1989-09-20 adjSeptember 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 1)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 20, 1989, at3:00 P.M., Meeting Room #7,
County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. This
meeting was adjourned from September 13, 1989.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived 3:04 P.M.),
Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. (arrived at 3:23 P.M.); Mr.
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Coxmunity
Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
3:04 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Proffered Zoning Legislation.
Mr. Tucker said that the 1989 General AsSembly approved legislation which
was effective July 1, 1989, authorizing certain localities to accept proffers
during the rezoning process. He said cash contributions for public facilities
such as schools, parks, fire and rescue stations, highway improvements and
libraries could also be accepted. Unlike th~iimpact fees, which could be
exacted at the site plan, subdivision plat rp¥iew, or building permit stages,
proffered zoning cash contributions are triggered only through a rezoning
application. He said staff does not anticipa%e a large number of such appli-
cations because most of the land in Albemarle~is already zoned in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan. He said staff had reviewed the approach taken by
other localities. Some have developed a list~of potential cash contributions
anticipated per dwelling unit, based on the c6nstruction costs of the neces-
sary public facilities in their community.
Mr. Tucker noted that most of these localities are similar to
Chesterfield County and are planning for urban scale development throughout
the locality. BY comparison, Albemarle's groyth management approach has
targeted specific areas for development to r~iieve development pressure in the
rural areas. Implementing cash contribution~ifor dwelling units in Albemarle
may act as a disincentive for growth area residential development since the
only residential zonings anticipated would bs~in the growth areas. Rural
residential subdivisions will not be subject !Go such cash contributions under
proffered zoning unless a special use permit .is involved. He said one locali-
ty is attempting to forecast its fiscal condition on an annual basis for a 20
year planning period. That approach would ulfimately be developed into a
fiscal impact software program which will estlimate the fiscal impact of
services and facilities offset by revenues ofi~arious specific development
proposals. This computer model is then used in analyzing zoning map amend-
ments and proffered conditions. Staff's opinDon is that this latter approach
is the most prudent course to pursue. This methodology would not only be
useful in analyzing rezoning requests, but could also be utilized in assessing
impact fees in the future should the authorit~ to impose impact fees be
granted.
Staff recommends that it be authorized td develop a Request for Proposal
(RFP) which would address more definitively t~ese comments and then provide
for funding in the upcoming Capital Improvement Program. In the interim,
staff would develop generalized financial impact data which could be used in
proffered rezoning analyses.
Mr. Tucker said staff had prepared a draft amendment to Section 33.3 and
Section 38.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance relating to conditions of rezoning. He
said this amendment is all that would be neede'd to update the Zoning Ordi-
nance. However, staff would have to develop the costs to be used in consider-
ing proffers.
Mr. Bain asked what amount of staff time would be involved in developing
these costs. Mr. Tucker said that some work has already been done by Mr.
2
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 2)
Lindstrom which staff hopes to use. It would take three to four weeks to
develop figures for the Board's review. Mr. Tucker said the difficulty is in
determining whether these costs can be developed County-wide. Much will
depend on the Public Facilities Plan which will target public improvements
through which the County might gain revenue.
Mr. Lindstrom said he believes people usually move to an area because of
a job and not just because a house is available. Therefore, there is a better
ability to disperse the costs after knowing the job base that a new develop-
ment will generate as opposed to a residential base. A direct consequence of
growth is the development of shopping centers. Part of the cost of having a
shopping center is having people come to work there, educating their children,
and providing other services. That cost should be partially attached to the
rezoning for shopping centers so that it can be passed on!to customers. He
felt the cost should not just be attached to residential development.
Mr. Bain said all of that cost obviously cannot be recovered. Mr.
Lindstrom said the developers of industrial and commercial bases are better
able to spread the cost than developers of residential ba~es. Mr. Tucker said
he agreed with that; however, the concern is finding a balance between resi-
dential and commercial development that is equitable. Mrs. Lindstrom said the
burden should be allocated between both types of development.
Mr. Bain said staff is correct that until the Public Facilities Plan is
completed, not much can be done in terms of developing final figures.
Mr. Bowie said the advantage of proceeding with the ~omputer model is
that, although it may be months before all of the information regarding utili'
ties, schools, etc. is available, the figures which are available can be
entered into the computer and the process can begin. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said the commercial/industrial developers will rightly
argue that they are off-setting some of the residential cdSts because the
costs associated with servicing purely industrial and commercial uses are not
nearly as much as the revenues they generate. He said hellas found that the
benefits of the industrial/commercial base do not completgSy off-set the
residential. He recognizes that it will be difficult to make an equitable
determination, but ultimately the cost should be spread between the residen-
tial and the commercial.
Mr. Bowie said even if employees live in another County and are employed
here, there are still costs associated for roads and police. There is some
rationale for including industrial/commercial rezonings. .~
Mr. Tucker said another benefit of the computer modei is that when the
tax base and revenues from that tax base change, those figures can be incorpo-
rated.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is not known yet how specific ahd substantial the
connection has to be between the impact and the proffer i~!this legislation.
He said some courts might say that a school, for example, would have to be
built within so many miles of the residential development ~for which funds are
collected. Mr. Tucker said staff's understanding from the initial reading of
the legislation is that the connection basically has to bei~to the area of
development.
Mr. St.. John said the purpose of the proffer has to be specified. The
State Code says that if the proffer is not used for the pu=pose specified, it
has to be given back. He said he did not know that there ~as any territorial
nexus. He said if a developer proffers to build a certain?school that is in
the County's public facilities program, the developer could not later renege
because the school is not where the people generated by the development would
be attending. Mr. St. John said if there is some kind of nexus between the
development and the project for which the contribution is made, and the
contribution is actually used for that project, that is legitimate. He added
that the County's approach so far is similar to Loudoun CoUnty's approach with
a pre-established list of costs in particular areas of the tounty. He said he
attended a seminar where the sponsors of this legislation were the chief
speakers, and they pointed out examples of what cannot be d~ne under this
legislation is preparing a pre-established list of costs. ~No one knows
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon AdjOurned Meet±ng)
(Page 3)
exactly what can be done under this new legislation. He said if the Board
does not "go to bat for fear of striking out,~ it will never get a hit". His
suggestion was to implement what is thought to be the best ideas. When a
challenge is given, a defense can be made.
