1990-06-13June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
249
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 13, 1990, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County
Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman,
F.· R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mr. Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R.
St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
9:00 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and
seconded by Mr. Way to approve Items 4.2 through 4.3a and to accept the
remaining items as information with the exception of 4.9, which is to be
discussed during the afternoon portion of this meeting.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the Month of June, 1990. This
item was not ready this date so was deleted from the agenda.
Item 4.2. Resolution endorsing the concept of fair housing and publish-
ing this action in the local newspaper in order to comply with requirements of
1987 Community Development Block Grant. The following resolution was adopted
by the vote shown above for publication as the County's official statement on
fair housing.
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
wishes to ensure equal opportunity to all persons residing in the
County of Albemarle to live in decent housing facilities; and
WHEREAS, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion,
national origin, sex, age, familial status or handicap in connection
with the sale, purchase, leasing, or financing of housing facilities
will be prohibited by the County of Albemarle;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, endorses the concept of fair.
housing within the County of Albemarle and that the County Executive
as the designated Fair Housing Administrator is hereby authorized to
further the County of Albemarle's efforts in this regard.
Item 4.3. Authorize Chairman to sign contract with Appalachian Power
Company for period between June 1, 1990, and May 31, 2000. The following
resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, there was this day presented to the Board of Supervisors
a proposed contract between the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, and the Appalachian Power Company providing for
street lighting, dated June 1, 1990, as set out in said proposed
contract; and
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
250
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of said proposed contract are
agreeable and acceptable to the Board of Supervisors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County:
(1) That said contract be and hereby is approved and accepted
and that F. R. Bowie, Chairman, be and hereby is authorized to execute
and deliver said contract for and on behalf of Albemarle County; and
(2) That Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, be and hereby is authorized and
directed to affix the seal of Albemarle County to said contract and
attest the same.
Item 4.3a. Street Sign Resolution for Bennington Road (Route 1407) and
Barracks Road (Route 654) in Canterbury Hills Subdivision - Section 1.
Request was received from Mr. Edmund Berkeley, Jr., a resident of Canterbury
Hills Subdivision for street name signs. The following resolution was adopted
by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Bennington Road (State Route 1407) and Barracks Road (State
Route 654) at its northwest intersection (Canterbury Hills
side; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Trans-
portation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain
the above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.4. Letter dated June 4, 1990, from Mr. Thomas F. Farley, District
Administrator, Department of Transportation, giving notice of a location
public hearing on the County 29 Corridor Study, (Project #6029-002-122,
PE-100) between Route 29/250 Bypass in the City of Charlottesville to 0.31
Mile North of the North Fork Rivanna River was received. The public hearing
is scheduled for June 28, 1990, at Charlottesville High School.
Item 4.5. Letter dated June 1, 1990, from Mr. Michael Chandler, Communi-
ty Resource Department, VPI-SU, stating that Mrs. Amelia Patterson, Zoning
Administrator, has received a graduation certificate for completing all
requirements associated with the Virginia Certified Boards of Zoning Appeals
Program, was received as information. Mr. Bowie suggested that a letter of
congratulations be sent from the Board to Mrs. Patterson, via the County
Executive. Other Board members concurred.
Item 4.6. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated June 4, 1990, re:
"Appalachian Power Company Rate Negotiations", stating that the cycle of
negotiations with APCo has begun and an assessment of $360 based on 1989
electric usage will be paid from the Board's budget, was received as informa-
tion.
Item 4.7. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., dated June 4, 1990, re:
Cove Garden Ruritan Club's offer to assist the County Parks staff in stabi-
lizing the deterioration of the Coleman House on the Southern Regional Park
property, was received as information.
Item 4.8. Notice dated June 6, 1990, from the State Corporation Commis-
sion enclosing application from Appalachian Power Company for a permanent
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
251
increase in its rates after investigation and hearing by the Commission, was
received as information.
Item 4.9. Report from the Department of Planning and Community Develop-
ment dated May 30, 1900, entitled: "Fiscal Impact Evaluation and Future
Rezoning Requests" This item was moved to the afternoon portion for discus-
sion during the work sessions.
Item 4.10. Letter dated June 7, 1990, from Mr. Neal J. Barber, Director,
Department of Housing and Community Development, re: denial of Albemarle
County's request for Community Development Block Grant housing rehabilitation
funding, received as information. Mr. Cilimberg noted that a meeting is
scheduled in Richmond on Friday, June 16, regarding the grant application
denial. He said he would inform the Board if an appeal process is initiated
as a result of that meeting. Mr. Bowie asked that a report be given to the
Board-on what impact the loss of the grant will have on the entire housing
rehabilitation program.
Item 4.11. Letter dated June 8, 1990, from Mr. Thomas F. Farley, Dis-
trict Administrator, Department of Transportation, transmitting a set of the
minutes from the third District Round Table meeting for state and local
government officials held on May 8, 1990, in Culpeper (on file in Clerk's
Office), received as information.
Not Docketed: Mr. St. John referred to a non-agenda letter dated May
11, 1990, from Mr. Curry A. Roberts of Albemarle Farms. He said the letter
stated that the applicant intends to abandon three special use permits due to
construction and operation costs associated with the proposed projects. Mr.
St. John suggested that the Board take official action for the record in the
matter of abandoning these special use permits.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bowerman
that the special use permits SP-90-06, SP-87-98, and SP-87-81, be abandoned as
requested in a letter dated May 11, 1990, from Mr. Curry A. Roberts, Managing
Director, Albemarle Farms.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 28, April 4, April 11,
May 2, May 9 and May 16, 1990.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes for May 16, 1990, Pages 20 - End and found
one typographical error.
Mrs. Humphris had read the minutes for May 9, 1990, Pages 1 - 14, and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes for April 4, 1990, Pages 16 to the End
and found them to be in order. He had also read the minutes for May 9, 1990,
Pages 14 to the End, and found them to be in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes for May 2, 1990, and found them to be
in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the
minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
252
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Set Public Hearing Date: Proposed
Secondary System Budget - 1990-91.
Mr. Roosevelt said he submitted a list of proposed projects to be
included in the budget. The list contains one additional project which was
not on the Secondary Road Improvements priority listing adopted by the Board
in March. Mr. Roosevelt said it is necessary to set a public hearing and
obtain the Board's recommendation for budget allocations for 1990-91.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the $83,690 allocated for Old Forge Road. Mr.
Roosevelt said that is a supplemental allocation to widen a section at Old
Forge Road and Idlewood to three lanes, add curb and gutter and storm sewer to
handle the drainage, and create a left turn lane on both streets. He said the
Highway Department has purchased the right-of-way and made modifications to
the project to satisfy the owner of the adjacent property.
Mr. Bain asked about $30,000 shown for Crozet School. Mr. Roosevelt said
YDoT allocated $100,000 in revenue sharing funds to cover its estimated cost
of that project. However, the costs turned out to be higher by about $30,000.
Regarding the bridge at Route 660, Mr. Bain asked when construction is
likely to begin. Mr. Roosevelt said the project is scheduled for advertise-
ment late in the month of June. Construction should begin in September. The
project now calls for the closing of the old bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said he
will attempt to schedule the closing in the Spring so that the contractor can
work steadily and quickly to avoid as much inconvenience as possible.
Mr. Bowie asked what roads are scheduled for plant mix. Mr. Roosevelt
said the only roads scheduled for plant mix are Route 692 from Batesville
toward Route 29 South, and for Route 676 from Route 250 to Garth Road. He
said although plant mix may appear to be resurfacing, it is an improvement
according to VDoT definitions.
Mr. Bowerman said the one item referred to by Mr. Roosevelt that is not
in the Six Year Plan is the Route 29 North modified intersection at Woodbrook
Road and Rio Hills Shopping Center. Mr. Bowerman said he is prepared to
answer any questions regarding that improvement if the Board so desires.
Mr. Bowie agreed that it is a dangerous intersection, but he does not
understand what the improvement entails. Mr. Bowerman said currently there is
a concrete divider which channels traffic turning right onto Route 29 from Rio
Hills Shopping Center. Through traffic and left turns onto Route 29 North are
all in the next lane. Mr. Bowerman said because so much of the traffic
leaving Rio Hills is turning left onto Route 29 North, and most of the traffic
leaving Woodbrook is turning left on Route 29 to go south, the traffic which
wants to go straight across the intersection from either direction is forced
to wait. The suggested improvement is to remove the concrete divider and make
the through and left turn lane a left turn lane only. This will allow left
turning traffic out of Woodbrook to see that there is an oncoming car which
wants to come through into Woodbrook.
Mr. Bain wondered if the improvement would actually make a difference to
through traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said with such a small percentage of traffic
coming from Rio Hills into Woodbrook, cars coming from Woodbrook are assuming
that oncoming cars will turn left. This improvement will eliminate any doubt
about whether the traffic is coming straight across or turning.
There was no further disCussion regarding specific projects contained in
the proposed budget.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to set a
public hearing for July 11, 1990. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
Agenda Item No. 6b. Joint Transportation Committee Report.
Agenda Item No. 1Se.)
253
(Moved to
Agenda Item No. 6c. Public Hearing - An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
Chapter 12, Article VI, of the Albemarle County Code to add a new section to
delegate authority to the County Executive to set speed limits on certain
subdivision roads open to the public, but not in the Virginia Secondary System
as allowed by Virginia Code Section 46.2-1300. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor summarized the Board's discussion of this matter which took
place on May 9, 1990, and may be found in the minutes of that meeting.
The public hearing was opened and no members of the public were present
to speak. The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the
Board.
There being no further discussion by the Board, motion was immediately
offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way to adopt an ordinance to
delegate authority to the County Executive to set speed limits on certain
subdivision roads open to the public but not in the Virginia Secondary Highway
System, to be added to Chapter 12, Article VI of the County Code. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
AN ORDINANCE TO DELEGATE AUTHORITY TO
THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO SET SPEED LIMITS
ON CERTAIN SUBDIVISION ROADS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
BUT NOT IN THE VIRGINIA SECONDARY HIGHWAY SYSTEM, TO BE ADDED TO
CHAPTER 12, ARTICLE VI, OF THE COUNTY CODE OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY
BE IT ORDAINED that Chapter 12, Article VI of the County Code is
amended and reenacted by the addition of the following sections:
Section 12-34. The County Executive is hereby authorized to
establish, increase or decrease the speed limit upon any road within a
subdivision approved and platted pursuant to Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of
the Code of Virginia (1950) which is open to the public but not part
of the Virginia Secondary System of Highways; provided such road or
roads form through connection between two roads which are in the
Virginia Secondary System of Highways; and provided such speed limit
shall be based upon an engineering and traffic investigation; and
provided such speed area or zone is clearly indicated by markers or
signs.
Section 12-35. Upon the proper posting of such speed limits as
may be established pursuant to Section 12-34 above, violation of any
such speed limit shall constitute a misdemeanor punishable under the
general penalty for violation of this Code.
Authority for this ordinance is Chapter 13 (Section 46.2-1300, et.
seq.), Title 46.2 of the Code of Virginia (1950).
Mr. Bain noted that the Board had stipulated in an earlier meeting that
any action resulting from this ordinance would require a request by a majority
of the residents of a subdivision. Mr. St. John asked what public record
there would be of any speed limits set by the County Executive. Mr. Agnor
said he would report such action to the Board to be contained in the minutes
of a Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: 1990-91 Construction Allocations
and Six-Year Improvement Program for Primary, Interstate Highways, etc.
Mr. Bain asked how long the construction project will last for bridge
replacement and four-laning of Free Bridge on Route 250. Mr. Roosevelt said
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
254
he thinks it will take all of the construction season next year and a good
part of the following one as well.
Mr. Bowie asked if the left turn onto High Street in the City will remain
open. Mr. Roosevelt said that is VDoT's plan. He said the new bridge will be
seven lanes wide. The first three lanes located south of the existing bridge
will be built first, while the existing bridge is used as a detour during
construction. Then, the traffic would be detoured onto the new structure
while the old bridge is replaced. He said it is essential to keep the three
lanes headed into Charlottesville open at all times during the day.
Mr. Bowie noted that in the past when the left turn lane has been closed
for improvements to the bridge, traffic actually moves faster through that
area.
Mr. Bain asked if the County's funding for the Meadow Creek Parkway is
included in the project for four-laning of McIntire Road. Mr. Roosevelt said
this plan covers primary/urban projects. The Six Year Plan is for secondary
road projects. Mr. Roosevelt said the date shown in the secondary plan is
July, 1994, but he assured the Board that the dates for completion of the City
and County portions of this improvement would coincide.
There was no further discussion of this item.
Agenda Item No. 6e. Highway Matters: Projects Under Construction.
Mr. Roosevelt asked if the format of the listing he furnished the Board
today is suitable. He noted that he plans to send this list on a monthly
basis for information.
Mr. Bowie asked if next month's list would follow-up on items on the
current list. Mr. Roosevelt said each list will stand alone. Items which are
completed will be so noted and then deleted from the list the following month.
Mr. Bowie asked that changes in status from month to month be noted by an
asterisk.
Mr. Bain said that there were three accidents over the Memorial Day
weekend on Route 20 North. He wondered if any of those occurred at the bridge
improvement location shown on this listing. Mr. Bain said he thinks the
location of one accident is north of the intersection with Route 649, Proffit
Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he was not aware of these accidents. He said with
the completion of this bridge replacement project north of Stony Point, every
narrow road section within Albemarle County on Route 20 will have been im-
proved.
Mr. Bowie suggested that staff determine the circumstances of the acci-
dents referred to by Mr. Bain and forward that information to VDoT. He would
like to have a report at the next day meeting as to the problem on this road.
