1989-09-13September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 1)
278
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on September 13, 1989, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7,
County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie,
Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:10 A.M.),
Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. James M.
Bowling, IV, Deputy 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
9:07 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve
Items 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept as information the remaining items on the
consent agenda.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mrl Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Item 4.1. Request to have Route 9773, old entrance road at Stone Robin-
son School, abandoned and new entrance road taken into the State Secondary
System of Highways, this change occasioned~y the reconstruction of the bus
access lanes. The following resolution to~approve this request was adopted b
the vote shown abowm.
WHEREAS, The Albemarle County School Board has altered Route 9773
used by buses at Stone Robinson Elementary School, and
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia provides for the
Virginia Department of Transportation ~to maintain school entrance
roads on which buses are operated,
THEREFORE, the Albemarle County School Board does hereby request
the Board of Supervisors to abandon the access as described below:
Located on Route 729, 0.2 miles west of the intersection of Route
250. Known as Route 9773 and bus. access to Stone Robinson
Elementary School. Beginning at Station 0+00, a point common
with the edge of pavement of Route 729 and the centerline of the
school's circulation road, thencein a northwesterly direction
approximately 358 feet to the end. of the loop circulation road.
Item 4.2. Request to have Route 9005, old entrance road at Meriwether
Lewis School, abandoned and new entrance road taken into the State Secondary
System of Highways, this change occasioned by the construction of new bus
access lanes. The following resolution to approve this request was adopted
the vote shown above.
WHEREAS, The Albemarle County School Board has altered Route 9005
~
used by buses at Meriwether Lewis Elem~entary School, and
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 2)
279
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-68 of the Code of Virginia provides for the
Virginia Department of Transportation to maintain school entrance
roads on which buses are operated,
THEREFORE, the Albemarle County School Board does hereby request
the Board of Supervisors to abandon the access as described below:
Located on Route 676, 0.1 miles north of the intersection of
Route 678. Known as Route 9005 and bus access to Meriwether
Lewis Elementary School. Beginning at Station 0+00, a point
common with the edge of pavement of Route 676 and the centerline
of the school's circulation road, thence in a northwesterly
direction approximately 0.06 miles to the end of the loop circu-
lation road and back to a point of connection with Route 676.
Item 4.3. Copy of Resources for Older People: A Care Handbook for
Residents of Virginia's Plannin~ District 10, published by the Northwestern
Virginia Health Systems Agency, received as information, and on file in the
Clerk's Office for inspection.
Item 4.4. Copy of 1989 Statement of Assessed Values for Local Tax
Purposes for Railroads and Interstate Pipeline Transmission Companies pub-
lished by the Virginia Department of Taxation, received as information, and on
file in the Clerk's Office for inspection.
Item 4.5. Copy of Application of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative and
Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval of new generation facilities
pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-234.3 and for a certificate of public
convenience and necessity pursuant to Virgini~ Code Section 56-265.2, dated
August 23, 1989, received from the State Corporation Commission, as informa-
tion.
Item 4.6. Memorandum dated August 25, 1989, from Mr. N. Andrew
Overstreet, Division Superintendent, regarding! staffing in the Albemarle,
Augusta and Rockingham school divisions, was received as information.
Item 4.7. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated.
September 1, 1989, titled "Semiannual Report on Data Processing, January -
June, 1989", was received as information. It ~as noted that during this
period there were no new requests for hardware~ The installation of new
Mandated State Chart of Accounts was completed% This revised forty operating
programs, and took four months to complete. The Sheriff's office installation
to track department activities and provide data for their reports was also
completed.
Item 4.8. Copy of the Minutes of the Planning Commission for August 29,
1989, received as information.
Item 4.9. Letter from the Highway Department dated September 5, 1989,
stating approval of 1988-89 Secondary Improvem~ent Budget, Supplemental Revenue
Sharing Funds, for $113,000 in matching funds $or a bridge widening project on
Route 620, was received as information. ~
Item 4.10. Copy of memorandum dated August 4, 1989, to the Solid Waste
Task Force from Mr. Richard P. Moring, County Engineer, entitled "Notes on
Comments to Solid Waste Task Force" by Mr. Leodard E. Joyce, was received as
information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: ~October 19 (A), 1988; January
18 (N), March 22, 1989. None had been read.
September 13, 1989 (R~gular Meeting)
(Page 3)
280
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Abandonment, Portion of Route 841
(deferred from August 9, 1989).