Mr. Lindstrom said if there is no pre-established way of dealing with the
costs, the Board will not be able to deal fairly with everyone. Mr. St. John
said when there is no pre-established list, khe implication is that proffers
are welcomed but the developer has to convince the County of his plan. It is
an ad hoc way of dealing with development. The initiative would be with the
applicant, and the County would be reacting on a case-by-case basis. Mr. St.
John said that is the antithesis of good planning.
Mr. Lindstrom said this discussion has been about monetary proffers which
presumably would be put into a separate fund~to be used for a specific pur-
pose. He asked if land or cash could also be part of the proffering. Mr.
Tucker said that was correct. He added that the amount of a cash contribution
would be the most difficult to develop from staff's point of view.
Mr. Lindstrom said when a proposal for development is submitted which
will exert pressure on the rural areas, ther~ should be consideration given
for easements or significant buffers, etc. t~~ minimize the potential impact.
He said it shoul~ be anticipated, even if there are not many cases in which
that would occur. The proposed new village ~f Rivanna is an example of a
development with a potential for rural "sprawl".
Mr. Bowie said there is a screening ordi~nance so when a rezoning is
requested, there are other things that can b~I proffered in addition to money.
He said one county requires that where a shopping center is proposed, a
percentage of the second floor must be residential, rental property. The
theory is that it can be used for moderate i~Come housing. Mr. Bowie said
that type of arrangement should be considere~i in implementing this legisla-
tion ....
Mr. Lindstrom said it goes without sayi~ that proffering certain things
does not guarantee approval of a rezoning reqhest. He said that should be in
bold letters in the ordinance. Mr. Tucker sa~d staff will proceed with
developing figures for the Board's review, a~d would like authorization to
proceed with the computer model. .~
Mr. Lindstrom said an area of the CountM~ihe has been concerned about is
Hotlymead. For proffers to be able to work, ~here has to be the opportunity
to accept them. To what extent can the Count~ comprehensively reassess the
zoning ordinance in view of the fact that this legislation is available? Is
it something that should be considered? He ~aid a comprehensive review would
also respond to the impact of development, which the County has not been able
to do in the past. He said that is something~ilthat staff should think about.
The County is handicapped in many areas because there is so much land already
zoned for an ultimate use under the old zonin~ ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg said one particular area o~' concern is the rural area
ubd~v~s~on that can currently take place by-~ght wmth no opportunzty for the
County to recover any costs. That is the one ilare.a that has been identified
for no development. He said the biggest concern ~s not to institute a prof-
fering system, but to institute development i~pact fees.
Mr. Lindstrom said the impact of the cha~ge has to be determined and
subtracted from the impact under existing zoning. Mr. Bowie said he does not
think that it would be right to take away rig~s property owners currently
have under the zoning ordinance. However, wh~ a request is made to expand or
change the zoning, new rules would apply. ~
Mr. Bain asked how a determination would it~e made on property that is
zoned industrial when a request for commercia]%iwould mean a lesser zone. He
said the property owner already has more by-r±i~ht than the resultant request
would permit.
Mr. Bowie said a request for rezoning do~ not have to be approved.
Also, there may be times when it is in the Coumty's best interest to allow a
lower level density. In addition to saying that rezoning is not guaranteed by
4
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 4)
proffering, it should be said that failing to proffer does not mean that a
request will not be approved. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan would
hopefully rule in those situations.
Mr. Lindstrom said creating a differential between the growth areas and
the rural areas is a big problem which underlys being able to attach impact
fees to industrial and commercial uses which trigger residential development.
Mr. Lindstrom said adding this to the voluntary clustering provisions may
possibly stimulate more development in the rural areas than before.
Mr. Cilimberg said those localities which have authority to impose impact
fees are imposing them exclusively on residential development. Acceptable
proffers are mainly for site development related activities. The impact fees
are imposed on every residential unit in those localities.
Mr. Bowie said a case can be made that industrial and commercial develop-
ment causes residential development, and something should be required for
those homes caused by the industrial development. He supports going ahead
with the computer model, but would like staff to develop a list of other ideas
for implementing proffers for the Board to consider.
Mr. Bain said the process should begin as expeditiously as possible in
order to revise, review, have a hearing, and then put this legislation into
effect.
(Mr. Agnor arrived at 3:23 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Highway Corridor Design and Protection.
Mr. Cilimberg said he had prepared some preliminary ~nformation on
corridor protection as found in the Code of Virginia and as proposed at staff
level by the City of Charlottesville. Section 15.1-503.27of the Code allows
Albemarle to delineate districts along significant routes'i/of tourist access tc
designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts within the
County or in a contiguous municipality. The same section~also appears to
allow the governing body the option of providing an architectural review board
to, administer such a district.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the City of Charlottesville has developed a plan
for entrance corridor protection that assumes development~iof an overlay zonin
district. While final decisions have not been made regarding this entrance
corridor plan, the information obtained from the City and distributed to the
Board is consistent with the interest expressed by the Bogrd. Mr. Cilimberg
said since the corridors identified by the City extend into the County, it
would make sense for the County to coordinate the protecti%n of these corri-
dors with the City. He said that City staff is agreeable~to this idea.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff recommends that, based on Mri St. John's opin-
ion, it further coordinate with the City's Staff in developing entrance corri-
dor protection procedures.
Mr. St. John said he had looked at the legislation, a~d the County has
the power to implement it. He said it applies both to the?County per se, and
to the County as being contiguous to a City having histori~ and publicly
significant landmarks within it. The only question is whether the Board wants
to adopt an ordinance that contains standards for compliance or have an
architectural review board. His impression is that the BOard is more con-
cerned with the matters of landscaping and buffering, than~with the design of
buildings.