Regarding the list of projects under construction, Mr. Roosevelt informed
the Board that the completion dates could conceivably change each month. He
said VDoT's system of administering projects is to allow shut-downs when
weather conditions are not conducive for grading, and that can extend the
estimated completion dates.
Mr. Perkins asked why the Route 240 project in Crozet is not on the list.
Mr. Roosevelt said that project was not started when he prepared this report,
but it will be on the report for next month.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a traffic count study has been done for a light at
the intersection of Northfields Road and Hillsdale Drive on Rio Road. Mr.
Roosevelt said a count was made within the last two weeks, resulting in
insufficient traffic to warrant a light. Mr. Roosevelt said he does not know
the exact figures. The requirement for a light is a total of 500 cars in both
directions on the main road, and one of the other approaches has to have 105
cars per hour. These two conditions must exist for eight hours during the
day. Mr. RoOsevelt noted that traffic turning right is not included in the
count for approaching traffic. Mr. Bowerman wondered how close to the re-
quirements the traffic count is at Hillsdale Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said he has
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
255
not seen the report, but he will obtain the information for the next Board
meeting.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a traffic study has been done at the intersection
of Greenbrier Drive with Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt said a recent study has not
been done. Mr. Bowerman asked if such a study could be done. He said it is
becoming increasingly difficult to access Rio Road because of the turning
movement into the small shopping center there. Mr. Roosevelt said he would
request a traffic signal study.
The Board agreed that the information in Mr. Roosevelt's report was
satisfactory.
Agenda Item No. 6f. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowie noted that Great Eastern Management Company had requested a
dedicated left turn signal at Riverbend Drive and Route 250 East at Pantops
Shopping Center. He sent the request to Mr. Roosevelt and asked for a
response. Mr. Roosevelt responded in a letter dated May 21, 1990, saying that
efforts are being made to synchronize the signal system in the City of
Charlottesville at the Route Z50 and High Street intersection with the Coun-
ty's signal system at Riverbend Drive. Mr. Bowie said he had no further
comments on this letter and thanked Mr. Roosevelt for his attention to the
matter.
Mr. Bowerman said there are several right turn lanes scattered along
Route 29 North near the new Federal Express building. He said he thought the
County could require frontage improvements. Currently, only a turn lane to
access the property is required. He said this is creating a dangerous traffic
situation along Route 29 North. He is also concerned about areas along Route
29 North, such as the piece of land between Shopper's World and Dominion
Drive, where the public is getting tired of waiting for improvements. He
wondered if some of these improvements can be made now without waiting for the
six-laning of Route 29. Mr. Cilimberg said his Department relies on VDoT
comments regarding the necessary improvements to access a development. Based
on the Hylton case, the County can only require that improvements be made that
are necessitated by the development of the property. Requiring a complete
frontage lane is not necessitated by the individual development and not
allowed in the review process. Mr. Bowerman feels there is a safety hazard
created by not requiring a complete frontage lane and by just allowing a turn
lane.
Mr. Roosevelt said the properties on the opposite side of the road north
of the crossover that serves the Sheraton Hotel are supposed to be accessed by
a service road. Because the Federal Express property developed first, it was
agreed that a temporary entrance would be allowed with a turn lane. Then, as
the other properties are developed south of that point, that entrance would be
closed and a new one constructed. What has happened is that the new entrance
has been construqted, but the old one at Federal Express has not been closed.
Mr. Roosevelt said that turn lane should be closed and remarked shortly.
Mr. Cilimberg added that the new turn lane created for Automart will also
be removed when the frontage road is completed. Mr. Roosevelt said the only
entrance would be one at the existing crossover which should tie in to the
turn lane now serving Real Estate III.
Regarding the land at Shopper's World, Mr. Roosevelt said the problem is
that development north of Charlottesville is tied into the Route 29 corridor
study. VDoT has not made any improvements from the Rivanna River South on
Route 29, anticipating a resolution on the corridor study. He feels that a
decision may be made by next year's primary allocation hearing. Mr. Bowerman
noted that VDoT is making improvements, however, on left turn lanes on Route
29. Mr. Roosevelt said those improvements were made out of special funds from
the Traffic Engineer who felt that one of the biggest problems on Route 29
resulted from traffic backing up at certain intersections needing left turn
lanes.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
256
Mr. Perkins said there are hedges overhanging the sidewalks in Crozet on
Route Z40~between the Methodist Church and the railroad overpass. Mr.
Roosevelt said he would have someone check the situation.
Mr. Bain said that citizens who live on the gravel portion of Route 637
between the Ivy Landfilland Miller School are concerned about the speed of
traffic. He asked if speed limit signs could be placed on that portion of
road. Mr. Roosevelt said he would ask the Traffic Engineer to do a speed
limit study on this road, although the Traffic Engineer feels that the gravel
road itself limits the speed of traffic. He added that the volume of traffic
on gravel roads is not normally enough to determine what the speed limit
should be.
Mr. Bain then reported the.problem of traffic not stopping when the
traffic signal turns'red. He said six cars continued through the red light.at
the intersection of Rio Hills and Route 29 North when he was recently waiting
at the light. He said this is not the only intersection where this happens.
He asked if there is anything that can be done to correct this situation. Mr.
Roosevelt said this is a problem everywhere because people are in a hurry. He
feels that it is an enforcement problem, rather than a signal timing problem.
Extending the signal to two and one-half minu.tes will simply cause drivers to
continue to run the red light because they know they will have to wait another
few minutes before the signal changes again. Mr. Bain said he feels that if
the police would issue tickets to a few cars at these intersections, the
message would get across.
Mrs. Humphris said some of the large rocks from the rocky median on
Barracks Road near the Route 250 By-pass are lying in the highway 'and present
a definite hazard to traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said he would haVe the situation
corrected.
Mr. Way thanked Mr. Roosevelt for the Highway Department's efforts with
traffic for the Fourth of July parade in Scottsville.
Agenda Item No. 7. An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 2-2.1 of
the Albemarle County Code entitled "Compensation of board of supervisors" to
increase such compensation allowed by an inflation factor of not to exceed
five percent as allowed by Virginia Code Section 14.1-46:01(2). (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1990.)
Mr. Agnor said the compensation for the Board of Supervisors has to be
set by ordinance. The State Code allows the amount to be adjusted annually.
but only after a public hearing is held. The compensation proposed is for a
five percent increase, which was calculated from the five percent allowance
for teachers and the total of five and one-half percent for employees on the
performance system. The Board's annual salary is currently $8,273.60, and
this proposal would increase that amount to $8,687.28.
Mr. Bain asked how the 2.5 percent increase for County employees was
determined. Mr. Agnor said that increase reflects a need for the salary scale
to be increased to keep up with the inflationary factors in the economy. For
this year, employees are receiving a combination of the vested scale adjust-
ment by 2.5 percent and a pool of three percent for the performance bonus.
Mr. Bain said he thought last year's increase was an inflationary adjustment
rather than a performance increase. Mr. Agnor said last year the increase was
not tied to a scale adjustment. Mr. Bain asked the amount of the Board's
adjustment last year. Mr. Agnor said last year the increase was reflective of
an inflationary estimate, and that is what this figure represents this year as
well. He said the State Code limits the adjustment to no more than the
inflationary factor in the annual budget. For employees, the 2.5 percent
salary scale is needed because of the inflationary factor of approximately
fiVe percent. However, because the pay and classification plan is under
review, the scale is only being adjusted by 2.5 percent, and the balance of
the increase is to be used for the performance award. The total compensation
June 13' 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
257
of 5.5 percent is aimed at offsetting the inflation factor. In the case of
teachers,.the amount is regulated by the State at, five percent.
The public hearing was Opened at this time.
Mr. Mark Crockett, resident of the City of Charlottesville, came forward
to speak. Mr. Crockett said he has been working through a fellowship at the
University of Virginia for the last year. His task has been to work with the
school systems around the State in promoting the teaching of local and state
government. He said he has found in general that social studies teachers are
not aware of state and local government and, therefore, tend to teach very
little of the subject. In carrying out his job of enhancing the teaching of
state and local government, he has come in contact with a number of local
government officials. He feels that most are caring and competent and work
long hours on complex issues for little pay. However, he has found that often
individuals do not "practice what they preach", and that is his concern about
the proposed five percent raise for Board members. Having approved a 2.5
percent base pay raise for classified school (and general government) employ-
ees who are at the lowest end of the pay scale, how can a five percent raise
be justified for: the Board? Mr. Crockett said the dollar amount is not large,
and the Board deserves the money. However, the issue is fairness--not money.
He quoted Mr. Way as stating in the Daily Progress that, "... the Board's
merit is determined through the polls .... " Mr. Crockett said in a survey a
few years ago, voters were asked to name their Congressman and most could not.
When asked if the Congressman was doing a good job, about 60 percent said he
was. He also cited a recent election in the Chicago area where citizens
elected a dead man to office. He said the Board must know that the majority
of voters fail to participate in local elections. Inferring merit from the
small turnout in local elections is a grievous error in Mr. Crockett's opin-
ion. If and when the Board chooses to make a pay raise an election issue,
then it can be Claimed that the voters approved the pay increase. To think of
the Board giving itself a five percent raise on Wednesday morning when most
taxpayers are at! work and cannot comment, defies reason. Mr. Crockett said
that can easily !be perceived as a "back door" approach to government and one
that denigrates the dignity of this Board. He said the Board deserves a pay
raise, but this is not the way to accomplish it. He said the Board should
refuse this raise because of the inconsistency and unfairness of voting a five
percent raise fOr the Board while paying other County employees 2.5 percent,
regardless of the rationalizations about a potential merit increase. Lastly,
Mr. Crockett said at a time when the public is disenchanted with government in
general and local government in particular, the combination of perceived
unfairness, inconsistency and insensitivity, help to create a distrust of
government that local government can ill-afford. He asked the Board to do the
right thing and vote against this pay raise.
Mr. Mark Baucom, custodian at Jack Jouett Middle School, said his opinion
is that the Board should refuse the pay raise and take a 2.5 percent increase
just the same as the~lowest paid classified employee. He said the Board
should set the example to classified employees. Mr. Baucom said the figure
budgeted for the merit increases'means that 40 percent of the County employees
will get no more than the scale adjustment of 2.5 percent. Therefore, the
Board should do the same until the salary survey is completed. .Mr. Baucom
said if the Board is evaluated by the voters, then the Board's Salary should
be placed on the ballot at election time and let the voters make the decision.
Mr. Frank Morris, bus driver for Albemarle County Schools, said the 2.5
percent increase that County employees will receive, which will not pay for
the increase in the insurance rates this year, is no incentive for him to come
back to work for the County next year. It means he will be taking home less
money in the coming year than he has this year. He said the County wants to
have the best employees, and he feels they should be willing to pay for them.
He has one of the shortest bus routes in Albemarle County, and it takes him 60
hours per month to work his route. Mr. Morris said his time is probably
doubled when considering the time it takes to fuel the bus, wash the bus, and
handle the discipline problems. He said he makes $5,900 a year, and 2.5
percent added to that is not much of an increase. For the Board and the
Superintendent of Schools to feel that they deserve a five percent increase,
is disgusting to Mr. Morris. He said his job may not be as important as the
Board's in the eyes of some people. However, he has the lives of 60 children
at stake for which he has to make split-second decisions. Therefore, he feels
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
258
the County should want to have the best and should be willing to pay for it.
Mr. Morris said he took less money home in his paycheck last year than the
year before, and it will be the same again this year. He said he loves what
he is doing, but he cannot afford to work for the County at the pay he is
receiving. He cannot afford to sit back and watch others receive five percent
while he receives 2.5 percent. He feels that the custodians, secretaries and
bus drivers are as much a backbone of the County as any other position. He
said it "stinks" that these employees are getting no more than 2.5 percent.
Added to,that is the insult of the Board and Mr. 0verstreet getting five
percent~ He said he asked how the merit increase will work and was told that
the employees would get an answer in July. Mr. Morris said he has never heard
of an employer not knowing about his own merit system. He concluded by
saying that he has talked about this problem a lot this year, and feels that
his talk has done little good.
There were no other members of the public present to speak, and the
public hearing was closed at this time.
Mr. Way explained that the full context of his statement quoted today was
that he felt that it would not be proper for the Board to receive more of an
increase than the lowest paid employee in the County.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to
adopt an ordinance amending and reenacting Section 2-2.1 of the Code of
Albemarle setting forth compensation of the Board of Supervisors but limiting
the increase to 2.5 percent for a salary of $8,480.44.
Mr. Perkins said that the Personnel Advisory Committee has been trying to
address the inequities in the pay scale. One of the problems is the effect of
an across-the-board increase. An employee making $6,000 getting a five
percent raise compared to an employee making $60,000 and getting a five
percent increase does not seem to be fair. He said this problem has to be
addressed because employees making $6,000 per year have to shop at the same
grocery stores as the employees making $60,000 per year. He said he does not
know what the answer is, but he is willing to work to make the increases more
equitable.
Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Mr. Perkins and is also a member of the
Personnel Advisory Committee. He believes that this issue is a matter of
credibility and the appearance of credibility. For that reason he definitely
supports the motion. He feels that a 2.5 percent increase is appropriate for
this Board and hopes that the Board has an opportunity next year to address
the entire pay structure.
Mrs. Humphris said she found Mr. Crockett's comment interesting that not
much local and state government is being taught in the schools. She said she
was invited recently to teach an advanced placement senior government class at
Albemarle High School on Articles VIII and IX of the Virginia Constitution.
She said those senior government students know a lot about Albemarle County
amd local government. She said they asked penetrating questions and know a
lot about what the Board of Supervisors does.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION
Article I, of the Code of Albemarle
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 2, Article I, Section 2-2.1 of the Code of
Albemarle, be amended and reenacted to read as follows:
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
259
Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows:
Eight thousand four hundred eighty dollars and forty-four cents
for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular
salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of twenty-five
dollars for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further, that in
addition t~ his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a
stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars.