Mr. Way noted that Mr. Mawyer, the applicant, was not present. Mr. Way
requested that the item be dismissed from the agenda as has been suggested the
County Attorney.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to dismiss this
item from the agenda.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Sidewalk Agreement, Georgetown
Road.
(Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:10 A.M.)
Mr. Agnor stated that his memorandum of September 1, 1989, to the Board
indicates that the improvements to Georgetown Road include the repla~e~_nt of
the walking trail that was installed by the County several years ago. He
added that the County has to participate in 50 percent of the costs involved
with the replacement of this trail, and he mentioned that this cost is
included in the Capital Improvements Program. He said the CIP will be re-
viewed by the Board during the next couple of months, but the agreement needs
to be executed in advance of the review. He requested the Board to authorize
the Chairman to sign the agreement with the T~ansportation Department.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke authorizing the
Chairman to sign the agreement as set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this day Of 1989, between the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, hereinafter referred to as the~,~COUNTY, and the COMMONWEALTH
OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as
the DEPARTMENT. ii
WITNESSETH:i
WHEREAS, the Department plans the r~construction and improvement
of Georgetown Road (Route 656) in Alb~le County, beginning at a
point 0.05 Mi. S. of its intersection witch Rte. 1411: to a point 0.08
Mi. N. of its intersection with Route 1472: which improvements are
shown in detail on plans designated as Pnoject 0656-002-221, C501.
Said plans include the replacement of a ~alking trail constructed
under permit, together with the installation of new sidewalk located
throughout the project limits; and
WHEREAS, said trail replacement wil~ be considered as new side-
walk insofar as cost participation is concerned; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the poli~y of the Commonwealth
Transportation Board, pertaining to State participation in cost of
right of way, sidewalks and storm sewers,~ revised February 18, 1988,
the County is required to participate in 'the cost of new sidewalk
construction.
WI{EREAS, pursuant to the aforenoted policy, the County and the
Department each will bear 50 percent of the actual contract costs of
the sidewalk; and
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 4)
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein
contained, the Department and' the County agree as follows:
281
The Department shall provide, at no charge to the County,
preliminary engineering and develop approved plans to
construct sidewalk in conjunction with said project.
The County will, upon award of contract, be billed for 50
percent of the cost for the sidewalk. The above percentage
to be applied to the appropriate line item cost based on the
executed contract for this project. Should the actual cost
of the sidewalk construction exceed the cost based on
contract unit price and quantity, progress billings will be
submitted to the County. At the completion and acceptance
of the project, should actual cost be less than the County
payments, the County shall be refunded any overpayment.
Further, the County shall reimburse the Department for
construction engineering cost at the rate of 10 percent of
the County's share of the actual construction cost for
sidewalk.
For the purpose of this Agreement, the estimated new side-
walk cost to the County is $4~564.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the County and the Department have caused
their names to be affixed to this Agreement on the date set forth
above by duly authorized officers of thei~ respective organizations.
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters: R~hte 660 Bridge Design.
Mr Roosevelt said that during the Route ilii~60 public hearing, he attempted
to obtain a recommendation from this Board concerning the bridge. Some of the
discussion centered around the bridge railingSi~ and he, at that time, brought
a number of sketches showing alternate railings that could be used. The Board
picked an aluminum three rail design. This ih~formation went to the Department.
in Richmond, and he was advised that the BrldE~ Engineer could not allow the
three rail design at this location because of ~the high design speed and the
volume of traffic using this bridge.
Mr. Roosevelt said he then sent the Boar~ii~i· a new design recently approved
by the Department which combines a concrete wall with a metal rail, and he
indicated in his letter of August 16, 1989, a~dressed to Mr. Way that he would
also bring three other alternate designs for ~he Board to consider. The other
alternates involve a concrete rail with a woodan rail on top, a basic concrete
rail, and a concrete rail open at the bottom so that the river can be seen.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the road i~ this area was set up for a
lower design speed. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department recommends 40 miles per
hour as a design speed for that area. He said the Bridge Engineer did approve
the three rail design on the Route 671 bridge ~here there is a design speed of
30 miles per hour. ,~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if 40 miles per hour ~as the lowest design speed
requested for the Route 660 bridge. Mr. RooseVelt said he believes the Board
requested consideration of a 30 mile per hour ~esign speed, but the 40 miles
per hour design speed was presented in the des'~gn drawings.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is the first ~ime that this Board has been
notified that the 30 mile per hour design spee~ was not accepted by the
Department for the Route 660 bridge. Mr. Rooslvelt said the design speed will
not be determined until the Transportation Board studies the results of the
public hearing. He said he cannot tell the BoArd that a 30 mile per hour
design speed will be rejected and a 40 mile pe~ hour design speed will be
approved. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Department kno~s that this Board has requested
a 30 mile per hour design speed. Mr. Roosevel~ answered, "yes."