Mr. Lindstrom asked to what roads this legislation applies. Mr. St. John
said the Board would designate the applicable roads.
Mr. Lindstrom said the legislation refers to "... arterial streets or
by-ways .... " He would like to know which roads are arterials.
Mrs. Cooke said it was interesting to note that the CSty designated
anything that leads into the City, such as Fontaine Avenue~!and East High
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon' AdjournedMeeting)
(Page 5)
Street, as major corridors. Based on that, any road the Board would consider
would be an extension of those same corridors.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what kinds of regulations should be imposed. He said
a distinction might be made between different corridors. For example, on
Route 29 there is such a cacophony of architectural styles that it would be
difficult to begin reviewing, at this point in time, the appearance of struc-
tures. It would be appropriate to decide on screening, buffers and setbacks,
and the location of parking. However, on Route 20 it is a different type of
road altogether. Maybe there should be some review of the nature of the
structures, especially on Route 20 North where commercial zoning is proposed.
He said he certainly does not want to see something like Brown's Oldsmobile on
Route 20 North. Whether an architectural review board would be needed to look
at the structure design on some roads, or whether the ordinance would contain
the regulations, he did not know.
Mr. Bowie said that both roads having substantial existing development
and those with no development should be addressed. He sees no need for review
by another regulating body. He felt that staff could handle the normal review
using a list of requirements. He added that~Route 29 North should be included
as well. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not mean~to exclude Route 29.
Mrs. Cooke said this issue was raised im a discussion of landscaping for
a proposed trailer park, and she still think~i it is important to have a
landscape architectural review committee. Thee parts of Route 29 North that
have not yet been developed present an opportunity for some control and input
into the type of structures that will be built. That is true for Route 20 and
other areas that are undeveloped. She said examining every "jot and tittle"
of proposed developments as the City is doin~ may not be a bad idea. Unless
some review is done and some control exercised, there will be more of the same
kind of "hodge-podge" that is currently on Rpute 29 North. She said it's too
late to do anything about what has already b~en developed. But where there~is
an opportunity for control and planning, she!ifeels the Board would be remiss
not to have a committee established. 'i
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that a manual b~ developed for acceptable archi-
tectural styles and finishes for various useS. If the development is within
one of the designated corridors, and one of t~he listed uses is desired, then
the acceptable styles and finishes are outliHed. There would simply be the
usual staff review and Planning Commission r~view. If the developer has
something different than what is in the manu~!, then there would be an archi-
tectural review committee process. If there.~iis a willingness on the part of
developers to comply with a basic set of standards, proposed developments
would not be delayed. He said the time elememt would be an incentive to
comply with the protection standards.
Mr. Bowie said Mr. Lindstrom's suggestiO~ would be a compromise that
would prevent an automatic delay for every development. Mr. Cilimberg said
such a plan could achieve other elements of d~sign features that the Board
desires to see implemented along the entrance corridors. He said developers
like to be able to go to a reference book because it makes their work much
easier.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission has more experience with this
type of review than the Board has. He suggested that staff, together with the
Planning Commission, consider this issue and develop some proposals.
Mr. Bain said in cases where there are e~isting businesses who request
even minor changes, the Board should encoura§~ the use of some standards, and,
he feels, the County might even make a monetary contribution to improve what
is currently on Route 29 North. ~
Mr. Tucker said if a general design is e~tablished for entrance corridors
with a standardized landscaping plan, the CoWry could take the initiative to
go to existing buinesses and show them what c~ld happen with uniformity of
design. He said it may not be a matter of forcing uniformity on existing
developments, but businesses may voluntarily ~o along with the County's plans
over a period of time.
6
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Cilimberg said a University of Virginia class has attempted an urban
design study to address ways to improve existing development on Route 29. He
said staff referred to those suggestions in developing the Comprehensive Plan
regarding downsizing signs, consistent landscaping with street trees, and
removing overhead power lines. Mr. Lindstrom said there is no single move
that can improve landscaping more quickly than removing overhead power lines.
Mr. Cilimberg said a more amazing effect is created by removing the string
traffic lights.
Mr. Way said the Board is clearly saying it wants to pursue implementa-
tion of this legislation.
Mr. St. John pointed out that the State Code indicates that every road
except a collector road or a local street is an arterial ~oad. He said that
means that Route 20 would be included.
(Mr. St. John and Mr. Bowie left at 4:05 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 4. Report: Route 29 North.
Mr. David Benish handed out a summary of the Route 29 Bypass alignments
and a listing of the commercial uses and parking lots directly affected by
each alternative. He then hand out an analysis of screen lines for various
alternatives and proceeded to discuss the location of thei~proposed alignments
as follows:
Mi
M2
M3
M4
N1
N2
N3
N4
N5
Route 743 at Hydraulic Road
Rio Road, North of the intersection
Route 29 at Fashion Square and Shopper's Wdrld crossover
Rio Road just before the Meadow Creek ParkWay interchange
On Route 29/Route 250 Bypass west of BarraCks Road
Old Ivy Road ~
Ivy Road, west of its intersection with 01~ Ivy Road
Fontaine Avenue ~
1-64 ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked that staff recheck the count to model ratio under the
Expressway Alternative for M2 because it is inordinately ~igh.
Mr. Cilimberg said to be comparable with the methodotbgy uSed on the
impact analysis of the Expressway, staff only included the~houses, other
buildings, and commercial areas that are directly in the ~ight-of-way of any
of the by-pass alternatives. If the house or business was~.ten feet off the
right-of-way, it was included on the impact list. From the impact analysis it
is obvious that the greatest effects on homes and businesses occur along the
western alignments. The more limited effects are on the ~stern alignments.
Mr. Lindstrom said it is interesting that of all of the alternatives, the
short western by-pass takes more commercial property than ~ny other alterna-
tive, including the Expressway. Also, it takes the least ~mount of acreage of
the western by-passes and affects the least number of houses.