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED, that this ordinance shall be effective
on and after July 1, 1990.
Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: Planning Commission's decision regarding
CPA-90-03.
This matter was brought to the Board by the following letter from Wendell
W. Wood, dated May 23, 1990:
"I hereby appeal the three-three vote of the above Comprehensive Plan
Amendment by the Planning Commission.
This application is a result of a request by the ACSA and the Airport
Authority to provide public sewer to the Airport. The need for sewer
is immediate and therefore the impetus for this request. The Airport
Authority has approximately $100,000.00 allocated to sewer, and I am
willing to bare the remainder of the cost of approximately
$300,000.00.
At the present time, considerable mutual benefits exist for the
Airport, ACSA and myself; however, if the Airport is forced to install
a septic system, the mutual benefits cease to exist.
We respectfully request your favorable consideration of this request.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the following staff report:
"Request: This is a request for a resolution of intent to study a
proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
This proposal is to change the land use designation from Industrial
Service to Regional Service (approximately 55 acres) and High Density
Residential (approximately 70 acres). This property is located west
of Route 29 and south of Airport Road in the Community of Hollymead.
The applicant has indicated a willingness to extend sewer to the
Airport through this property if this amendment request and subsequent
rezoning is approved. The applicant has also indicated he will
provide a connector road between Route 29 and Route 606 to serve this
general area.
Character of the Area: The area is primarily undeveloped and most of
the area is located within the Airport Impact Area overlay district.
Availability/Condition of Public Utilities and Facilities: Currently
water and sewer service is not available to this area. Water service
is located along Route 29. Sewer is to be extended along a drainage
basin in the area of this request and on to the airport. This sewer
project is scheduled in the Albemarle County Service Authority Capital
Improvement Program.
Access to this area would be from Route 29 and/or Airport Road and
Route 606. An internal road or network of roads will be needed to
serve the ultimate development of this portion of Hollymead.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: The Plan calls for this
portion of Hollymead to be used for industrial service uses. The Plan
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
260
specifically states the residential uses are not to be encouraged on
the western side of Route 29 due in part to airport impacts. The Plan
also recommends that commercial uses be consolidated in certain areas
of Hollymead to avoid stripping of Route 29. While this request would
minimize stripping of Route 29, this area was not intended for
Regional Service activity. Instead, it was retained as a primary area
of Industrial Service to meet the need for future basic employment
generating uses in the County.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff and the Planning Commission have
recently entertained Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests in the
Hollymead Community and have recommended that no action be taken at
this time for several reasons. Staff is of the opinion that circum-
stances are similar as regards this request and that there has been no
change in circumstance to warrant any further review of Plan amend-
ments for Hollymead at this time. The issues of concern are as
follows:
Status of Route 29 Bypass Analysis - One candidate alignment runs
through the area of this request. Further changes in the Plan
should not be reviewed until %he Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) has been released and proposed alignment is
resolved.
Completion of Public Facilities Plan, Open Space Plan and fiscal
impact model for the County - The completion of these items will
permit more comprehensive and objective review of the major
Comprehensive Plan amendment requests in Hollymead."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Plannin~ Commission failed to take affirmative
action, so this request comes to the Board with two tied votes.
Mr. Bowie said recent applications to expand the Hollymead growth area
have been rejected, and rightfully so, in his opinion. However, this request
constitutes a change rather than an expansion. He said during the Compre-
hensive Plan review it was the feeling that there may be too much property
included in an industrial designation. The basis for that feeling was that
industrial development creates jobs and increases population, which is not
cost effective for the County. However, the Board did not settle on a way to
reduce the industrial designation. He feels there is a difference between the
previous requests for expansion and this request.
Mr. Cilimberg said there were two issues regarding the Hollymead growth
area. The Board indicated a desire to have commercial areas consolidated
rather than randomly spread along Route 29. He said staff evaluated commer-
cial needs and found that the commercial designation is adequate in Hollymead.
This request would not constitute strip development, but would add a signifi-
cant amount of regional service acreage. Another issue discussed regarding
Hollymead was a new residential area on the west side of Route 29. In review-
ing the Comprehensive Plan, both the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors decided not to add any new areas of residential development west
of Route 29 due to the proximity to the airport and the impact of airport
operations.
At this time, Mr. Wendell Wood, appellant, came forward to speak. He
reviewed the history of this property and said he has accumulated approxi-
mately 200 acres since 1973. The concept for development of this property is
that a large property will have more flexibility and result in a better
development than a smaller parcel can afford. He said the Airport Authority
brought this proposal to light because of their need for public sewer for the
expansion of the airport. In discussions with the Airport Authority regarding
sewer, Mr. Wood proposed to build a sewer line at a cost to him of over
$300,000. Mr. Wood said he has met with Mr. Roosevelt regarding a proposal to
extend the road from the end of the airport runway straight over to Route 29,
coming out nearly in front of Holly Memorial Gardens. He pointed out the
benefits of this proposal on traffic going to Earlysville and for traffic that
would be removed from Route 643. He said the residential portion of this
proposal, which was not mentioned in the staff report, is for a mobile home
park. He said he would be renting lots to people who own their own mobile
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
261
homes. He would not have mobile homes for sale. He has a preliminary plan
for about 300 mobile homes. He said the mobile homes are manufactured to meet
the sound level requirements in the airport impact area. Mr. Wood said this
request is not an addition to the Hollymead growth area, but is a change
within the area. He said timing is what makes most projects work, and timing
is appropriate at this point. There will be benefits to the County, the
Airport Authority, and the community. Mr. Wood said he feels there are no
negative impacts resulting from this proposal. He pointed out that Deerwood
Subdivision is already experiencing problems with septic lines, for which the
County will eventually need to intervene. He said the mobile home park meets
the real need for low cost housing in Albemarle County. Mr. Wood said there
are actually few places in the County which have public water and sewer
available as required for a mobile home park and for which the land cost is
not so exorbitant that a developer can afford to build a mobile home park.
Mr. Wood said this property will become more desirable at some point in the
future for development. If the County or the Airport has to pay for sewer
through the property at that point, the land will probably be too valuable to
build a mobile home park at all. The opportunity must be taken now while
several parties are willing to contribute different things to make the deal
work. Even though staff feels the timing is not right, from an economic point
of view, the timing is now in Mr. Wood's opinion. He pointed out that today
there is not much market for industrial land. Therefore, it would not be
reasonable for him to build sewer lines without the ability to develop the
land in such a way that would be profitable to him. He said the property
currently has nine access rights to Route 29 because of the number of differ-
ent parcels. He feels this would be a good time for the County to negotiate
those access points for a planned development. He said he is in a position to
give something that he may not be able to do in the future. He feels that
this proposal represents many benefits to the community.
Mrs. Bowerman asked how long Mr. Wood would envision the mobile home park
remaining before redevelopment would take place. Mr. Wood said he would
estimate a minimum of 10 years, and possibly 15 years. He said he would be
willing to commit to that length of time because it would not be economically
feasible to develop this property for any less time. He does not feel there
will be a need for that amount of industrial land in the next 15 to 20 years.
Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority, said the Service Authority has taken no position as to whether this
proposal is a good amendment or not to the Comprehensive Plan. The Authori-
ty's interest in getting public sewer in this area originated with a request
from the airport for their expansion efforts. He said the future of the
septic system in Deerwood is unknown, although there are some problems being
experienced there. He said it is anticipated that in the not too distant
future, the issue of providing public sewer will have to be dealt with there.
Mrs. Humphris asked by what date the Airport Authority needs to make a
decision on using drain fields. Mr. Agnor said it is by the end of the month
of June.
Mr. Bowie said the Board can uphold the Planning Commission's decision by
taking no action or by a formal motion, the Board can pass a resolution of
intent to study the amendment.
Mr. Way asked Mr. St. John to explain the meaning of the resolution of
intent to study a proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John
said in the past this has generally been called a "resolution of intent to
amend". He said the phrase has been questioned because it indicates that by
adopting the resolution, the Board is leaning toward permanently amending.
What the Board is actually doing is asking that the proposal be considered for
amendment. Adoption of a "resolution of intent to amend" triggers a full
staff report and Planning Commission review with a recommendation back to the
Board of Supervisors for a final decision.
Mrs. Humphris asked the location of the Airport Impact Area. Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out the area on a map on the wall. Part of the proposed
property lies within the impact zone. He said the impact zone is where the
decibels of noise inside a structure must be at a minimum level by County
Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said it requires a certain level of insulation for sound
proofing in the homes in that area.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
262
Mr. Bain asked where the commercial and residential development will be
located on the property. Mr. Cilimberg said his understanding is that the
commercial area will be oriented to the intersection of the new road and Route
29. The residential area is to be behind the commercial area and centrally
located within the overall tract.
Mr. Bain asked the status of the Open Space Plan and the fiscal impact
model. Mr. Cilimberg said the fiscal impact model will follow the completion
of the Public Facilities Plan and the Open Space Plan. The Public FaCilities
Plan is scheduled for final staff review next week with a report then being
made to the Planning Commission. Final staff review of the Open Space Plan is
scheduled for tomorrow. The draft will then be forwarded to the Planning
Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the goal is to get both of those to the
Planning Commission in July.
Mr. Bain said he has problems with studying one aspect of this growth
area without studying the entire area.
Mrs. Humphris said she is impressed with Mr. Wood's plan. However, there
is a Route 29 North by-pass decision to make, a public facilities plan which
is being drafted, a fiscal impact model which is incomplete, a traffic impact
model which is not complete, and part of the property is in the Airport impact
zone, all of which have an affect on this proposal. Mrs. Humphris feels that
the benefits of this private development, including the possibility of a new
road, the possibility of sewer lines, and the possibility of low-income
housing, do not outweigh the missing reports when it comes to what is in the
best interest of the public. She feels that any changes made in this area
should be made as a part of a study of the entire Hollymead growth area.
Mr. Bowie said an extensive study of the growth area was done in review-
ing the Comprehensive Plan a year ago. The issue here is whether to study
this proposal and get answers to some of these questions. He said he is not
sure the whole Hollymead area has to be re-studied.
Mrs. Humphris said she feels that staff's position is correct and that
this question should not be studied outside of the appropriate timetable.
Mr. Bain said he does not object to studying the proposal once the Public
Facilities and Open Space Plans, etc. are in place. To study this proposal
without those plans is premature and incomplete. He said he has no problem
with the reduction in the industrial designation in Hollymead. He said if
staff can have these reports ready by December, then he feels the Board could
study the amendment at that time.
Mrs. Humphris said she agrees with Mr. Bain. The Board's decision-making
tools are incomplete, and she feels the Board should take advantage of using
those tools.
Mr. Bowerman asked how long a resolution of intent to study the question
stays in effect. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board's policy gives the Planning
Commission 90 days in which to return a recommendation after a resolution of
intent is adopted. Mr. Bowie asked if staff would have any of these reports
ready for the Planning Commission within 90 days. Mr. Cilimberg said the Open
Space Plan will definitely be ready before the end of 90 days. Mr. Bowie
asked what would happen if there is a resolution of intent adopted and the
studies are not ready within that 90 day period. Mr. Cilimberg said that
would depend on the Planning Commission. They might possibly feel comfortable
with staff's analysis, whether or not they had finished their review of the
Public Facilities Plan.
Mr. Bowerman said a review of this proposal would look at the impact on
the total industrial area designated in the Comprehensive Plan. He realizes
thatthis area, though not zoned, is designated for industrial use. He is
concerned that industrial development brings the attendant employment base and
necessity for residential development and the growth demands that follow.
This proposal in terms of residential and commercial designation, basically
deals with a population already in place. He feels that there are enough
benefits to this proposal for the Commission to study the issues in terms of
the various impacts. He feels that the reports being prepared by staff and
this study should "dovetail" together so that the Commission and the Board of
Supervisors could be presented with a complete set of information. He said he
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
263
does not have a problem adopting a resolution to study the area because he
feels the benefits could outweigh the disadvantages.
Mrs. Humphris asked for advice from staff on realistic timing for comple-
tion of these reports. Mr. Cilimberg said he can realistically project that
the Open Space and Public Facilities Plans will be ready for the Board within
three months. Staff's intention is that a fiscal impact analysis follow the
completion of these two reports as a fiscal evaluation of the Comprehensive
Plan. He said that analysis would be performed by consultants, and he esti-
mates roughly six months for completion. That would mean about nine months
before all of these studies are completed. He said the traffic model will be
available soon. It is a matter of becoming familiar with using the computer
model.
Mr. Bowerman said he still is not clear on how soon staff will be able to
actually use the traffic model. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has the software and
a staff person has attended a training session for the calibrated model which
was used for the Route 29 North Draft Environmental Impact Statement. He
cannot say exactly when the system will be operational because it is dependent
upon the hiring and training of the transportation planner.
Mr. Bain said he feels the actual fiscal impact analysis is the piece
that is missing. He asked what timeframe envisioned for the study by the
consultants. Mr. Agnor said the time can be set through the Request For
Proposal (RFP). The RFP can be let by the time the Facilities and Open Space
Plans are finished. He feels that 90 days in addition to the 90 days the
Planning Commission has would be sufficient for the consultant's report.
Mr. Way said he is willing to support a resolution of intent to study
this amendment because there are so many benefits.
Mrs. Humphris then offered a motion to adopt the following resolution of
intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to study the proposed Compre-
hensive Plan Amendment, CPA-90-03, Wendell Wood - Hollymead, in
coordination with the availability of the Public Facilities Plan, the
Open Space Plan, the Traffic Model and the Fiscal Impact Model; and
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold
public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, and
does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to
this Board.
