at as a
goal and considered as the Comprehensive Plan amendment while collecting the
information and all the other things needed to be addressed in order to put
together a plan. The proposal before the Board today says the County might
want to fund infrastructure development for industrial parks. He would want
to hold a referendum on such a question.
Mr. Bowerman said this is too large of a chunk to comprehend all at one
time. He does want everyone to know he feels that parts of this policy are
due. He said the economic development policy from the past, while it was
across-the-board neutral in what it allowed, was really negative toward
industrial development because there were more economies for developers to
develop residential and commercial land. He thinks there are things which
should be done to change that, but he does not feel it should be wholesale
like the proposal before the Board. He would be willing to consider as part
of the Comprehensive Plan review, or even earlier, the Planning Commission's
goal statement. He wants the Board to go through this in a logical progres-
sion, even if it takes a couple of years.
Mr. Martin said he does not disagree. His emotional outburst was
because he does not like to see the whole thing attacked for philosophical
reasons with which he disagrees. The most important thing at this point is
that the goal goes a long way. The county cannot continue to "just allow
expansion" because that has created far too many fast food restaurants and
shopping centers. Regarding the unemployment rate, Mr. Martin said he could
probably apply for and get five jobs by five o'clock today, all at hotels or
fast food restaurants, but trying to get a better paying job is hard. He
thinks the County needs to develop rather than just allowing development.
000048
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
Mr. Marshall said when talking about affordable housing, a lot of people
can't pay rent. The jobs that people had at Comdial and Teledyne and another
places where they were making decent wages, are now working for $4.25-$5.00 an
hour. There are an enormous number of rentals in this community because people
are moving back in with their families because they are underemployed. That
is a factor a lot of people have not seen.
Mrs. Humphris said she does agree with the revised goal. The wording of
the goal is exactly what she has been asking for. It is the strategies that
cause her concern.
Mr. Bowerman said he appreciates the fact that the Planning Commission
went through this, and he appreciates Mr. Nitchmann's work on this policy. He
wants it to be clear that there are areas where government can play a role and
this may be one of those areas, but Acme Visible Records did not go out of
business because of County involvement. They went out of business because of
bad management. Other companies have done the same thing. It is not his
business to get involved with those companies that have bad management. It is
his business to be sure there is a level playing field in Albemarle County for
the community, for the citizens, and for businesses that have a legitimate
interest in locating here. The Board needs to do what it can for its own
citizens who are unemployed and underemployed. How it is to be defined will
be something to worked out. Compromise is not something he wants to do on
this. There are a bunch of different, legitimate interests on the part of the
Board and the Planning Commission members, and a way to unite the differences
must be found. He thinks this can be done if it is approached in a logical
sequence. He would like to end this discussion now since nothing can be
solved beyond what has already been talked about today.
Mr. Johnson said this document is about as broad as a plan should be.
He thinks implementation of it is directly in the hands of the economic
council which would be appointed by this Board. Common faults which effect
the productivity of a council are: ambiguous charter, membership associated
with special interests or lobbying, members should have available time, and,
too many members.
Mr. Nitchmann said what has gone on today has brought to the forefront
something that has been needed to be addressed for at least twenty years. It
is now at a stage where all of the things Mrs. Humphris wants done, and it now
in the jurisdiction of the Board, and it is the Board's responsibility to
perform the proper due diligence on it. One of his objectives was to elevate
this not only in the eyes of the Board and the Commission, but also in the
eyes of the public. He is pleased that is has gotten this far.
There was no further discussion of this item at this time.
Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters.
At 12:39 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain to adjourn into executive
session under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344A.1 to discuss personnel matters,
and under Virginia Code Section 2.1-344A.7 to discuss legal matters pertaining
to the police suit.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Martin, Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19a. Certify Executive Session. At 2:20 p.m., the
Board reconvened into open session. Mr. Martin was not present at this time.
MOTION: Mr. Bain
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETINO DATE: May 5, 1993
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETINO
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma-
tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The
Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each
member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were
discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification
resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as
0000
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were
heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr.
Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING MOST OF MEETING: Mr. Martin.
ABSTAIN DURING VOTE: None.
Agenda Item No. 16a. Appropriation: Regional Library Carryover.
Mr. Tucker said the Jefferson-Madison Library Board of Trustees has
requested the use of $21,070 in carryover funds from Fiscal Years 1990-91 and
1991-92. They have requested that $9,370 be used to fund additional staff
hours for the Crozet and Scottsville branches, and that $11,700 be used to
partially offset a request for $18,000 in the upcoming 1994-95 Capital
Improvements Program for furnishings for the work area (back room) of the
Northside branch.