Mr. Lindstrom said that none of the alternatives significantly relieves
traffic inside the By-pass on Emmett Street. Each one shows more than 50,000
vehicle trips per day on Emmett Street south of the By-pas~. He said this
data really underlines the fact that the University of Virginia needs to
consider an interchange at the North Grounds. If the MeadOw Creek Parkway and
the Base Case are built, more traffzc w~i1 take the Meadow~Creek Parkway than
the Base Case. If the Expressway and the Meadow Creek Par~way are built, the
Expressway will take much of the traffic off of the Meadow!'~Creek Parkway. He
said it underlines the fact that people prefer to be at th~ end of Route 29
rather than the end of Meadow Creek Parkway. He said this~data is showing
that people want to get to the University. He said it is ~ifficult to see how
the University can do any major expansion of University Ha~l and not give
direct access onto the By-pass. He said it would be inter~sting to see what
the effect of putting an interchange on the By-pass would ~e, whether the
City's proposal is built or not. He said the one thing that really stands out
about all this data is that the Meadow Creek Parkway is important and getting
people directly to the University is important. He said t~e University is
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 7)
7
creating the demand, and the time is coming when there has to be a link
between creating the demand and accepting responsibility for the demand.
Mr. Cilimberg then referred to a matrix of traffic counts for Alterna-
tives A through K that was handed out at the September 13 meeting and said
that he would be glad to answer any questions the Board members might have.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the Base Case at Route 29 for local
traffic shows 65,810 vehicle trips a day. The Expressway alternate shows
57,304 at that same point, while Alternative 10, which is supposed to take the
most traffic off of Route 29 at the heaviest point, reduces traffic on the
local lanes by less than 3,000 vehicles. His point is that the Western Bypass
does not do much to relieve Route 29 traffic, and it puts that through traffic
function in a place where most commuters do not use it.
There were no further questions regarding the Route 29 North Corridor
Study.
(Mr. St. John returned at 4:28 P.M.)
Not Docketed: Mr. Keeler said a resolution of intent to amend the zoning
ordinance is needed for the Planning Commission to act on the proposed amend-
ments to Article I, General Provisions, and Section 10.O, Rural Area District.
He said a work session is planned for October 10 with a public hearing on
October 17 for the Planning Commission. Mr. Keeler explained that these
amendments would not change the rate of development in the rural areas nor the
number of lots that could be created. HopefUlly, it would preserve substan-
tial acreages in tact.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain
to adopt a resolution of intent as set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried ~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of SUpervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby state its iintent to amend the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Ar[icle I. General Provi-
sions, to reflect the language of the Code of Virginia and new
language in the Comprehensive Plan; and Go amend Section 10.0,
Rural Areas District, to implement the COmprehensive Plan; and
FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold public hearing on said intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance,
and does request that the Planning CommiSsion send its recommenda-
tion to this Board at the earliest possible date.
Not Docketed: Mr. Lindstrom asked the s~atus of establishing an author-
ity to hold rural area easements as discussed.in the Rural Areas zoning text
amendment. Mr. St. John said he is drafting an ordinance to establish this
authority.
Mr. Lindstrom said he wants to be sure t~iere is flexibility to accept
land or interests in land without coming thro~!gh the normal County process.
Mr. St. John said he would make copies and distribute to the Board what he
has prepared. He said before this is enacted,~ the names of the original
authority members would have to be advertised.~
Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution: Bond Issue.
Mr. Agnor said last week the Board adopted a resolution authorizing the
Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) to proDeed with the bond program.
The resolution to be adopted today sets out certain agreements which the
County is making with VPSA that are related toi~establishing the paying agent,
8
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 8)
setting a not-to-exceed interest rate of nine percent, establishing due dates
for interest and principal payments, establishing the amount of the bonds,
designating who signs on behalf of the County, setting forth the bond form,
pledging the full faith and credit of the County, establishing a proceeds
agreement, and setting forth other conditions required by~VPSA.
Mr. Agnor pointed out that the maximum interest cost, is set at a high
rate of nine percent because of VPSA's experience in previous years of having
the rate increase rapidly during the time of the sale of bonds. He said the
actual interest rate will be one-tenth of one percent oveC the actual bid
received by VPSA. Today's market is close to seven percent and moving down
slowly. In response to Mr. Bain's question, he explained that if the market
rate at the time of the sale of bonds is over nine percent, the issue will be
cancelled and the cycle would begin again.
Mr. Agnor said the principal payments begin at $680,000 and increase to
$810,000 in 1995, and will come back down to $580,000 in ~he year 2005. He
said this payment schedule was set by VPSA based on theirZexisting debts.
The bonds are scheduled for sale on October 18, with funds to be available
after November 1. Mr. Agnor said the resolution has beene!reviewed and
approved by the County's bond counse% Mr. Agnor requested adoption.
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom and ~econded by Mr.
Perkins to adopt a resolution as set out below as recomme~'ded by the County
executive in a memo dated September 14, 1989. Roll was c~lled and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs, Lindstrom, Perkins a~d Way.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. ~
Resolution Providing for the Issuance and
Sale of $13,675,000 School Bonds, Series of ~989B,
of Albemarle County, Virginia, Heretofore Authorized,
and Providing for the Form, Details and Paymen~ Thereof
WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors (the B6ard) of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the County), has determined it to be
necessary and expedient for the County to finance capiital projects
for public schools by contracting a debt in the amounit of Thirteen
Million Six Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($1~,675,000),
issuing its school bonds therefor and selling the saM~ to the
Virginia Public School Authority, a state agency prescribed by the
General Assembly pursuant to Article VII, Section 10(~) of the
Constitution of Virginia (the Authority); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has offered to purchase [he County's
$13,675,000 school bonds pursuant to a Bond Sale Agreement dated as
of September 25, 1989 (the BOnd Sale Agreement), the ~orm of which
has been presented to this meeting;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISOR~ OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. It is hereby determined to be in the best interest of the
County to accept the offer of the Authority to purchase the bonds
in accordance with the terms of the Bond Sale Agreement. The
Chairman of the Board and the County Executive, or either of them,
are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Bon~ Sale Agree-
ment in substantially the form submitted to thismeet~ng, which is
hereby approved, and deliver it to the Authority. Th~ County
Executive is hereby authorized to award the bonds to ~he Authority
at a price of par and at an interest rate or rates co~plying with
the provisions of paragraph 3, provided that the true~interest cost
to the County shall not exceed 9% per year.