Mr. Bain seconded the motion and said he would like to add a date to push
things along. Mrs. Humphris asked what happens if she includes a date in her
motion and staff finds that the date is impossible to meet. Mr. Agnor said
staff would report that to the Board.
Mrs. Hnmphris then added, "by the December 12, 1990, Board of Supervisors
meeting" to her motion. Mr. Cilimberg asked if this resolution of intent is
to study Hollymead growth area in general or just this particular area. Mrs.
Humphris said her motion is related just to this proposal CPA-90-03.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9a. Appropriation: Part'Time Deputy - Sheriff's Office.
Mr. Agnor said that Sheriff Hawkins had requested during the FY 90-91
budget review, a part-time deputy to assist the General District Court bailiff
in processing misdemeanor cases, plus funds for bullet proof vests. He said
these two items were placed in the Board's contingency in the event the State
Compensation Board did not provide funding. Recent notification from the
State Compensation Board indicates that funding was denied. The Sheriff is,
therefore, requesting an appropriation from the County of $12,560 for a
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
264
part-time deputy and $1,680 for bullet proof vests. Mr. Agnor said that staff
recommends approval of the request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to adopt
the following resolution transferring and appropriating funds as requested.
Mr. Bain said he would like a report later as to whether these vests are
actually worn. Mr. Bowie said officers in the County's Police Department are
provided with bullet proof vests but are not required to wear them.
Sheriff Terry Hawkins said he would write such a requirement into a
policy, and he would enforce the policy. Mr. Hawkins said he wore one as a
police officer, and he would wear one again. Mr. Bain said he feels there are
certain times when these vests should definitely be worn. Sheriff Hawkins
said they should be worn all the time because in his personal experience, the
two closest encounters he has had were at unexpected times and places. He
feels that the vest should be a part of the officer's uniform. He said they
can be worn comfortably under a summer uniform.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
1990/91
GENERAL
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100031020110000
1100031020210000
1100031020221000
1100031020231000
1100031020232000
1100031020241000
1100031020312500
1100031020370000
1100031020580100
1100031020601000
1100031020601100
1100095000999990
SALARIES $9,000.00
FICA 690.00
VSRS 1,035.00
HEALTH 450.00
DENTAL 30.00
LIFE 90.00
INSTRUCTION 100.00
LAUNDRY & DRY CLEANING 250.00
DUES &MEMBERSHIPS 15.00
POLICE SUPPLIES 2,130.00
UNIFORMS & APPAREL 450.00
CONTINGENCY-BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS (14~240.00)
TOTAL $0.00
Agenda Item No. 9b. Appropriation: Gypsy Moth Program.
Mr. Agnor said the United States Department of Agriculture and the U.S.
Forestry Service, through their State agencies, have allocated $15,200 for a
study in Albemarle and Rockbridge Counties on the potential impact of the
pesticide, Bacillus thuringiensis, which is used in the control of the gypsy
moth. He said the money will be used for purchasing equipment, materials, and
personnel to conduct the study at several selected sites in the County. The
County is to be fully reimbursed for all expenditures on a quarterly basis.
The study will be conducted over the next six months ending December 31, 1990,
and will be under the direction of Mr. Taylor Williams, the County's Gypsy
Moth Coordinator. Study sites are located on Appleberry Mountain in southern
Albemarle County. Ail landowners have been contacted and have granted permis-
sion to conduct the study. Mr. Agnor said staff recommends approval of the
appropriation request.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mrs. Humphris
to adopt the following appropriation resolution. There was no further discus-
sion of this item. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
265
1989/90
GYPSY MOTH
FOREST SERVICE GRANT TO ASSESS EFFECTS OF
GYPSY MOTH ON NON-TARGET INSECTS
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1123034010110000
1123034010210000
1123034010550100
1123034010601400
1123034010601400
WAGES $9,475.00
FICA 725.00
TRAVEL 1,000.00
EQUIPMENT 3,000.00
SUPPLIES 1~000.00
TOTAL $15,200.00
Agenda Item No. 9c. Transfer of funds to correct potential over-expendi-
tures for FY 1989-90.
Mr. Agnor said there are seven functions of General Government which will
have overexpenditures as of June 30, 1990, while 33 functions will have
unexpended balances. Staff recommends that the seven potential overexpendi-
tures be corrected by transfer of funds. Mr. Agnor gave the following cate-
gories and explanations for overexpenditures:
Commonwealth's Attorney Travel of Witnesses
This was underbudgeted based on prior year's usage.
$ 6,000
Police Department - Reimbursable Overtime
This is paid through additional revenues being collected.
25,000
Sheriff Machinery and Equipment
Funded in 88-89, purchased in 89-90, appropriation not
carried forward in error.
4,000
District Home - Payments
Reduction in State and Federal funding combined with
increased usage by Albemarle County.
26,000
Piedmont Virginia Community College Compensation
Increased attendance of new board members at meetings.
450
Visitors Bureau - County Share
Due to the revised agreement approved in June, 1989,
(after adoption of the current budget) the County's total
participation became $67,179, a difference of $30,796
over the original amount budgeted.
30,796
Public Assistance Payments Foster Care
Due to increased usage of Foster Care. (Note: This
will be a transfer of funds from Virginia Public
Assistance administration. The increased amount will
be reimbursed by the State of Virginia.)
16,000
TOTAL $108,246
Mr. Bowerman asked how there is a savings of $8,642 in the Board of
Supervisors' budget and in the Inspections Department as shown on the appro-
priation request. Mr. Agnor said the $8,642 was in a contingency account for
the Visitor's Bureau contract, and was carried in the Board's budget. This
money actually represents a transfer of funds, rather than a savings. For the
Inspections Department, the savings of $15,000 in salaries came about as a
result of attrition and replacement of employees at lower salaries. That
holds true also for the Finance Department and the Planning Department.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to adopt the
following resolution transferring appropriating funds as requested. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
1989/90
GENERAL
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
266
AMOUNT
1100022010332100
1100022010550502
1100022010800100
1100031010120000
1100031020800100
1100053020570800
1100059000563000
1100069001110000
1100079000568900
1100011010999993
1100012140110000
1100012200110000
1100021010580900
1100021060110000
1100034000110000
1100043000110000
1100053010110000
1100081010110000
COMM ATT-MAINT. CONTRACT-EQUIP
COMM ATT-TRAVEL-WITNESSES
COMM ATT-MACHINERY & EQUIP
POLICE-OVERTIME
SHERIFF-MACHINERY & EQUIP
PUBLIC ASSISTANCE-FOSTER CARE
DISTRICT HOME
PIEDMONT VA COMM COLLEGE
VISITOR'S BUREAU
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FINANCE
INFORMATION SERVICES
CIRCUIT COURT
CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
INSPECTIONS
STAFF SERVICES
VPA-ADMINISTRATION
PLANNING
TOTAL
$3,300.00
2,000.00
700.00
25,000.00
4,000.00
16,000.00
26,000.00
450.00
30,796.00
(8,642.00)
(17,000.00)
(17,000.00)
(5,000.00)
(10,000.00)
(15,000.00)
(10,000.00)
(16,800.00)
(8,804.00)
$o.oo
Agenda Item No. 10. Report: Jefferson Fire and Rescue Association
Requests.
Mr. Agnor said, as requested at the April 11 Board meeting, staff re-
viewed specific requests and issues contained in the report from the Jefferson
Country Fire and Rescue Association. A request for additional funding for the
rescue squads and a request for inclusion of the rescue squads and auxiliaries
in the County's accident insurance policy have already been acted upon and are
included in the FY90-91 budget. The Western Albemarle and Scottsville Rescue
Squads each received an additional $11,200, which makes the 90-91 funding of
the rescue squads equal to that of the volunteer fire companies ($42,000).
This amount and the $4420 for the additional insurance were funded out of the
JCFRA contingency fund, leaving a current balance in that fund of $73,180.
In response to the remaining JCFRA requests, Mr. Agnor said staff recom-
mends the following:
Approve the Fire and Rescue Volunteer Coordinator position to be funded
from the JCFRA contingency fund ($35,000).
Approve the TJEMS Basic Life Support Coordinator to be funded from the
JCRFA contingency fund ($5,510).
Approve free park passes to active fire and rescue personnel and their
families ($1,250 cost in reduced revenues).
Continue the issuance of free vehicle decals for fire and rescue person-
nel ($6,150 cost in reduced revenues).
Approve personal property tax relief by setting a zero tax rate on the
first $4500 of assessed value on vehicles directly used in the perfor-
mance of fire and rescue activities ($33,260 cost in reduced revenues).
Continue to provide aerial service under the current fire contract with
the City, while directing staff, JCFRA and the new Fire/Rescue Services
Coordinator to undertake an in-depth look at purchasing, housing and
manning an aerial unit in the County.
Recommend that staff continue their review of other items in the JCFRA
report, including a life and accident insurance program, Workmen's
Compensation for volunteers, retirement benefits, a volunteer recognition
program, and the supplementation of volunteers with paid part-time staff.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
267
Mr. Agnor summarized the following staff analysis regarding these recom-
mendations:
"FIRE/RESCUE SERVICES COORDINATOR
Based upon a job description, developed cooperatively by JCFRA and the
County's Personnel Department, and a comparison of similar positions
in other jurisdictions, a salary range of 21 ($24,094 - $34,044) has
been assigned to this position. Total projected expenses for this
position are:
Salary $25,315
Fringes 5,865
Office Expenses 2,020
Furniture and Fixtures 1~800
Total $35,000
As you know, this position was funded in the FY 89-90 budget and
placed on hold until JCFRA completed their report. Both JCFRA and Dr.
Perkins recommended this position to enhance volunteerism as well as
training, fund raising, and the coordination of future benefit pro-
grams for volunteers. Staff recommends that this $35,000 position be
funded out of the JCFRA Contingency fund, leaving a balance of
$38,180,
TJEMS BASIC LIFE SUPPORT COORDINATOR
JCFRA requested that the County support the FY 90-91 budget request
from Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services (TJEMS) for $5510 to
fund the County's share of a Basic Life Support Coordinator. This
regional position would provide continuing education and skill en-
hancement for rescue squad personnel and would, hopefully, alleviate
the 'lack of support' cited by the rescue squad personnel as the
primary reason for the high volunteer attrition rate. The Program
Review Committee also recommended funding this position, if it was the
recommendation of the JCFRA. As this position has the strong support
of the JCFRA, staff recommends funding this position from the JCFRA
Contingency fund, leaving a balance of $32,670.
FREE COUNTY PARK PASSES FOR VOLUNTEERS AND THEIR FAMILIES
As a volunteer incentive, JCFRA requested that all fire and rescue
volunteers and their families receive free admission to County parks.
Based on 1988 park attendance of 57,462, an average family size of
2.38, yearly per capita attendance of 0.91 and daily entry charges of
$2.00 for adults and $1.00 for children, yearly passes to the individ-
ual volunteers would cost approximately $600. Family passes would
cost an additional $650 for a total cost of $1250. This would be a 1
percent reduction in revenues based on total FY 88 park fees of
$126,000.
In addition to being a positive way of saying 'thank-you' to the
families that have given so freely for volunteerism, the County would
benefit from having trained medical (rescue and fire) personnel on
site in case of an emergency situation. Five of the seven volunteer
fire companies have 'first responder' teams with medical training,
thus providing on-site skills that could make a significant difference
in a critical situation.
Due to the minimal cost of the free passes and the added benefit of
having on-site trained personnel, staff recommends that free season
passes be issued to all active fire and rescue volunteers.
FREE COUNTY VEHICLE DECALS
JCFRA requested that the current policy of free vehicle decals for
fire and rescue volunteers be continued. In 1990, there were 295 free
vehicle decals issued for the three rescue squads.and seven volunteer
companies. Projecting that 50 of the vehicles will require a $25 fee
($1250) and the remaining 245 vehicles will require a $20 fee ($4900),
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
268
the total cost to the County would be $6150. This represents one-half
percent loss in the total projected vehicle license revenues of
$1,160,000 for FY 90-91. Staff recommends that the County continue
the issuance of free county decals to all authorized fire and rescue
squad personnel.
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FOR ACTIVE VOLUNTEERS
Based on Virginia Code Section 58.1-3506 subsection A.13 enacted by
the 1989 General Assembly, a locality has the option of providing tax
relief for a motor vehicle used in the performance of volunteer fire
and rescue service. The Code allows a separate personal property
classification that provides a different tax and assessment rate for
volunteer vehicles. It also requires the fire chief or head of the
rescue organization to submit a certified list of all volunteers
requesting tax relief to the assessing officer. The list shall
contain only those volunteers who regularly respond to calls or
regularly perform other duties for the volunteer organization. The
motor vehicle granted the separate classification must be identified
as regularly used for volunteer purposes.
FY 90 County records of free fire and rescue vehicle decals show 295
vehicles with a total assessment of $1,244,315 and tax revenues of
$54,749. The following is a distribution of the 1990 assessment:
Assessment
Number of vehicles
Less than $2,500
From $2,500 to $5,000
From $5,000 to $7,500
From $7,500 to $10,000
From $10,000 to $12,500
From $12,500 to $15,000
Over $15,000
Total
107
83
56
31
15
2
1
295
Average assessment per vehicle $4218
Average tax per vehicle $ 185
Staff recommends that the first $4500 of assessed value have a zero
tax rate for certified volunteer fire and rescue vehicles. This would
exempt 190 or 65 percent of the 295 vehicles with the remaining 105
vehicles paying $21,489 or an average of $205 each. The total revenue
loss would be $33,260, reflecting a one-half percent reduction in
90-91 projected vehicle revenues of $7.0 million.
AERIAL FIRE SERVICE
The JCFRA report and Dr. Perkins' report identified the need for
aerial service or 'truck company service' for Albemarle County. One
way JCFRA recommends providing this service is by contracting for
expanded service with the City Fire Department. Although the current
City fire contract does include aerial service to the County on a
request basis, JCFRA feels that under the present contract there is no
guarantee of a quick response or an adequately manned vehicle.