Mr. Tucker noted that this request is to use these nonrecurring funds
for recurring (operating) expenses as noted. The CIP request for the North-
side branch for furnishings has not yet been prioritized. It was delayed from
the 1993-94 cycle due to lack of available funding.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the request from the Library Board to use $21,070 in carry over funds from the
two prior fiscal years for the purposes set out above.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 16b. Appropriation: Fire/Rescue Administration
Transfer of funds.
Mr. Tucker said the Fire/Rescue Administration Division began operating
as a separate unit on June 1, 1993. The functions of Fire/Rescue Management,
Fire/Rescue Training, Fire/Rescue Prevention, and Fire/Rescue Volunteer
Services were all combined into one cost center. Three positions (two inspec-
tors, one administrative secretary) and six months of operating costs were
transferred from the Inspections Department budget; one position was trans-
ferred from the now defunct Fire/Rescue Volunteer cost center; and, $15,453
was transferred from the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association
contingency to fund a new Fire/Prevention Inspector position.
Mr. Tucker said none of these transfers require additional revenues. He
recommended approval.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the following resolution setting forth the transfer of appropriation. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920066
FUND GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FIRE/RESCUE
ADMINISTRATION
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100032011110000
1100032011160900
1100032011210000
1100032011221000
1100032011231000
1100032011232000
1100032011241000
1100032011270000
1100032011520100
1100032011520300
1100032011520302
1100032011550100
1100032011550110
1100032011550400
1100032011600100
FIRE/RESCUE MANAGEMENT
SALARY $34,585.00
BONUS 988.00
FICA 2,728.00
VRS 3,231.00
HEALTH INS 1,815.00
DENTAL INS 30.00
LIFE INS 304.00
WORKERS COMP 1,237.00
POSTAGE 200.00
TELEPHONE 260.00
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE 240.00
TRAVEL-MILEAGE 150.00
POOL CAR 300.00
TRAVEL-EDUCATION 350.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES 700.00
May 5, 1993
(Page 19)
(Regular Day Meeting)
0OO0.50
1100032011601200
1100032011601700
1100032011800700
1100032011800710
BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS 230.00
COPY SUPPLIES 450.00
ADP EQUIPMENT 1,891.10
ADP SOFTWARE 896.00
1100032012312500
FIRE/RESCUE TRAINING
4,374.00
1100032013110000
1100032013210000
1100032013221000
1100032013231000
1100032013232000
1100032013241000
1100032013270000
1100032013520100
1100032013520300
1100032013520302
1100032013550110
1100032013550400
1100032013580100
1100032013600100
1100032013600800
1100032013600900
1100032013601400
1100032013601700
1100032013800200
1100032013800300
FIRE PREVENTION
SALARY 33,280.00
FICA 2,599.00
VRS 3,033.00
HEALTH INS 1,007.00
DENTAL INS 50.00
LIFE INS 291.00
WORKERS COMP 1,065.00
POSTAGE 218.00
TELEPHONE 287.00
INSURANCE 153.00
POOL CAR 50.00
TRAVEL-EDUCATION 694.00
DUES/MEMBERSHIPS 10.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES 475.00
VEHICLE FUEL 726.00
VEHICLE SUPPLIES 720.00
OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES 100.00
COPY SUPPLIES 300.00
FURNITURE 750.00
COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 600.00
1100034000110000
1100034000210000
1100034000221000
1100034000231000
1100034000232000
1100034000241000
INSPECTIONS
SALARY (9,888.00)
FICA (780.00)
VRS (924.00)
HEALTH INS (605.00)
DENTAL INS (30.00)
LIFE INS (88.00)
1100032031110000
1100032031160900
1100032031210000
1100032031221000
1100032031231000
1100032031241000
1100032031270000
1100032031310000
1100032031520100
1100032031520300
1100032031520302
1100032031550100
1100032031550110
1100032031550400
1100032031600100
1100032031601200
1100032031601700
1100032031800700
1100032031800710
FIRE/RESCUE COORDINATOR
SALARY (24,697.00)
BONUS (988.00)
FICA (1,948.00)
VRS (2,307.00)
HEALTH INS (1,210.00)
LIFE INS (216.00)
WORKERS COMP (1,237.00)
PROF SERVICES (4,374.00)
POSTAGE (200.00)
TELEPHONE (260.00)
TELEPHONE-LONG DISTANCE (240.00)
TRAVEL-MILEAGE (150.00)
POOL CAR (300.00)
TRAVEL-EDUCATION (350.00)
OFFICE SUPPLIES (700.00)
BOOKS/SUBSCRIPTIONS (230.00)
COPY SUPPLIES (450.00)
ADP EQUIPMENT (1,891.10)
ADP SOFTWARE (896.00)
1100034000110000
1100034000210000
1100034000221000
1100034000231000
1100034000232000
1100034000241000
1100034000270000
1100034000520100
1100034000520300
1100034000550110
1100034000550400
1100034000580100
1100034000600100
1100034000600800
1100034000600900
1100034000601400
1100034000601700
INSPECTIONS
SALARY (22,380.00)
FICA (1,765.00)
VRS (2,090.00)
HEALTH INS (605.00)
DENTAL INS (30.00)
LIFE INS (196.00)
WORKERS COMP (716.00)
POSTAGE (183.00)
TELEPHONE (234.00)
POOL CAR (50.00)
TRAVEL-EDUCATION (450.00)
DUES/MEMBERSHIPS (10.00)
OFFICE SUPPLIES (400.00)
VEHICLE FUEL (726.00)
VEHICLE SUPPLIES (720.00)
OTHER OPERATING SUPPLIES (100.00)
COPY SUPPLIES (300.00)
1100032020561490
FIRE/RESCUE
JCFRA CONTINGENCY
(15,453.00)
TOTAL $0.00
Agenda Item No. 16c. Appropriation: School Resource Officer - Transfer
of funds.