2. The Board recognizes that the County is one ~f several
localities selling bonds to the Authority and that therefore the
Authority is dependent upon the County for its c°mmit~ent to
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 9)
9
participate in the Authority's sale for the success of the sale as
a whole.
3. The bonds shall be designated "School Bonds, Series of
1989B," shall be dated the date of their delivery to the Authority
(the Closing Date), shall be in fully registered form, in denomina-
tions of $5,000 and multiples thereof, and shall be numbered R-1
upward. The bonds shall mature in installments on December 15 in
years and amounts as follows:
Year Amount Year Amount
1990 $680,000 2000 $690,000
1991 680,000 2001 690,000
1992 680,000 2002 650,000
1993 680,000 2003 610,000
1994 745,000 2004 620,000
1995 810,000 2005 580,000
1996 810,000 2006 580,000
1997 810,000 2007 580,000
1998 810,000 2008 580,000
1999 810,000 2009 580,000
Each bond shall bear interest at such annual rate or rates as will
produce a differential in each year of not more than 1/10 of 1%
over the annual rate to be paid by the Authority on the bonds which
it will sell to provide the necessary f~nds to purchase the Coun-
ty's bonds, as shall be determined at the time of sale, payable
semiannually on each June 15 and December 15, beginning June 15,
1990, (a) from its date, if it is authenticated prior to June 15,
1990, or (b) otherwise from the June 15i~or December 15 that is, or
immediately precedes, the date on which-it is authenticated (unless
payment of interest thereon is in default, in which case such bond
shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid).
Principal and premium, if any, shall be payable to the registered
owners upon surrender of the bonds as they become due at the
principal corporate trust offiCe of Cre~tar Bank, Richmond, Virgin-
ia (the Registrar). Interest shall be payable by check or draft
mailed to the registered owners at their, addresses as they appear
on registration books kept by the Registrar on the first day of the
month of the interest payment date. Prihcipal, premium, if any,
and interest shall be payable in lawful~money of the United States
of America.
4. Bonds maturing on or before Degember 15, 1999, are not
subject to redemption prior to maturityf Bonds maturing on or
after December 15, 2000, are subject to ~redemption prior to maturi-
ty at the option of the County on or after December 15, 1999, in
whole and not in part, at any time, upon payment of the following
redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of the principal
amount of bonds to be redeemed) plus interest accrued and unpaid to
the redemption date:
103% if redeemed December 15, 1999, thrOUgh December 14, 2000,
inclusive;
102% if redeemed December 15, 2000, through December 14, 2001,
inclusive;
101% if redeemed December 15, 2001, through December 14, 2002,
inclusive; and,
100% if redeemed December 15, 2002, and thereafter;
provided, however, that no bonds owned by the Authority may be re-
deemed without its prior written consent,
Unless waived by the owner of a bond, the County shall cause
notice of the call for redemption to be ~ent by registered or
certified mail, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the
redemption date, to the registered owner~iof each bond at its
address as it appears on the registratio~ books kept by the Regis-
trar.
10
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 10)
5. The Registrar shall maintain registration books for the
registration of bonds. Upon surrender of any bonds at the prin-
cipal corporate trust office of the Registrar, together with an
assignment duly executed by the registered owner or its duly au-
thorized attorney or legal representative in such form as shall be
satisfactory to the Registrar, the County shall execute, and the
Registrar shall authenticate and deliver in exchange, a new bond or
bonds having an equal aggregate principal amount, in authorized
denominations, of the same form and maturity, bearing interest at
the same rate, and registered in names as requested by the then
registered owner or its duly authorized attorney or legal represen-
tative. Any such exchange shall be at the expense of the County,
except that the Registrar may charge the person requesting such
exchange the amount of any tax or other governmental charge re-
quired to be paid with respect thereto. ~
The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person
exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premium, if any, and
interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the
owner, except that all interest payments shall be made to the
person shown as owner on the registration books on the first day of
the month of each interest payment date.
6. The bonds shall be signed by the manual or facsimile
signature of the Chairman of the Board, shall be countersigned by
the manual or facsimile signature of the Clerk of th~ Board and the
County's seal shall be affixed thereto or a facsimil$ thereof
printed thereon; provided, however, that if both of such signatures
are facsimiles, no bond shall be valid until it has ~een authenti-
cated by the manual signature of an authorized officer or employee
of the Registrar and the date of authentication note~ thereon.
7. The bonds shall be in substantially the following form:
(Form of Printed Bond)
REGISTERED '? REGISTERED
No. R-__
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
INTEREST RATE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
School Bond~ Series of 1989B
MATURITY DATE DATED DATE
CUSIP
% December 15, November _, i989
REGISTERED OWNER:
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT:
DOLLARS
Albemarle County, Virginia (the County), for vaiue received,
hereby promises to pay, upon surrender hereof at the!principal
~corporate trust office of Crestar Bank, Richmond, Vi=ginia (the
Registrar), to the registered owner hereof, or registered assigns
or legal representative, the principal sum stated above on the
maturity date stated above, subject to prior redempt{~n as herein-
after provided, and to pay interest hereon semiannually on each
June 15 and December 15, beginning June 15, 1990, at ~the annual
rate stated above. Interest is payable (a) from the :Rate hereof,
if this bond is authenticated prior to June 15, 1990,~or (b)
otherwise from the June 15 or December 15 that is, or,immediately
precedes, the date on which thisbond is authenticate~ (unless
payment of interest hereon is in default, in which ca~e this bond
shall bear interest from the date to which interest h~s been paid).