Aerial equipment is needed to fight fires in buildings with large roof
areas or to fight a fire from above the building. Citing more specif-
ic criteria, the Insurance Service Office (ISO) states that a need for
aerial equipment exists when a response area has five or more large
buildings three stories or 35 feet high, or where there is a need for
3500 gpm water flow, or a combination of these factors. These crite-
ria apply even when sprinkler systems are present.
Accepting these criteria, the need for aerial equipment in Albemarle
County is justified by the presence of 22 schOols, plus a number of
hotels, motels and apartment and retirement complexes in the County.
If one applies the same dispatching criteria used by the City of
Charlottesville to the County, there would have been 160 County calls
in 1989 where aerial apparatus would have been the appropriate
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
response. The City has sent its aerial equipment to the County on
several occasions, the most recent one being the fire at Albemarle
High School.
Staff found that comparably-sized counties such as Augusta, Hanover,
Roanoke, Loudoun and York all have some form of aerial service, most
having purchased their aerial equipment during the seventies. To
operate the aerial units, Roanoke and Augusta counties use a combina-
tion of paid and volunteer firefighters, utilizing paid staff during
the daytime hours and volunteers on nights, weekends and holidays.
Other counties rely entirely on volunteers to man their aerial units.
Based on the ISO criteria and information from other jurisdictions, it
is obvious that Albemarle County must look seriously at the need for
expanded aerial service. The City has offered to provide an addition-
al aerial unit for $262,§15 per year, $238,140 of this amount being
the cost of seven positions and $24,500 being operations. Only $4000
of the operational cost is for the use of the aerial equipment. The
City Chief has stated that an additional aerial ladder company would
free up other manpower to conduct inspections in the urban area of the
County without diminishing emergency responses in the County or City.
The other option is to lease or purchase the equipment for approxi-
mately $400,000 to be housed in the urban area and manned by County
volunteers or by ~ combination of paid firefighters for daytime hours
and volunteers for evening, weekend and holiday duty. In comparing
the long term cost of these two options, the County could buy the
equipment outright using slightly over one-half of what a three-year
contract would cost with the City at $262,615 per year. This assumes
the use of volunteers, not paid staff, to operate the equipment.
Although the need for aerial service in the County has been clearly
identified, it is not clear that aerial support provided under the
current City contract is deficient enough to warrant a second stand-by
aerial unit at the Ridge Street location. If additional aerial
support is needed, it seems to make sense to have a unit located at a
different location in the urban area either manned by volunteers or,
if necessary, by a combination of volunteers and paid staff. It is
also staff's understanding that a retired aerial unitfrom the City is
now being housed at the Crozet station, whose use might be incorporat-
ed into future plans for aerial service in the County.
Therefore, staff recommends that the County continue under the current
City contract, which provides aerial service to the County upon
request, while directing staff in conjunction with JCFRA and the new
Fire/Rescue Services Coordinator to take a more in-depth look at
purchasing an aerial unit for the County. This analysis should begin
the planning process for the housing and manning of the equipment, as
well as the development of mutual aid agreements with the City and the
preparation of bid specifications for the equipment.
If recommended for purchase, the appropriation of funds should be part
of the normal funding cycle of the Capital Improvement Program budget.
As an alternative funding mechanism, not exclusively for this particu-
lar piece of equipment, but as part of enhanced fire protection
throughout the County, the Board may want to consider implementing a
fire service levy for the FY 91-92 budget."
269
Mr. Agnor said staff is recommending every item of the JCFRA request with
the exception of the aerial equipment.
Mrs. Humphris asked if ihe fire service levy is for a specific district
which would need and use the aerial service. Mr. Agnor said State Code refers
to fire district levies which can be made by a specific district within a
locality. His understanding is that a fire-service levy in Albemarle County
should probably be County-wide because of the widespread use of the equipment.
Specific buildings needing this equipment would probably be schools. He noted
that aerial service is not limited to the urban area necessarily.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
2~0
Mr. Bowie said he would like to have the discussion on aerial fire
service presented separately but prior to the next budget discussions.
Mr. John Hood, representing the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Associ-
ation, urged the Board to consider separating the aerial service issue from
the rest of the staff report. He feels there is a misunderstanding as to what
aerial service Albemarle County currently gets. He said if the County had
adequate aerial service, this would not be an issue for discussion. He said
currently the aerial service is late in arriving and only if it is not being
used in the City. He said the County is about 20 years behind the times
according to the staff report. If the County does not make some changes in
the near future regarding aerial service, more money will be lost through
insurance premiums on school buildings. He said that JCFRA needs more time to
find a place to house the aerial equipment and to find a way to operate it
with volunteers. However, it takes at least three months to get the specifi-
cations for the equipment and agree on the appropriate equipment for this
County. It will take another 12 months to obtain the equipment once the
purchase is authorized. That does not take into account locating or building
a garage or organizing the manpower to run the equipment. He said it will
take about three years to be able to operate this equipment independently. He
feels it is a mistake to wait any longer to make a decision in light of the
length of time it will take to get this equipment operational. He urged the
Board to consider some way to finance the aerial equipment as a separate
issue. He suggested that it be considered as a capital improvement item.
Mr. Bowie said staff's recommendation is that five items be funded and
that the aerial ser¥~ce be studied, which would include finding a way to fund
it.
Mr. Perkins said he has reservations about the position of Volunteer
Coordinator, although such a person may be needed. He questions whether a
person qualified for this position even exists. He said he has the same
reservations about the Basic Life Support Coordinator. Mr. Agnor said there
is a job description prepared and ready for advertisement. Until that is done
there is really no way of knowing for certain that the position can be filled,
although there have been some inquiries from persons interested in applying.
Mr. Perkins asked what the responsibilities are for the Basic Life
Support Coordinator position and who else is involved in funding this posi-
tion. Mrs. Brenda Barbour, from the Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical
Services Council, said the appropriation request for Albemarle County is based
on the percentage of EMS personnel in the County. Funding has been requested
from all of the counties in the Planning District based on their EMS person-
nel. This Coordinator would be involved in continuing education training,
refresher training, and follow-up reviews on patients who have received care
from Basic Life Supporters personnel. Currently, the basic providers--first
responders in the fire departments and EMT's in the Rescue Squads, are floun-
dering on their own. They do not have a continuing education program or any
feedback on the care that was given, whether it was right or wrong. Because
of this lack of support, many of the EMS volunteers leave. She said the goal
through this position is to be able to retain volunteers as well as recruit
more volunteers in the rescue service. She pointed out that the advanced life
support providers have such support through the University of Virginia Hospi-
tal, which has two paid nurses who do nothing but work with advanced life
support personnel.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the job description for the Volunteer Coordi-
nator. Mr. Way said his understanding is that this person will work full time
in recruiting additional volunteers, but will also develop initiatives for
rDtaining those volunteers.
Mr. Way said he assumes that staff will be looking at the possibility of
funding the aerial equipment through the CIP. Mr. Agnor said that is correct
and the CIP cycle begins soon to be completed in October. Mr. Way said
hopefully a commitment for purchase of this equipment can be begun then so
that JCFRA can begin planning for housing, etc.
Mr. Bain asked if the vehicles to receive decals are designated by the
fire and rescue personnel and if a record is kept of those vehicles. Mr.
Agnor said that is correct. A list is submitted to the Finance Office
271
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
annually and that list is used to provide a credit on the assessment program.
Mr. Bain said the report indicates that the vehicle to receive a decal is the
one that is directly used in fire and rescue activities. Mr. Agnor said the
State Code requirement for a special assessment is that the vehicle be used
for responding in an emergency call.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to
approve the first five recommendations of staff set out in the report above
and to adopt a resolution trasferring and appropriation funds as set out
below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
FISCAL YEAR:
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
90/91
GENERAL
TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON
EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1100039000568400
1100032020561490
THOMAS JEFFERSON EMS
JCFRA CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
$5,510.00
(5~510.00)
$0.00
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Proposed Increase in JAUNT fares.
Mr. Bowie said this item was on the Board's agenda for information last
week, and the Board asked that it be placed on today's agenda for a report
from staff.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, handed out a report
to Board members. He said that during the budget hearings, the discussion
regarding JAUNT focused mainly on the urban area rates and whether additional
subsidy would be provided for the urban fares. Mr. Tucker pointed out on a
map on the wall the various zones of service within the County. He said that
Zone A is the urban zone, and the Board funded additional subsidy for this
area to allow the fare to remain at $1.50. Outside of the urban area is Rural
Zones B, C and D. Mr. Tucker said the premise during budget discussions was
that a possible fare increase would have to be made in the near future for
these areas. He said the JAUNT Board held a hearing on May 30, 1990, regard-
ing rate increases and deferred action until June 20 after the Board's discus-
sion today. The fare increase actually deals with the B and C rural routes
only. The current fare is $1.50 in Zone B. The proposal is for an increase
of $1.00 to $2.50. Zone C would go from $3.00 to $4.00, and Zone D would
remain the same. Regular riders are riders who pay the full amount and are
not handicapped or elderly. These riders pay a much higher fare. The fare
for Zone B is $4.00, for Zone C it is $8.00, and for Zone D it is $12.50. No
increase is proposed for the regular riders because they make up a very small
percentage of the ridership. Mr. Tucker said fares have not been increased in
these zones since they were created in 1986. The operating costs have risen
by 67 percent during that time period. If the fares remain unchanged, there
will be a deficit in the current fiscal year of approximately $5,000. If the
fares are not increased for next year, the subsidy needed to fund JAUNT is
projected to be approximately $22,000.
Mr. Way said that 99 percent of the ridership is elderly or handicapped.
Mr. Bain said he understands the increase in costs and the need for increased
fares, but he has a problem making that decision because these are elderly and
handicapped people and many live on fixed incomes. He asked to which zone the
rural demand response refers. Mr. Tucker said the Scottsville and Esmont
routes are specific routes, whereas demand response is when a citizen calls
3AUNT and asks to be picked up anywhere within Zones B, C or D. That is known
as door-to-door service. Mr. Bain said he would like to know the frequency of
use by the elderly and handicapped in demand response calls. He said this
increase will have a big impact on these users.
Mr. Way said most of the riders use JAUNT services to get to the doctor
or to get to work. He said the JAUNT Board would be happy to consider leaving
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
272
the rates the same if Albemarle County would be willing to continue the
subsidy. However, the JAUNT Board has no choice but to take this action if no
subsidy is available.
Mr. Bain asked what County staff recommends. Mr. Tucker said the recom-
mendation during the budget cycle was to consider the increase. He said there
is some confusion about this issue because when the public hearing was held on
the County's budget, the discussion focused on the urban area. He said the
urban rates were increased because there was such an increase in usage. More
recently, the rural ridership has increased as well. Mr. Bain said no request
from JAUNT is actually before the Board.
Mr. Bowie said there are two iteans to be considered. There may be no
choice but to fund the deficit for this fiscal year. However, he feels that
since the County is already contributing to JAUNT, there should be some option
other than that Albemarle County commit to subsidizing all of the increased
costs, or else the elderly and handicapped riders will have to pay more. He
personally feels that as the operating costs go up, some of it has to be
absorbed by the agency. Mr. Agnor pointed out that JAUNT is on the federal
fiscal schedule which ends in September.
Mrs. Linda Wilson, Executive Director of JAUNT, said in the rural parts
of the County, there is an average of 35 trips per day for demand response
service. This does not include the fixed route which comes from Scottsville
into Charlottesville every day. These 35 trips are for door-to-door service.
She said that last year for the same time period, there were an average of 20
trips per day. She said more people are qualifying for the lower rates
offered to the elderly and disabled. She said each rider increases the cost
to provide services by $4000 per year. She said JAUNT has no way of control-
ling new people qualifying, because JAUNT is a public transportation system.
She said the only solution is to raise the fares or cut back on the hours of
service.
Mr. Bowerman said he has no problem at all with increasing the rates for
the current year, and possibly for next year, if a determination is first made
as to what percentage of subsidy JAUNT should receive as a policy from the
County. He said the increase should be based on the relationship between the
cost to provide the service, what the user provides, and what the County is
willing to subsidize.
Mr. Tucker said the operating cost per hour in 1985 was $13.28. For
1991, the operating cost per hour is projected to be $16.36. Mrs. Wilson said
the cost per trip in the rural areas is about $8.30. The average of all fares
charged is about $3.00. That means that about $5.00 per trip is being subsi-
dized. Mr. Bowerman said if that is a ratio which the Board feels comfortable
with, then that should be the on-going policy.
Mr. Bowie agreed that the Board should have a policy to deal with this
issue because it keeps coming up. He said it is possible that the operating
costs could be lowered with more efficient administration.
Mr. Bain said there is time to consider this. further since JAUNT is on
the federal fiscal year without having to raise the rates on June 20. Mrs.
Wilson said the estimated $4500 deficit is for the year ending July 1, 1990.
She said the $22,000 amount is for the next fiscal year if the increase of
riders continues at approximately 30 percent every month.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board is being asked to make a decision today.
Mr. Tucker said staff would like guidance from the Board as to whether they
feel the fares should be raised or not. The JAUNT Board intends to make that
decision on June 20 and would like to have this Board's input. If this Board
would prefer that the JAUNT Board defer action, staff would like to know that
as well. Mr. Bain said he prefers a deferral by the JAUNT Board. Mr. Bowie
added that he feels that a funding proposition, other than the County funding
everything or the handicapped and elderly paying for everything, should be
presented to this Board. He said a factor to consider is exactly how many
people are involved and where they are located in the County. Mr. Bowie said
he has a hard time believing that every time a rider is added on the bus,
JAUNT loses money. Mr. Way pointed out that JAUNT is a regional agency, and
whatever decision this Board makes, it has an impact on the other counties.