Mr. Tucker said during work sessions on the FY '92-93 budget, the School
Division agreed to fund the salary and benefit costs of one School Resource
OO005 I
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Officer; operational costs of the officer were to be paid by general govern-
ment. The request today is to transfer $30,835 from the School Fund to the
Investigations Division.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution for transfer of an appropriation to approve the foregoing
request. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920071
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER IN THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM THE SCHOOL FUND
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031014110000
1100031014210000
1100031014221000
1100031014231000
1100031014232000
1100031014241000
1100031014270000
REVENUE
SALARIES
FICA
VRS
HEALTH INS
DENTAL INS
LIFE INS
WORKERS COMP
$25,000.00
1,915.00
2,200.00
1,350.00
60.00
100.00
210.00
TOTAL $30,835.00
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100016000160307
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER
TOTAL
$30,835.00
$30,835.00
Agenda Item No. 16d. Appropriation: School Food Service Program.
Mr. Tucker said the School Food Service Program had a fund balance of
$107,660.07 at the end of FY '91-92. The School Board is asking for a
reappropriation in order to offset the rising costs related to operating the
program.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation approving the request as set out above.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920068
FUND: SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF FUND BALANCE FOR FOOD
SUPPLIES
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1300063100600200
FOOD SUPPLIES
$107,660.07
TOTAL $107,660.07
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2300051000510100
APPROP FROM FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$107,660.07
$107,660.07
Agenda Item No. 16e. Appropriation: Drug Free Schools/Communities Act
Grant.
Mr. Tucker said the 1991-92 Drug Free Schools and Communities Act Grant
had a fund balance of $4,201.11. The School Board is requesting reappropria-
tion of those funds in order to provide education and staff training for
prevention of substance abuse.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation approving the request as set out above.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920069
FUND: DRUG FREE SCHOOLS
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF FY 1991-92 FUND
BALANCE FOR CURRENT YEAR EXPENSES
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
1310761101601300
1310761311580000
1310761311580500
INST/REC SUPPLIES
MISC
STAFF DEVELOPMENT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$1,201.11
1,000.00
2,000.00
$4,201.11
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2310751000510100
APPROP FROM FUND BALANCE
TOTAL
$4,201.11
$4,201.11
Agenda Item No. 16f. Appropriation: Asbestos Removal Reimbursement.
Mr. Tucker said the School Board has received a check in the amount of
$8,294.00 from the Manville Property Damage Settlement Trust reimbursing the
County for a portion of the labor and supplies the Building Services Depart-
ment used during the 1992-93 fiscal year to remove asbestos material.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation approving the request as set out above.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920070
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
APPROPRIATION OF INSURANCE REIMBURSEMENT
FOR ASBESTOS MATERIAL
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1243364600800903
ASBESTOS REMOVAL
TOTAL
$8,294.00
$8,294.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2200018000189900
MISC REVENUE
$8,294.00
TOTAL $8,294.00
Agenda Item No. 16g. Appropriation: Emergency Medical Services Funds.
Mr. Tucker said state funds are received each year for Emergency Medical
Services. These funds are normally distributed to the three local rescue
squads. Funds for FY '92-93 in the amount of $27,077 exceeded the budgeted
projection by $2,077. Staff requests approval to disburse the additional
amount equally to the three squads.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris~ to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation approving the request as set out above.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920072
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF EMS FUNDS RECEIVED IN
EXCESS OF BUDGET
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
1100032030565002
1100032030565102
1100032030565202
CH'VILLE/ALB RESCUE SQUAD-EMS
WESTERN ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD-EMS
SCOTTSVILLE RESCUE SQUAD-EMS
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$691.66
692.67
692.67
$2,077.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2100024000240415 STATE EMS FUNDS
TOTAL
$2,077.00
$2,077.00
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
Agenda Item No. 16h. Appropriation:
Field.