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 11)
Interest is payable by check or draft mailed to the registered
owner hereof at its address as it appears on the registration books
kept by the Registrar on the first day of the month of the interest
payment date. Principal, premium, if any, and interest are payable
in lawful money of the United States of America.
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS BOND ARE CONTINUED ON THE REVERSE
HEREOF, AND SUCH CONTINUED PROVISIONS SHALL FOR ALL PURPOSES HAVE
THE SAME EFFECT AS IF SET FORTH ON THE FACE HEREOF.
Ail acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution
and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be
performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have hap-
pened, exist and have been performed, and the issue of bonds of
which this bond is one, together with all other indebtedness of the
County, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the
Constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
This bond shall not be valid until the Registrar shall have
executed the Certificate of Authentication appearing hereon and
inserted the date of authentication hereon.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of C~unty Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, has caused 6his bond to' be signed by
the facsimile signature of its Chairman,i to be countersigned by the
facsimile signature of its Clerk, a facsimile of the County seal to
be printed hereon, and this bond to be ~ated November , 1989.
COUNTERSIGNED:
Clerk, Board-of County
Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia
(SEAL)
Chairman, Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle
Cpunty, Virginia
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
Date Authenticated:
This bond is one of the bonds described in the within men-
tioned resolutions.
CRESTAR BANK,
Registrar
By.
Authorized Signature
(Reverse of Bond)
ADDITIONAL BOND PROVISIONS
This bond is one of an issue of $13i675,000 School Bonds,
Series of 1989B, of like date and tenor,~except as to number, de-
nomination, rate of interest, privilege of redemption and maturity,
authorized and issued pursuant to resolutions adopted by the Board
of County Supervisors on September 13, 1989, September 20, 1989,
and November 1, 1989, and the Constitutidn and statutes of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, including Artidle VII, Section 10(b) of
the Constitution and the Public Finance Act, to provide funds for
financing capital projects for public schools.
Bonds maturing on or before Decembem 15, 1999, are not subject
to redemption prior to maturity. Bonds maturing on or after Decem-
ber 15, 2000, are subject to redemption prior to maturity at the
option of the County on or after Decembe~ 15, 1999, in whole and
not in part, at any time, upon payment o~ the following redemption
prices (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount of bonds
to be redeemed) plus interest accrued an~. unpaid to the redemption
date:
12
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 12)
103% if redeemed December 15, 1999, through December 14, 2000,
inclusive;
102% if redeemed December 15, 2000, through December 14, 2001,
inclusive;
101% if redeemed December 15, 2001, through December 14, 2002,
inclusive; and,
100% if redeemed December 15, 2002, and thereafter;
provided, however, that no bonds owned by the Virginia Public
School Authority may be redeemed without its prior written consent.
Unless waived by the owner of a bond, the County shall cause
notice of the call for redemption to be sent by registered or
certified mail, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior to the
redemption date, to the registered owner of each bond at its
address as it appears on the registration books kept by the Reg-
istrar.
The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably
pledged for the payment of principal of and interestl.on this bond.
The bonds are issuable as fully registered bonds in denomi-
nations of $5,000 and multiples thereof. Upon surrender of this
bond at the principal corporate trust office of the ~egistrar,
together with an assignment duly executed by the then registered
owner or its duly authorized attorney or legal representative in
such form as shall be satisfactory to the Registrar,:~the County
shall execute, and the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver in
exchange, a new bond or bonds having an equal aggregate principal
amount, in authorized denominations, of the same for~ and maturity,
bearing interest at the same rate, and registered in~,~names as
requested by the then registered owner hereof or itsi~duly author-
ized attorney or legal representative, all subject t~ the limita-
tions and conditions provided in the resolutions providing for the
issuance of the bonds. Any such exchange shall be a~ the expense
of the County, except that the Registrar may charge ~.he person
requesting such exchange the amount of any tax or other governmen-
tal charge required to be paid with respect thereto.
The Registrar shall treat the registered owner as the person
exclusively entitled to payment of principal, premiu~';~ if any, and
interest and the exercise of all other rights and powers of the
owner, except that interest payments shall be made rd: the person
shown as owner on the registration books on the firs~ day of the
month of each interest payment date.
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sell(~, assign(s)
and transfer(s) unto
(Please print or type name and address, including zipii~code, of
Transferee) ~
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER IDENTIFYING N~ER OF TRANS-
FEREE: ~
:~
the within bond and all rights thereunder, hereby irrevocably
constituting and appointing '
~, , Attor-
ney, to transfer said bond on the books kept for registration
thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 13)
Signature Guaranteed
3_3
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be
guaranteed by a member firm
of the New York Stock Exchange
or a commercial bank or trust
company.
Signature of Registered Owner
NOTICE: The signature above
must correspond with the name
of the registered owner as it
appears on the front of this
bond in every particular,
without alteration or enlarge-
ment or any change whatsoever.
8. At the request of the Authority, the bonds shall be issued
initially as a single registered typewritten temporary bond. While
the bond is held by the Authority in such form, principal of and
interest on the bond payable prior to December 15, 2009, shall be
payable by check or draft mailed by the:Registrar to the registered
owner of the bond at its address as it appears on the registration
books kept by the Registrar on the first day of the month of the
payment date. Principal of and interest on the bond payable on
December 15, 2009, shall be payable upon presentation and surrender
of the bond at the principal corporate trust office of the Regis-
trar.
Upon request of the Authority, the~ilCounty shall arrange to
have prepared, executed, authenticated and delivered in exchange as
soon as practicable bonds in printed fo~m in an aggregate principal
amount equal to the unpaid principal of'~the bond in typewritten
temporary form, in authorized denominations, of the same form and
maturity, bearing interest at the same mate or rates, and regis-
tered in such names as requested by theAuthority or its duly
authorized attorney or legal representatlive. The typewritten
temporary bond surrendered in any such exchange shall be canceled.