Iune 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
273
He said it is difficult to set certain rates for Albemarle County without
affecting other users.
Mr. Tucker said the policy of the JAUNT Board has been to try to keep
fares at a level rate, regardless of the changes in ridership, so that the
users can budget for themselves. However, it has been over four years since
any increase has been made, while the ridership is increasing significantly.
The JAUNT Board is aware of the problems of riders having fixed incomes, but
is trying to address the problem of increased costs.
Mr. Bain asked if a motion is necessary to sUbsidize the deficit for this
fiscal year. Mr. Tucker said he would prefer to wait until the JAUNT Board's
finance committee has time to work on those figures further. Mr. Bowerman
said he would like to see this Board deal with this matter before the 3AUNT
Board raises its rates.
There was no further discussion of this matter.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Personnel.
At 12:35 P.M., Mr. Bowie said it is necessary to have an Executive
Session during lunch for the purpose of discussing specific personnel for
appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn
into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing specific personnel for
appointments in accordance with Code Section 2.1-344.A.1.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Executive Session.
At 2:43 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered
by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to certify the executive session as
set out below.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened
an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative 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 a
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 were identified in the
motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or
considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and
Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING VOTE: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
274
Agenda Item No. 11. Authorize Chairman to sign new Service Agreement
with the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company.
Mr. Agnor said a Service Agreement between the County of Albemarle and
_ the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company is submitted for Board approval. This
agreement provides $167,000 from the Fire Advance Allocation Pool for the
purchase of a fire truck to replace a 1973 model. Crozet has an existing 1986
loan with an unpaid balance of $68,700 on a fire truck, and another 1985 loan
on the fire station with an outstanding balance of $75,000. The total out-
standing advance will be $310,700 as of July, 1990, to be reimbursed by July,
1997. Mr. Agnor said the advance has been approved by the Jefferson Country
Fire and Rescue Association and the Director of Finance has confirmed the
availability of funds.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to authorize
the Chairman to sign a new Service Agreement with the Crozet Volunteer Fire
Company. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
(The agreement in full is set out below:)
THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT made this llth day of May, 1990, by and
between THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and THE
CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. ("Crozet");
WITNESSETH :
Background: The County, by agreement dated June 11, 1986, gave
Crozet $120,000 for a new pumper, which amount of $68,700 is still
owed. The County, by agreement dated February 22, 1985, gave Crozet
$150,000 for the construction of a new fire station, of which amount
$75,000 is still owed the County. Crozet needs an additional $167,000
for a new pumper. The parties desire to consolidate all prior ad-
vancements at this time.
Now, therefore, for and in consideration of the premises and the
operation by Crozet of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires
and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during
the period of this agreement and the purchase by Crozet of a new
pumper for use during the period of this agreement, the County shall
advance to Crozet the sum of $167,000, which shall be paid in July,
1990, from the County's fire fund.
Therefore, beginning July, 1990 through July, 1997, amounts will
be withheld from the County's annual contribution to Crozet as set
forth in Schedule A attached hereto.
If at any time Crozet is no longer in the business of providing
fire fighting services, or the property upon which Crozet's fire
station is located, as described in Schedule B attached hereto, is no
longer used for the purpose of housing the volunteer fire company,
Crozet covenants that it will convey all its fire fighting equipment
of whatever nature and its interest in the real property, described in
Schedule B, including all appurtenances thereto and improvements
thereon, at no cost to the County so long as the County, or its
assigns will use these properties for fire fighting purposes.
Agenda Item No. 12. RePort from Bench Committee re: Court Square
properties.
Mr. Agnor presented the following Court Square Bench Committee Report
prepared by Pat Mullaney, Director of the Parks and Recreation:
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
275
"In October of 1989, the Board of Supervisors appointed a Bench
Committee for the purpose of developing a plan for the grounds around
the building at Court Square. Committee members appointed were:
Wayne Cilimberg, Patricia Cooke, Pat Mullaney, Lewis Martin and a
designee from the Planning Department. Mr. Cilimberg picked Jan
Sprinkle to be that designee.
At its initial meeting, the committee recognized that due to the
historical significance of Court Square, a true master plan would
require professional expertise. Therefore, the committee concentrated
its efforts on the more pressing concern of how to deal with future
outdoor memorial requests.
The Bench Committee has the following recommendation regarding outdoor
memorials:
That additional benches for the Court House be the six foot
Classic English Garden Bench of teak wood. This would match the
recent bench donated in memory of Venable Minor and the one
donated earlier commemorating T. Munford Boyd.
o
That the County could accept up to two more bench donations.
One should be placed in the present site of the donated arched
back bench, which should be relocated to the Park Street side of
the Courthouse. The second would be located directly across the
brick paving from the current locations of the arched backed
bench.
If these donations are received, the two more contemporary
benches should be removed. The end result would be that all
benches in front of the Courthouse would be the same and somewhat
symmetrically located. The total seating capacity would be the
same as now which seems to be sufficient.
Any future donation requests should be endorsed by the Bar
Association and the Historical Society before coming to the Board
of Supervisors.
Additional recommendations of the Committee include:
That the existing kiosk should be professionally redesigned and
replaced. Funding for this could come from donations, grant or
County funds.*
o
Grant funding* and/or donations should be sought for a profes-
sionally designed Master Plan of Court Square. In doing this,
the opportunity for City cooperation in the inclusion of Jackson
Park should be investigated.
A consistent style of trash receptacles should be used at Court
Square. Of the two types currently in use, the wooden style is
preferred over the rubbermaid type.
In the absence of a professionally prepared Master Plan, no addi-
tional outdoor memorials should be accepted or major alterations
of the grounds should be allowed. The Parks and Recreation
Department should continue with routine maintenance of the exist-
ing grounds including judicious tree pruning when necessary for
the overall protection of the facilities, grounds and users of
Court Square.
*Possible funding sources:
Appropriation Act Grants made by the General Assembly.
Charlottesville-Albemarle Community Foundation.
Albemarle County Historical Society.
The Committee would like to acknowledge the assistance and input from
the Bar Association and the Albemarle County Historical Society on
this project."
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
276
Mr. Agnor noted a letter from Judge Paul M. Peatross, Jr., Sixteenth
Judicial Circuit Court, commending the effort being made to recognize the
~ical significance of Court Square and in the development of a master
plan.
Mr. Bowie thought the report was excellent.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to accept
the recommendations of the Bench Committee as outlined in the above report.
Mr. Bain asked if the Charlottesville/Albemarle Community Foundation and
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Foundation are one in the same. Mr. Agnor said
he is not sure. Mr. Bain suggested that if they are separate organizations,
that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Foundation be added to the list for possi-
ble funding sources.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Bowie said if there is no objection from Board members, he will write
a letter to the Bench Committee thanking the committee for its work. There
were no objections.
Agenda Item No. 13. Adopt Resolution declaring Albemarle County a Crop
Disaster Area.
Mr. Agnor said at the request of several fruit growers, the Albemarle
Food and Agriculture Committee conducted a survey to determine the impact of
the frosts in late March, April and May. The committee recommends that the
Board of Supervisors consider asking Governor Wilder to declare the County a
crop disaster county. This action would enable fruit growers to apply for
government assistance for crop losses. The estimated loss is $3.18 million.
Mr. Agnor said staff concurs with the request.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution asking the Governor to declare Albemarle County a crop
disaster county. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, Albemarle County this year experienced warm weather in
late winter followed by hard frosts and freezing weather; and
WHEREAS, this weather pattern significantly impacted the produc-
tion of fruit in the County; and
WHEREAS, the Albemarle Food and Agriculture Committee comprised
of representatives of the Soil Conservation Service, the Virginia
Division of Forestry, the Farmers Home Administration, the Agricul-
tural Stabilization and Conservation Service, and the Virginia Coope-
rative Extension Service, have surveyed the fruit crop damage in the
County and reported an estimated potential loss of annual income of
$3.18 million, representing losses up to 88 percent;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby proclaims a crop loss emergency;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors requests the
Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia to proclaim the County of
Albemarle a crop disaster County, thereby enabling fruit growers who
have suffered heavy losses, to apply for State and/or Federal Govern-
ment assistance.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
Agenda Item No. 18a. Work Session:
ment and Watershed Protection".
277
Report entitled "Residential Develop-
Mri Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official, said since the
Residential Development and Watershed Protection report was presented to the
Board on May 16, he, along with the Water Resources Committee (constituted in
the Comprehensive Plan to address specific water resource questions and
concerns), have reviewed the report. The Committee discussed the list of
Unresolved Issues and Needs for Further Research (beginning on page 15 of the
report), and have the following comments to the questions outlined:
Should a revised method be adopted for implementing the performance
standard of the Runoff Control Ordinance? (The Committee has been
looking at a number of methodologies for calculating pre- and post-
development runoff values. The Committee has decided to move ahead with
consideration of the Frank X. Browne Revised Guidelines, which were
proposed in 1982, bringing a recommendation to this Board at a later
date.)
Should Albemarle County adopt the buffer zone requirements for agricul-
tural activities contained in the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regula-
tions? (As the Board is aware, it previously adopted a Resolution of
Intent to move forward with designation of Resource Protection Areas in
the County. A work group has been established for that purpose and is
eonsidering a variety of means by which agricultural activities would be
required to conform with the regulations of the Chesapeake Bay Preserva-
tion Act regulations.
Which is more cost-effective and maintainable in the long run, regional
detention ponds, on-site controls, or a combination of both? Should the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) continue to be responsible for
the maintenance of all on-site controls? Should a stormwater management
utility be created? (It is common knowledge that regional detention
ponds are more cost-effective in the long run. RWSA's continued respon-
sibility will be addressed in the future as other stormwater management
strategies are considered. There will be a forum in the Auditorium of
the County Office Building on Wednesday, June 20, to discuss the concept
of the stormwater management utility. A stormwater management utility
was an item in the early watershed management plan suggested for consi-
deration by the County, although there is no current enabling legislation
in the State of Virginia. Some consultants will be at the forum on June
20 to discuss the concept which will undoubtedly be an item before the
General Assembly in 1991.)
What is the current water quality status of the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir and the current storage capacity of the Sugar Hollow and Ragged
Mountain reservoirs? (The staff does not have any estimates on the
storage capacity of the Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain Reservoirs,
although Mr. George Williams, Executive Director, noted that those
facilities are in generally forested areas surrounded by a fairly pro-
tected watershed and the storage capacity loss over time has probably not
been as great as in the South Fork Rivanna. The staff continues to
monitor the water quality status of the South Fork Rivanna yearly which
is analyzed as it is obtained.)
What will be the economic and environmental impact of adding flashboards
to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir dam? (That issue has not been
examined in detail as of this date there is no target date for putting
flashboards on the South Fork Rivanna.)
Should tougher erosion controls be required for all single-family homes
built within the watershed? Should the Board decide to go with the
outline of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act Work Program Phase II,
this item will be reviewed. One of the conditions of the Bay Act crite-
ria is compliance with erosion and control regulations for single-family
homes in excess of 2500 square feet.)
Mr. Robertson said the Water Resources Committee will continue to review
these items periodically.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
278
Mrs. Humphris asked the procedure for testing water quality status in the
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, how frequently testing is done, and at what
locations. Mr. Robertson said last year samples were taken between mid-August
and mid-October on a bi-monthly basis at three locations. The schedule this
_ year will include more summer months. Sampling began yesterday and will
continue every other Tuesday through September 4. Samples are collected at
three points: one close to the dam, one just inside Ivy Creek and one up
stream across from the Rivanwood Subdivision. The water samples are collected
at mid-surface and bottom depths, and looked at for phosphates, nitrates,
chlorophylls, as well as dissolved oxygen profiles at each one of the stations
along with other water quality parameters.
Mr. Bowie asked about the accurateness of a media report last year which
stated that the land surrounding the Reservoir would flood to the point of
dedication if flashboard were installed. Mr. Robertson said he does not
believe that is correct. The actual land that the City of Charlottesville
leases to RWSA does not include land which would be flooded by a rise in the
dam elevation of four feet. Also, additional easements would have to be pur-
chased any way. Mr. Agnor said that is correct.
There was no further discussion on this item, at this time.
Agenda Item No. 18b. Work Session: Alternative Point-Source Discharge
Sewage Disposal System - Intermittent Sand Filtration.
Mr. Bowie said he had received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. George (Betty)
Graham stating they are unable to attend the meeting today, nor have they had
time to prepare a presentation. They request a deferral to the next available
Board date.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer discus-
sion on this item until July 11.
Mr. Bowie said Mr. Graham expressed some concerns as to what was presen-
ted and analyzed in the staff's report, and regulations concerning Health
Department involvement. He asked Mr. Cilimberg to contact Mr. Graham to
resolve the issue before this comes to the Board for review.
There being no other discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Legislative Proposals for VACo Annual Meeting.
Mrs. Roxanne White, Management Analyst, County Executive's office, said
the Virginia Association of Counties has begun the 1991 legislative request
process for major legislative issues of statewide concern to be considered in
the 1991 General Assembly Session. Following is a list of issues currently
under study by joint legislative committees and 1990 legislative position
statements. Mrs. White noted that the deadline for submitting a list to VACo
is July 1. It is recommended that the Board select eight to ten priority
issues to submit.
"SUMMARY 1990 LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
POSITION STATEMENTS SENT TO VACO FOR 1990 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
EQUAL TAXING/BORROWING POWER. To meet the increasing demand to
provide services to a growing population, Albemarle County urges
the General Assembly to grant counties the same taxing and
borrowing authority as cities.