000053
Stony Point Ruritan Baseball
Mr. Tucker said he had been advised by Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of
Parks and Recreation, that the Community Facilities Plan recommends there be a
separate soccer and baseball field at each elementary school in the County for
use by the community. Due to lack of usable field space, this could not be
achieved at Stony Point. The Stony Point Ruritan Club has, therefore, devel-
oped an athletic field for community use on the Ruritan Club's property. This
Club did the work and expended almost $10,000 getting the field property
graded and establishing grass.
Mr. Mullaney indicates that the Club would like assistance with the
purchase of a backstop and wing fences, bases and soccer goals. From the
Recreation Department's current operating budget, the bases, home plate and a
pitcher's rubber can be provided. In the Capital Improvements Program budget,
there is an unencumbered balance of $3,119.04 which represents funds remaining
from development of outdoor facilities at Cale, Yancey, Crozet and Stony Point
schools. This seems to be a logical source of funds for use on the Ruritan
Club field.
Mr. Tucker said the staff recommends that the Board approve the request
for expenditure of $3,119.04 to equip the Stony Point Ruritan Field for use by
various athletic organizations in the community.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation transferring funds as recommended by
staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920074
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO ASSIST STONY POINT
RURITAN CLUB WITH BASEBALL FIELD
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900071000950083
1900071000950074
STONY POINT RURITAN BASEBALL FIELD
RECREATION FACILITIES
TOTAL
$3,119.04
(3,119.04)
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
TOTAL $0.00
Agenda Item No. 16i. Appropriation: Storm Drainage Study.
Mr. Tucker said funding for the county storm drainage study was approved
in the Capital Improvements Program. The City of Charlottesville and the
'University of Virginia wish to participate in this study in those areas of
mutual concern. The University has remitted payment of $15,000 and the City
is in the process of approving $30,000 for their share of the expanded
project. Staff recommends approval of an appropriation in the amount of
$45,000.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Mumphris, to adopt the
following resolution of appropriation approving the request as set out above.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin.
FISCAL YEAR: 1992-93
NUMBER: 920067
FUND: STORM DRAINAGE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE AND UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA SHARE OF STORM DRAINAGE PROJECT
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1910041000950093
STORM DRAINAGE STUDY
$45,000.00
TOTAL $45,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2910019000190209
2910019000190210
STORM DRAINAGE-UVA
STORM DRAINAGE-CITY
TOTAL
$15,000.00
30,000.00
$45,000.00
000054
May 5, 1993 (Regular Day M~'etlng)
(Page 23)
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Perkins and staff have both been contacted by a
citizen asking for a fee waiver for placement of a foot bridge across the
Moormans River. Because of the cost of the fee to do that, staff has looked
at the problem, and suggests that the fee be reduced down one-fourth of the
normal cost because it will not take much time and effort on the part of staff
for the review. The plan will go through the process, but staff will only
spend about one-fourth of the normal time on the review, so the actual cost
will be only about $173.00. He requested a motion from the Board approving
this waiver of cost regarding a foot bridge to be built by Mr. John Alford.
Mr. Tucker said staff is going to reexamine the fee schedules again in the
near future.
Motion to grant the request was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr.
Bain, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Bain mentioned a letter sent to the Board from Ms. Margaret McLeod
Cain giving notice pursuant to Virginia Code Section 8.01-195.6 of a suit
filed against the Commonwealth on behalf of Ms. Phyllis Tinsley, deceased. He
asked if this is simply a notice. Mr. St. John said it is not a demand under
the statute, but under the Virginia Tort Claims act, and should not have been
sent to the County. The County maintains no highways, so is immune from this
kind of liability.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned Item 5.10 from the Consent Agenda, Rivanna Solid
Waste Authority report. It has been mentioned by the press that Albemarle
County residents are recycling only one percent, but the County actually does
much more than that as shown in the report.
Mrs. Humphris asked the difference between a mass burn facility, and a
refuse-derived fuel plant. Mr. TuCker said a refuse-derived fuel plant will
actually take refuse and create pellets which can then be burned. A mass burn
is simply that, they take refuse and incinerate it.
Mrs. Humphris said this is an important report, and very clearly
written.
Mr. St. John said he has been contacted by Mr. George Gilliam who would
like to meet with the Board in executive session on May 12, 1993, at 6:00 p.m.
for the purpose of discussing the Larry Claytor case with the Board's attor-
ney.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. At 2:45 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs.
Humphris, to adjourn this meeting until May 12, 1993, at 6:00 p.m. Room 11,
Fourth Floor, County Office Building, for the purpose of conducting an
executive session on legal matters pertaining to the police suit.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Perkins, Bain, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.