9. The typewritten temporary bond shall be in substantially
the following form:
(Form of Typewritten Temporary Bond)
No. R-1 $13,675,000
UNITED STATES OFiAMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF ¥~RGINIA
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
School Bond~ Series of 1989B
Albemarle County, Virginia (the County), for value received,
hereby promises to pay to
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
or registered assigns or legal representative, the principal sum of
THIRTEEN MILLION SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($13,675,000)
in installments on December 15 in years and amounts, together with
interest at annual rates, as follows:
14
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 14)
Year Amount Rate Year Amount Rate
1990 $680,000 % 2000 $690,000 %
1991 680,000 2001 690,000
1992 680,000 2002 650,000
1993 680,000 2003 610,000
1994 745,000 2004 620,000
1995 810,000 2005 580,000
1996 810,000 2006 580,000
1997 810,000 2007 580,000
1998 810,000 2008 580,000
1999 810,000 2009 5~0,000
Subject to prepayment as hereinafter provided. Interest is payable
from the date hereof semiannually on each 3une 15 and December 15,
beginning June 15, 1990. Principal of and interest ~on this Bond
payable prior to December 15, 2009, are payable by 6heck or draft
mailed by Crestar Bank, Richmond, Virginia (the Registrar), to the
registered owner hereof at its address as it appears on the regis-
tration books kept for that purpose by the Registra~ on the first
day of the month of the payment date. Principal of ~and interest on
this Bond payable on December 15, 2009, are payable.~"~upon presenta-
tion and surrender hereof at the principal corporate~ trust office
of the Registrar. Principal, premium, if any, and fnterest are
payable in lawful money of the United States of America. Schedule
A attached hereto sets forth the dates and amounts ~ required
principal and interest payments on this bond. ~
This bond has been authorized and is issued pursuant to res-
olutions adopted by the Board of County Supervisors [ipn September
13, 1989, September 20, 1989, and November 1, 1989, iAnd the Con-
stitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virgi~%a, including
Article VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution and She Public Fi-
nance Act, to provide funds for financing capital p~p3ects for
public schools. ~
Prior to December 15, 1999, the principal of t~s bond is not
subject to prepayment prior to maturity. On or aft~ December 15,
1999, the principal of this bond is subject to prep~ent prior to
maturity at the option of the County, in whole and n~t-in part, at
any time, upon payment of the following prepayment prices (ex-
pressed as a percentage of the principal amount of ~is bond to be
prepaid) plus interest accrued and unpaid to the prepayment date:
103% if prepaid December 15, 1999, through December i~4, 2000,
inc lus ive; ~
102% if prepaid December 15, 2000, through December ,~4, 2001,
inclusive; ~
101% if prepaid December 15 2001, through December 14, 2002
inclusive; and, ~
100% if prepaid December 15, 2002, and thereafter; ·
provided, however, that this bond shall not be subject to prepay-
ment while owned by the Virginia Public School Authority wmthout
its prior written consent, j~!
Unless waived by the owner of this bond, the CoUnty shall
cause notice of prepayment to be sent by registered ~r certified
mail, not less than 30 nor more than 60 days prior tq the prepay-
ment date, to the registered owner hereof at its add~ess as it
appears on the registration books kept by the Registrar.
The full faith and credit of the County are hereby irrevocably
pledged for the payment of principal of and interest ~n this bond.
This bond may be exchanged without cost at the p~mncmpal
corporate trust office of the Registrar for bonds in ~rinted form
in denominations of $5,000 and multiples thereof in a~ aggregate
principal amount equal to the unpaid principal of thi~ bond.
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 15)
15
Ail acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution
and Statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to happen, exist or be
performed precedent to and in the issuance of this bond have hap-
pened, exist and have been performed, and this bond, together with
all other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and
other limit prescribed by the Constitution and statutes of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, has caused this bond to be signed by
its Chairman, to be countersigned by its Clerk, the County's seal
to be affixed hereto, and this bond to be dated November __, 1989.
COUNTERSIGNED:
(SEAL)
Clerk, Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia
Chairman, Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia
S~hedule A
Interest Principal
Date Payable Payable
12/15/90 $ $680,000
6/15/90 0 -
TOTAL
12/15/09 580,000
10. The full faith and credit of the County are hereby
irrevocably pledged for the payment of principal of and interest on
the bonds. Unless other funds are lawfully available and appro-
priated for timely payment of the bonds, the Board shall levy and
collect an annual ad valorem tax over and above all other taxes
authorized or limited by law sufficient to pay the principal of and
interest on the bonds, as the same become due and payable.
11. The County Executive and the Director of Finance, or
either of them, are hereby authorized and directed to execute an
agreement (the Proceeds Agreement) between the County, the Author-
ity, a bank or trust company, as depository, and an investment
manager, both to be selected by the Authority, providing for the
deposit of the proceeds of the bonds and the custody, investment
and disbursement of such proceeds; provided, however, that such
proceeds shall be invested in such manner that none of the bonds
will be "arbitrage bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, including regulations
applicable to the bonds (the Code). Th~ Proceeds Agreement shall
be in such form as shall be approved by!ilbond counsel for the
County.
12. The Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed
to provide for the deposit of the proceeds of the bonds in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Proceeds Agreement.
13. The County hereby covenants t~at it shall not take or
omit to take any action the taking or of~ission of which will cause
the bonds to be "arbitrage bonds" withi~ the meaning of Code
Section 148, or otherwise cause interes~ on the bonds to be includ-
able in the gross income for federal income tax purposes of the
registered owners thereof un~r existin~ law. Without limiting the
3_6
September 20, 1989 (AfternoonlAdjourned Meeting)
(Page~16)
generality of the foregoing, the County shall comply with any
provision of law that may require the County at any time to rebate
to the United States any part of the earnings derived from the
investment of the gross proceeds of the bonds. The County shall
pay any such required rebate from its general funds.
14. Such officers of the County as may be requested are
hereby authorized and directed to execute an appropriate certifi-
cate setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds
of the bonds in order to show that such expected use and investment
will not violate the provisions of Code Section 148. Such certifi-
cate shall be in such form as may be requested by bond counsel for
the County.