STATE LOTTERY FUNDS. Albemarle County supports legislation
requiring that net funds raised from the Virginia State Lottery
be distributed back to localities for needed capital projects.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
279
ISSUE STATEMENTS FROM 1990 LEGISLATIVE PACKET
FINANCES:
To expand revenue powers by adding:
one-half percent sales tax for localities
Regional gasoline tax
Transient occupancy tax (Counties permitted to levy same
rate as cities)
Permanent distribution of state recordation tax to localities
(five year sunset to 6/30/95)
Local meals tax option without referendum.
To provide full funding for all state mandates.
To provide for local flexibility of real estate tax collection, so
that the long term homeowners are not driven from their primary homes
due to rapid inflation, i.e. homestead exemption, circuit breaker,
refund of excessive tax based on sliding scale, classification allow-
ing different rates for different values of property.
To provide local governments with enabling legislation to require
those delinquent in payment of taxes to pay court costs.
To include computer equipment used for either administrative or
research purposes in the local manufacturer's Machinery and Tools tax.
At Albemarle County's initiative, a bill to exclude computer equipment
from the manufacturer's exemption is under study by a House Finance
Subcommittee. Currently, only machinery and tools that are directly
involved in production can be subject to the local Machinery and Tools
tax. Computers, office equipment, airplanes or boats that are used
for administrative or research purposes are not taxable, which has
resulted in a loss of $600,000 in revenues from two local corpora-
tions. Although the proposed legislation only addresses computer
equipment, it will hopefully be expanded in subsequent years to make
other items such as airplanes and boats subject to local taxation.
This bill has strong support from Mike Amyx of Virginia Municipal
League, Flip Hicks of VACo and Delegate Stanbaugh, the Chairman of the
House Finance Subcommittee where the bill is being studied.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING:
To provide for enabling legislation which allows for the use of growth
management tools in all localities such as:
Impact fees
Transfer development rights (TDRs)
Purchase development rights (PDRs).
Recognition of local comprehensive plans by state agencies.
Support enabling legislation for an adequate public facilities
Ordinance.
To oppose legislation providing vested property rights in rezonings.
WASTE MANAGEMENT:
To provide funds for the upgrading of landfills to legislated
standards.
To provide funding for state and federal mandated qualities of
standards for solid waste and clean water management.
To support legislation establishing a container deposit on bottles.
To provide legislation prohibiting the use of certain non-
biodegradable containers.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
280
To provide legislation that requires industries to report to the
localities the volume of solid waste that they are making available
for recycling. ~
To request that the state ensure participation in solid waste
management programs by its own agencies.
To request the state to take an active role indeveloping markets for
recyclables.
To reqUest that the state institute incentives to encourage source
reduction by industry.
To request local option of a single liner in rural landfills.
Provide separate'property tax classification for certified recycling
equipment.
EDUCATION:
To oppose a Constitutional amendment to require binding arbitration
for teachers.
To provide fundingfor standards of quality.
To provide state funding for local school construction and equipment.
To ensure that Literary Funds are used solely for school construction
and equipment.
CORRECTIONS:
To provide adequate state facilities for state felons in order to
relieve local jails.
TRANSPORTATION:
To provide funding for regional transportation planning and for local
transportation needs.
LICENSING:
To continue to exempt local government employees who are architects,
engineers and land surveyors from licensing requirements.
LEGISLATION UNDER STUDY BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCILS, COMMISSIONS ANn
SUBCOMMITTEES
COUNCILS:
Local Government Advisory Council: Among their charges is the review
of the two-year study on federal and state mandates on local govern-
ment or HJR 156 and SJR 45.
STUDY COMMISSIONS:
COMMISSION ON POPULATION GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT (HB 862). This
commission is studying state and regional planning processes needed to
deal with population growth and development.
COMMISSION STUDYING LOCAL INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND REVENUES RESOURCES
(HRJ 432) SJR 74, adds a stormwater retention system in this study.
COMMISSION TO STUDY THE USE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION FUNDS (SO]{ 48).
$350,000 has been appropriated for a consultant to do an efficiency in
education study requested by this Commission.
GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON EDUCATION OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL VIRGINIANS.
This Commission seems to be a response to the recent Texas disparities
in education case, a copy of which is in the Thomas 3efferson Planning
District Commission office.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
281
VIRGINIA STATE CRIME COMMISSION (HJR 20). This Commission is studying
laws governing local jails as such laws reflect the authority of
regional jail administrators.
SUBCOMMITTEES:
JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE to study TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs), impact
fees, vesting, adequate public facility ordinances, and other land use
issues.
JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE to study the feasibility of establishing a mechanism
for periodic review of LOCAL RETIREMENT SYSTEMS.
BRICKLEY SUBCOMMITTEE to study REAL ESTATE TAXES.
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE to study the feasibility of a DRINKING WATER
PROTECTION FUND (HB 1115).
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE to study MANUFACTURER'S EXEMPTIONS from local taxes
(HB 638)."
Mr. Bowie said some of these items are requests of other counties and it
is important that Albemarle support them. In that light, all of the items
listed should be forwarded to VACo. The Board has traditionally sent position
statements to VACo requesting equal taxing/borrowing powers for counties,
requesting that state lottery funds be returned to localities, and that full
funding be provided for all state mandates. He thinks the fewer positions the
Board takes the better, but again let VACo know the County supports all of the
items.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the growth management items are important. Mr.
Bowie said he agrees and thinks the purchase of development rights and the
ability to sell development rights is a key issue in managing rural growth.
Mr. Bowie suggested the three positions he first mentioned be Albemarle
County's legislative priorities for VACo. In addition, the Board support
VACo's position on any of the remaining items.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks Corrections is an important issue. As a
member of the Jail Board, she feels this is something all of the localities
should be asking for relief from the state.
Mr. Bain said he does not support exemption of local government employees
from licensing requirements. Mr. Agnor said he also does not believe the
County should support that position. The County currently requires employees
in those type positions to be licensed. Mr. Bain said he thinks licensing
should be encouraged. Mr. Bowie said he agrees. Mr. Way suggested that staff
convey to VACo that Albemarle does not support this position.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks enabling legislation which allows for the
use of growth management tools in all localities should be one of the Board's
major position items. Mr. Bain agreed and suggested that the entire section
be included in the legislative package. Mr. Bowie also agreed to support the
concept of legislating appropriate growth management and planning tools as the
fourth position.
Mr. Perkins asked if a local option income tax has been considered. Mrs.
White responded "yes"; it was considered and passed for Northern Virginia
counties. Mr. Perkins suggested that it be added back to the list as one of
the items this Board supports.
Mr. Bain asked the County Attorney to provide a memo for June 20 on what
the Board needs to do to get the meals tax added to the November ballot.
There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 18c. Groundwater Protection Study, Executive Summary,
(Department of Planning and Community Development, February, 1990, prepared by
Mary Joy Scala and Michael Collins).
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 34)
282
Mr. Cilimberg said for a number of months the staff have been working on
a comprehensive study and recommended program for groundwater protection in
the County. Decisions the Board made last year on the Comprehensive Plan put
emphasis on groundwater protection.
Mr. Cilimberg said the purpose of this study is to alert the Board to
current deficiencies in groundwater knowledge and protection efforts; to
present an "ideal" program for groundwater protection; to recommend steps
which should be taken to implement the Comprehensive Plan goal of groundwater
protection; and to encourage the Board to immediately initiate a groundwater
protection program.
Mr. Cilimberg said present at the meeting today is Mrs. Mary Joy Scala,
Senior Planner, and Mr. Mike Collins, an intern, who prepared the study. Mrs.
Scala then reviewed the specific aspects of the study.
Mrs. Scala summarized the flow chart (page 12 of the study) showing how a
groundwater protection program could develop and how the recommendations would
fit into the program. Since many of the recommendations require further
study, it is anticipated that the chart may change as options are either
pursued or eliminated from time to time. The recommendations are divided into
two phases: action items to be addressed in the immediate future, and items
for further study, to be addressed over the next five years. After the first
phase items are completed, the program may be evaluated before proceeding with
the second phase. The study recommends that groundwater data collection and
evaluation be conducted on two levels: broad base (county-wide studies to be
initiated by the County) and site specific (studies to be required of property
owners as development occurs). If this groundwater protection program is
fully implemented, the end result is local programs and policies to prevent
groundwater depletion and degradation, and manually produced groundwater
overlay maps or a groundwater Geographic Information System (GIS) for broad
base and site specific planning. The initial maps (DRASTIC, pollution
sources, well yield and depth to water) can be produced quickly for immediate
use, but will be limited by existing data. Additional studies in the second
phase will augment data from the first phase.
Mrs. Scala then summarized the following recommendations of the ground-
water protection study:
Action Items
Assign responsibility for groundwater planning to either the Planning
Department or the Watershed Management Official.
Assess Health Department environmental health staffing and associated
funding requirements for the implementation of this program, including
data collection. (After some recent discussions, the staff felt this
would better be decided after the initial study phase of action items are
completed.)
Join with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in order to
generate a DRASTIC map for the County.
Identify and map existing and potential pollution sources, such as
service stations, which may threaten groundwater quality, including both
natural and man-made contaminants. (The DRASTIC map is produced using a
standardized system which predicts where future pollution will most
likely occur. A grant has been submitted to the State Water Control
Board to have these maps produced for Albemarle. Mr. Collins is cur-
rently working at TJPDC on DRASTIC maps for all of the other counties in
the Planning District, except for Fluvanna and Albemarle.)
Construct a well report database from current well completion reports and
study the development of an ongoing database. Student interns should be
used to augment the efforts of volunteers from the community.
o
Map well yield and depth to water at 1:24,000 scale using available data
from Division of Mineral Resources drilling logs and Virginia Water
Control Board water well completion reports. (An intern has already
started constructing a data base used from two sources: GW2 forms and
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 35)
283
data from extensive well testing done by the Division of Mineral Re-
sources in the 1960's. Beginning in September, 1990, new well regula-
tions will go into effect which requires that all wells drilled must ave
a completed GW2 form.)
Further study enabling legislation for the implementation of hydro-
geologic testing and evaluation intended: to protect and preserve
groundwater quantity and quality through careful subdivision design; to
better assure adequate water supplies for future residents; to assess the
effects of anticipated withdrawals on neighbors; and to better predict
future utility needs in the Rural Areas. Determine the proper time to
implement hydrogeologic testing and evaluation through the zoning and/or
subdivision ordinances and pursue implementation. Incorporate resulting
data into broad-base maps. (Mr. Bowie asked if this is to be usedtfor
single-family dwellings. Mrs. Scala said it is mostly intended to be
used in larger developments because those have the biggest impact. It
can be set up however the Board wishes. This requirement would be
particularly important in the North Garden area because the Board has
stated it does not want to approve any rezonings in that village without
adequate proof of the availability of water.)
Authorization has been requested of the 1990 General Assembly for
Albemarle County to be included in Section 32.1-176.5.B of the Code of
Virginia to be enabled to require testing of water quality prior to the
issuance of a building permit. Study the means by which such a require-
ment could be implemented and pursue implementation. (The requirement
can be tailored to the County.)
Maintain water quality testing data in a database; prepare water quality
maps based on the accumulated data.
10.
Further study the Health Department's private well regulations when they
are adopted in Spring, 1990, to insure that minimum well data reporting
requirements are met. Further study enabling legislation to permit local
well regulations for additional grouting and yield/flow testing require-
ments. Pursue implementation of local regulations as permitted. (Mr.
Bowie said he would have a lot of problems with such regulations applying
to private homeowners. Mr. Perkins asked what types of contaminants
would be a basis for denying someone a building permit. Mrs. Scala said
in addition to previous contaminants mentioned, there are also nitrites
and certain types of pesticides. Mr. St. John said the presence of some
of the contaminants would not necessarily result in denying a building
permit. The purpose of testing these wells is mainly to protect people
from bad water.)
11. The central well policy should be studied and revised, in light of this
groundwater protection study and the newly revised Comprehensive Plan.
12. Study the central well procedure and the feasibility of transferring
inspection of central wells to the Health Department.
Mrs. Scala said of the twelve action items: recommendation #1 could be
taken care of rapidly by the Board assigning responsibility for any
groundwater program; recommendation #2 cannot occur until after additional
study has been completed; recommendations #3, #4, #5 and #6 are already
underway by an existing intern; recommendations #7, #8, #9 and #10 require
some outside technical assistance; and recommendations #11 and #12 should be
accomplished in-house in the Planning Department.
Recommendations: Items for Further Study
13.
Develop a public education and voluntary action program to help build
support for County protection programs and to educate the homeowner on
groundwater protection issues.
14.
Planning staff should work with the Watershed Management Official and the
Water Resources Committee to coordinate groundwater and surface water
programs and policies.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 36)
284
15.
Do further study to determine appropriate timing for remapping the
Albemarle County geologic map east of Route 29 for bedrock type
(lithology) and structural geology at 1:24,000 (USGS scale), to be
conducted by consultants.
16.
Do further study to determine appropriate timing for developing a
lineament and surficial geology map at 1:24,000 scale, to be prepared by
consultants.
17.
Do further study to determine appropriate timing for developing a local
or regional recharge/discharge project to be conducted by consultants.
Such project would include hydrograph separation analysis of stream flow
at gauging stations and testing of observation wells, and would result in
a groundwater flow analysis and a recharge/discharge map of Albemarle
County by sub-basin.
18. Further study the licensing of well and septic contractors. Further
study a County requirement for septic system maintenance.
19.
Evaluate the adequacy of state and federal regulations for underground
storage tanks, waste lagoons, and other potential groundwater pollution
sources. Consider the development of local regulations for these uses.
20. Implement a geographic information system (GIS) to be used to integrate
and interrelate groundwater data.
Mrs. Scala said recommendations #13 and #14 could be moved up into the
first phase.
Mrs. Scala said the chart, as presented, shows the Board every option
currently available to protect groundwater. It is the Board's decision how
far it wants to go and which items it wants to pursue.
Mr. St. John said he thinks the County has the authority to do the
hydrogeological study and then take whatever steps are necessary to protect
the groundwater from people. In his opinion, it is necessary to keep totally
separate the enabling legislation for protection of groundwater from contami-
nation and from depletion, and to protect users from illness due to contami-
nants in their wells. The appropriate section of Code which applies is
15.1-489.
Mrs. Humphris said she thinks it is important to emphasis conservation in
the education efforts, not just the protection of the quality of the water,
but also the protection of the quantity and availability.
Mr. Perkins asked how this program would correspond and relate to other
state and federal programs, i.e. Environmental Protection Agency, State Water
Control Board, etc. It seems to him that this is more of a groundwater
resource study than a groudwater protection study. Mr. St. John said the
section of Code he mentioned concerns the lawful purposes of a zoning ordi-
nance. The amendment he referred to added as one of the purposes of the local
zoning ordinance, the protection of surface and groundwater by reasonable
means not inconsistent with regulations of state agencies. The Health Depart-
ment functionally protects people from bad water and the State Water Control
Board protects water from peoples activities. The State Water Control Board
does not get involved, such as with land use decisions and whether to allow a
facility such as the Piney River Manufacturing plant, in Nelson County, until
after the fact. The State Water Control Board gets involved when there is a
point source discharge into state waters. The land-use decision making
process at the local level is where these groundwater protection tools should
be used.
Mr. St. John said although he does not think that duplication of services
is the idea behind this study, the Board should not duplicate services that
state agencies provide. Mr. Perkins said his concern is that there not be
duplication and that the County make use of the resources that the federal and
state governments provide.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 37)
285
Mr. Agnor said he recommends that this groundwater protection program be
adopted in principle with program implementation assigned to the Office of
Watershed Management. It is staff's opinion that the tasks and responsibili-
ties of the Watershed Management Official be expanded to include all water
resource planning and management efforts of the County. While the watershed
management of drinking water impoundments woUld still be the primary focus of
the office, water resource management and protection measures beyond the
watersheds should be addressed, specifically the Chesapeake Bay Initiatives
and the groundwater protection program. If the Board concurs with this
approach, staff will develop a proposal for this expansion and address how
funding through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority may be affected.
Mr. Bowie commented that this was an excellent presentation.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
Groundwater Protection Study in principle with program implementation assigned
to the Watershed Management Office. The County Executive is also to discuss
with City officials revising of job description of the Watershed Management
Official to include these additional duties. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18d. Work Session: Amendments to the Runoff Control
Ordinance.
Mr. Peyton Robertson, Watershed Management Official, said the proposed
amendments delete language relating to a Technical Review Committee, which no
longer functions, and also requires developers to pay a pro-rata share of the
construction costs associated with regional sedimentation facilities. In
addition, the definition of "sewage disposal system" was amended.
Mrs. Humphris asked what is meant by "water dependent facilities". Mr.
Robertson replied boat docks, in-take structures for the water supply, etc.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set a public
hearing for July 11 to consider amending Chapter 19.1 of the Albemarle County
Code as it relates to Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18e. Joint Transportation Committee Report.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, said at the June 6
meeting, Board members made several comments and raised questions concerning
the Route 29 North Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Those con-
cerns were given to the Joint Transportation Committee, who met on June 8.
The Joint Transportation Committee concurred with the Board and the questions,
as well as some questions prepared by the City, and transmitted the questions
to VDoT. Mr. Tucker said he has wrote a letter to %rOoT asking that VDoT
either delay the public hearing on June 28 or defer any action and continue
the public hearing until a response has been received to all of the questions
submitted. The staff has also been drafting a statement for the Chairman to
present at the June 28 public hearing. Mr. Tucker said he had requested from
Board members any comments they wished to have added to the statement. He
received two substantive replies. Mrs. Humphris suggested that language be
included that any type of alignment in the watershed should be avoided. Mr.
Bowerman had indicated his concern about the expressway alternative. Mr.
Tucker said he has discussed with the Chairman and prepared a brief outline
for the Boardts review. The final statement is to be prepared from the
following outline:
Short historical background perspective on U. S. 29 North
Corridor.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 38)
286
Explain our understanding of the improvements expected in the
base case (attach CATS list of base case improvements with
statement).
Comment that data and answers to questions raised by the Board of
Supervisors and Joint Transportation Committee are needed before
a definite solution can be supported.
Discuss the importance of the County's policy for watershed
protection (the improved base case alternative as currently
proposed does not appear to impact the watershed).
Eo
Close statement with comment that if the data requested by the
Joint Transportation Committee is favorable toward the improved
base case solution, the County could support this alternative.
But until that information is provided, the County requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation continue the public hearing
(attach list of questions from Joint Transportation Committee
with statement).
Mr. Bowie commented that VDoT has requested a five minute limitation on
individual presentations. Mr. Bowerman said he does not think the Board
should limit what it wants to say on the basis of the five minutes.
Mr. Bowie said he personally cannot support taking a position for or
against any specific alternative because the Board does not know what the
recommendations are.
Mrs. Humphris said she likes the outline provided, but thinks the Board
will be closing its eyes to disaster if it thinks that VDoT will delay its
public hearing or delay making a decision. It is her opinion that the public
hearing will proceed with or without Albemarle County. She thinks that based
on the information provided in the DEIS, the Improved Base Case would provide
an acceptable level of service at an acceptable cost. She feels this Improved
Base Case option should be supported by the Board and built by the state. It
is also her feeling that the DEIS further establishes that the bypass routes
do not deal effectively with the Route 29 North traffic problem and are very
costly in terms of dollars and in known negative impacts to homes, schools,
businesses, water quality, the environment and the community. It is clear to
her that based on the DEIS, the official information document available for
decision-making at this time, the Improved Base Case is the appropriate
solution. She feels that the Board should make the following statement at the
end of its presentation: "The county, therefore, supports the Improved Base
Case option on Route 29 North and opposes the bypass options."
Mr. Bain said he has difficulty in supporting the base case when legiti-
mate questions have been raised concerning the DEIS and to which no response
has been provided.
Mrs. Humphris asked how the Board is going to respond if it does not get
a response to the questions. The Board is obligated to make a statement on
the citizen's behalf. She strongly believes that the Board must be prepared
to say that it supports the base case and opposes any bypass because that
might be the only information to go on.
Mr. Bowie suggested that in Section "B" of the outline, include wording
that the County does not know what VDoT means by "base case". Although the
Board does not know what VDoT is really saying, the Board's interpretation of
VDoT's statement appears to solve the problem.
Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board needs to be careful because in the
future someone might question why the Board took a position even though it
challenged the DEIS. Mrs. Humphris said the position is based on the best
information available at the time.
Mr. Bowie said he cannot support the Improved Base Case without responses
to the questions submitted to VDoT. He also has the same problem opposing
anything until the questions are answered.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 39)
287
Mr. Bowerman said when he was campaigning fOr the Board of Supervisors,
he received information from VDoT which enabled him to take the position that
the traffic problem is not from through-traffic, but a local problem and that
none of the bypass alternatives nor an expressway would solve the problem.
Since the base case is pretty well defined, he could take a position as long
as the responses to the questions do not substantially change anything. He
thinks that if the Board fails to make a statement on June 28 reflecting its
position of the last fifteen years, the Board will lose its opportunity to do
so. He thinks the Board needs to be definitive.
Mr. Bowie suggested acknowledging in the statement that responses have
not been provided to the questions, but the DEIS seems to say certain things
and if it actually means what the Board interprets it to say, then the Board
can support it. It is his opinion that the DEIS is the CATS plan, including
Greenbrier. Mr. Way said he has no objection to that statement.
Mr. Bain said he wants to reserve his right to see what the answers to
the questions are. He does not want to make as strong a statement as has been
discussed.
Mr. Tucker said he does not think the Board will have responses to the
questions by June 28, nor will VDoT cancel the public hearing. He thinks VDoT
may continue or extend the deadline for comments. Presently the deadline for
comments is 3uly 9.
Mr. Bowerman said it is his opinion that nothing is going to change the
fact that the only thing that is going to work for this community is construc-
tion of the CATS Plan. He thinks the only people to benefit from a western
bypass are development interests. New roads inevitably bring their own
growth. He thinks that if the Board does not take a position, it will have
given up its opportunity to do so.
Mr. Bain suggested staff draft a statement, taking into account comments
made by Board members, for the Board's review on June 20.
Mr. Bowie asked if the Board members wish to take a position publicly
opposing the bypass options. Mrs. Humphris said she opposes all bypass
options. Mr. Bowerman said he opposes bypass options as well as an expressway
because the facts do not speak to either as dealing with the problem.
The Chairman took a poll of the Board members who stated their opposition
to all bypass options and an expressway.
There was no further discussion at this time.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Way, to appoint Mrs.
Josephine M. Blue to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board of
Directors, to replace Dr. Marie Chioni, who resigned. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board.
Mr. Frank Kessler commended the Board for the action it took today
concerning Route 29 North. He hopes that the Board will encourage the Highway
Department to get all of "these lines" off of maps. It is bad for the real
estate business not knowing what is going to happen. As a realtor, he cannot
tell a home buyer whether a bypass will come through the property or not. He
said the community is in a turmoil and the Board owes it to the citizens to
see that these lines are removed.
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 40)
288
Mr. Bain asked staff to elaborate on Consent Agenda Item 4.9, Fiscal
Impact Evaluation and Future Rezoning Requests, as prepared by the Planning
Department. Mr. St. John said the report essentially states that there will
be a notation in all future staff reports about the status of any proffer or
lack of proffer, and if the staff can generate it, an item on the estimated
cost to the county of the development. The staff will begin doing this even
though the Fiscal Impact Study is not complete. He believes that on a case-
by-case basis that can be done. Using as an example the proposal by Wendell
Wood on the agenda this morning, although Mr. Wood had technically made no
proffer, he had agreed to build certain things. He thinks that anytime staff
and a developer discuss a proffer, a synopsis of that discussion should go in
the staff report and come to this Board. If the staff does not think the
proffer should be accepted, then the staff report should reflect that opinion.
If staff can assess capital costs then that amount should be put in the staff
report and the share of the cost to be contributed to the request should be
stated even if the applicant has made no proffer. It is ultimately the
Board's decision as to whether a proffer meets the criteria. The staff should
not hear the proposal about a proffer and then make the decision about whether
or not to accept that proffer without input from this Board. He believes a
discussion of the status of a proffer or a non-proffer should be in each staff
report. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 5:00 P.M.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the staff has never had a monetary proffer that has
not been reported to the Board. The only opportunity for getting proffers is
through rezonings involving growth area properties.
Mr. Bowie said he read the report as being just an information item.
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting at 5:05 P.M.) He would like to have in
the staff report the fiscal impact which has nothing to do with proffers. He
does not care whether somebody submits a proffer or not. He saw this as a way
to get additional information in the decision-making process.
Mr. Bain said as long this does not slow down the process, he has no
problem with the suggestion.
Mr. Agnor said he has available copies of the adopted Fiscal Year 1990-91
County Budget if any Board member would like one.
Mr. Bain said on June 6 the Board received the County Executive's April,
1990 financial report on the consent agenda. He asked for the projected fund
balance for the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Agnor said revenues are expected
to be within one percent of the estimate which is approximately $500,000. The
expenditures appear to be within appropriations. The combination of both
should be within approximately one percent of the budget. He thinks there
should be a carry-over balance at the end of the fiscal year of at least
$5OO,OOO.
Mr. Bowerman said about eight years ago, due to a significant rainfall,
the County looked at regional detention basins for stormwater management in
the urban area, and the idea was eventually implemented. Every time there is
major rainfall, additional problems arise from these basins. His reasons for
discussing this is that there is no mechanism in place to deal with these
situations, other than in the Capital Improvements Program process. He would
like for staff to look at the situation, not only for runoff problems and
water management, but other problems associated with other areas in the County
where there are public facilities where nobody is taking the responsibility to
maintain them. Obviously the entire costs should not be borne by the private
landowner. He would like staff to come up with some mechanism that the County
can use to deal with these improvements. If the problem is the result of the
developer, then the developer should bear the costs. If the problem is the
result of something overlooked by the County, then the County should be
responsible.
Mr. Bain said he concurs with Mr. Bowerman totally. Mr. Bain asked,
under current enabling legislation, how long a developer can be made responsi-
ble for his project. Mr. Bowerman asked if a homeowner's association can be
June 13, 1990 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 41)
289
made to clean out a stormwater detention basin if it fills up or if there is
no homeowner's association who could be given that responsibility. He feels
these devices will have to be maintained after the fact.
Mr. Bowie said he has no objection to getting the information.
Mr. Perkins asked staff to bring back a recommendation on amending the
ordinance relating to real estate tax relief for the elderly and handicapped.
The consensus of the Board was to direct staff to provide this information.
Mr. Bowie mentioned a letter received from Mr. Frank Buck, a member of
City Council, concerning the Italian Student Exchange Program. Last year the
County decided not to participate in the program. The letter asks the County
if it wants to participate in the program. He does not want to imply that he
can vote to appropriate the funds requested. Mr. Bain said he is not willing
to commit the funds. Mr. Way said the Board has always said that the only way
for this program to succeed is to get the School Division to take the major
responsibility for it, not the Board of Supervisors. He still believes that
holds true. There being no other discussion, the Chairman agreed to respond
to Mr. Buck concerning the Board's position on this program.
ww-$, t,q°
Mrs. Humphris commented that she will not be present for the July 11
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn. There being no further business to come
before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 5:21 P.M.
CHAIRMAN