15. The County covenants that it will not permit the gross
proceeds of the bonds to be used in any manner that would result in
(a) 5% or more of such proceeds being used in a trade or business
carried on by any person other than a governmental unit, as pro-
vided in Code Section 141(b), (b) 5% or more of such proceeds being
used with respect to any "output facility" (other than a facility
for the furnishing of water), within the meaning of Code Section
141(b)(4), or (c) 5% or more of such proceeds being used directly
or indirectly to make or finance loans to any persons other than a
governmental unit, as provided in Code Section 141(c); provided,
however, that if the County receives an opinion of bond counsel to
the County with respect to the bonds and bond counsel to the
Authority with respect to the Authority's School FinanCing Bonds
(1987 Resolution), 1989 Series B (the Authority Bond~ that
compliance with any such restriction is not required prevent
interest on the bonds of both issues from being inclhdable in the
gross income for federal income tax purposes of the ~egistered
owners thereof under existing law, the County need nqt comply with
such restriction. ~
16. The County covenants that it will not, without the
Authority's consent, sell or deliver any general obligation bonds
which are part of the same common plan of financing ~and paid for
from the same source of funds) as the bonds between the dates that
are 31 days prior to the date of sale of the Authority Bonds and 31
days after the Closing Date. ~i
17. After the bonds have been awarded, the Chairman and Clerk
of the Board are hereby authorized and directed to t~ke all proper
steps to have the bonds prepared and executed in accordance with
their terms and to deliver the bonds to the Authorit~ upon payment
therefor, i~iI
18. The County has received and reviewed the I~formation
Statement dated March 1, 1989 (the Information Statement), describ-
ing the State Non-Arbitrage Program of the CommOnwealth of Virginia
(SNAP) and the contract creating the State Non-Arbitr~age Program
Pool I dated January 16, 1989 (the Contract). The B0hrd hereby
authorizes the Director of Finance to utilize SNAP ini~ connection
with the investment of the proceeds of the bonds and :~o take such
action as may be necessary or desirable therefor. Th:~ Board ac-
knowledges that the Treasury Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia
is not, and shall not be, in any way liable to the CoUnty in
connection with SNAP, except as otherwise provided in~ the Contract.
19. The Clerk of the Board is hereby authorized?~and directed
to cause a certified copy of this resolution to be delivered forth-
with to the Clerk of the County School Board. The bo~ds shall not
be issued until the County School Board shall have ad~pted an
appropriate resolution consenting to the issuance of ~he bonds.
20. The Clerk of the Board, in collaboration wi~h the County
Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to see to!i~the immediate
filing of a certified copy of this resolution with th~ Circuit
Court of Albemarle County and within ten days thereafter to cause
to be published once in a newspaper having general ci~culation in
September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 17)
17
the County a notice setting forth (a) in brief and general terms
the purpose for which the bonds are to be issued and (b) the amount
of such bonds.
21. All other actions of officers of the County in conformity
with the purposes and intent of this resolution and in furtherance
of the issuance and sale of the bonds are hereby approved and
confirmed. The officers of the County are hereby authorized and
directed to execute and deliver all certificates and instruments
and to take all such further action as may be considered necessary
or desirable in connection with the issuance, sale and delivery of
the bonds.
22. Ail resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
23. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion: Personnel Policies. This item will be
rescheduled at a later date.
Agenda Item No. 7. Other Matters Not Listed.
Mr. Lindstrom said regarding the Master Plan for benches in the yard at
the Court Square Buildings, he had been asked to pass on a request from the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Bar Association that the one bench that was funded
over a year ago, be allowed under a "grandfather" provision. Mrs. Cooke said
the committee had responded to the concerns ~f this Board, and it was decided
that a recommendation from the Department of'Parks and Recreation would be
solicited as to how to handle these requests.~i She said a final decision has
to be made before another request comes along~+ The decision was delayed at
the request of the Board so that a committee ~ould study the situation. She
said this matter was scheduled for a Board me%ting a few weeks ago but was
deferred due to the lateness of the hour.
Mr. Way said it is now scheduled for the October day meeting. Mr.
Lindstrom said he senses that benches are not going to be favored for the
Court Square Buildings. If that is so, and the Board does not want to allow
this one, that should be communicated to the Mr. Leigh Middleditch.
Mr. Bain said he does not favor allowing this bench~
Mr. Lindstrom offered a motion that this particular bench be allowed in
the yard of the Courthouse on Court Square. The motion died for lack of a
second. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested that a letter be written to Mr.
Middleditch informing him of the Board's decision. Mrs. Cooke disagreed. The
matter would be scheduled for discussion on an agenda soon, and a decision
would be made then, and notification given at.that time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would call and letMr. Middleditch know that the
Board had voted against allowing the bench. If Mr. Middleditch wants to wait
until October and be voted against again, that is his privilege. Mr.
Lindstrom felt that a more appropriate response is warranted when someone
wants to give something to the County. Mrs. COoke said it would be appropri-
ate to let him know that a decision will be ma~de at the October day meeting.
Mr. Perkins distributed a letter to Board members from Mr. Jeff Echols,
Assistant Resident Engineer, Department of Transportation, regarding the
method VDoT uses to establish speed limits. Mr. Perkins said the method VDoT
uses infuriates him. He feels there are safet~ factors that should be consid-
ered as well.
Mr. Cilimberg informed the Board that he, iMr. St. John, and the Zoning
Administrator had met and discussed several amendments to the Zoning Ordi-
nance. He said staff is at the Board's disposal to proceed. Mr. Way asked
for a list of the amendments Mr. Cilimberg was referring to before the Board
determines priorities.
]-8 September 20, 1989 (Afternoon Adjourned Meeting)
(Page 18)
Agenda Item No. 8. Adjourn.
Mr. Agnor said an executive 'session would be necessary to discuss the
assignment of a specific individual.
At 5:08 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to adjourn into executive session in accordancewith Virginia Code
Section 2.1-344.A.1, Personnel, for the purpose of discussing the assignment
of a specific individual.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Bowie.
CHAIRMAN