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 5)
282
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this Board will get an explanation of why the
Department staff does not think the 30 mile per hour design speed is appropri-
ate. Mr. Roosevelt said he can give the Board a written response concerning
the design speed.
Mr. Perkins called attention to the fact that Mr. Roosevelt had referred
to the Moorman's River instead of the Rivanna River in the information that he
had given to the Board relating to the Route 660 bridge design. Mr. Roosevelt
agreed that he had mistakenly referred to the Moorman's River instead of the
Rivanna River.
Mr. Bowie referred to one of the sketches and asked Mr. Roosevelt if the
rails were on top of concrete and if this design is called a New Jersey
barrier type of design. Mr. Roosevelt pointed out a sketch with the New
Jersey barrier design and said this design has an indentation that allows the
traffic to ride up on the wall and then come back down. He said the wall that
Mr. Bowie referred to is a straight wall that~.'will not allow the traffic to
ride up and down.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the opening on the bridge is near the road sur-
face. He also asked if the rails are set on a surface, and how much space is
between the solid rail and the broken rail. Mr. Roosevelt answered that the
opening on the bridge is near the road surface. He added that the rails are
set on a surface. He estimated that approxi~tely 15 inches of space lies
between the solid rail and the broken rail.
Mr. Bain called attention to the concret~ barrier design, and asked the
height of the barrier. Mr. Roosevelt repliedi~that the minimum height of all
the designs is two and one-half feet. He sai~ the only design that is higher
is the one with the wooden rail at the top of i~ithe design, because the wooden
rail is just for decoration. He said the con~rete barrier keeps the traffic
from running off the bridge. When the discussions first began about this
bridge, he was hopeful that a design could be!~developed that would have a
wooden rail at the top instead of concrete, ge was told that this could not
be done, because the wooden rail does not offer the strength needed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks if the first~ design the Board selected
cannot be used, then a barrier with a rail on~?~op would be the best choice.
Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that the ~iesign with the exposed aggregate
might look bulky. He mentioned the design of ila bridge on Route 649 and said
it is a nice design.
Mr. Lindstrom said it would be helpful i~ Mr. Roosevelt could provide the
Board with an explanation of the Department's ~decision on the 40 mile per hour
design speed as well as the projections on th~' anticipated volume of traffic.
Mr. Bain said he thinks it should be mad~ clear to the Transportation
Board that a 30 mile per hour design speed is !desirable despite the volume of
traffic.
Mr. Roosevelt asked if the Board was going to have a recommendation on
the rails. Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Li~dstrom's and Mr. Bowie's
comments concerning a new design, if the Boar~i'cannot have what was originally
suggested.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board should conSlider whether concrete or exposed
aggregate would be used. Mr. Roosevelt replied that the Board had already
agreed to use exposed aggregate instead of co~Crete. Mr. Lindstrom commented
that the Board may want to change its earlier ~lecision and request that
concrete be used instead of exPosed aggregate.i~
Mr Lindstrom said that if the Transportaltion Board will not change its
mind about the first design this Board requested, then he believes the Board
would be interested in the barrier design withI the rail on top. Mr. Way
agreed.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 6)
Agenda Item No. 6d. Discussion:
~rnative, EIS.
Route 29 North, Study of Expressway
Mr. Bowling stated that Virginia Code 2.1-344.A.3 allows the Board to go
into Executive Session for the discussion or consideration of a condition,
acquisition or use of real property for public purposes. He said an Attorney
General's opinion dated 1978 or 1979 ruled that this section authorized a
partiaular town council to go into executive session under that section
relative to the location of a bridge, even though the bridge was going to be
located outside of the town, and even though the town was not going to be
acquiring the property. He distributed information to the Board relative to
the Attorney General's opinion. Because of the Attorney General's opinion and
because of Mr. Lindstrom's explanation of the City's proposal, Mr. Bowling
felt that the Board is authorized to go into executive session to discuss this
proposal.
Mr. Lindstrom said there are six alternatives available to the Board. He
asked if this would include discussing the me~its of each corridor in terms of
whether it should be considered for acquisition. Mr. Bowling replied that he
believes that each corridor can be discussed ~n terms of whether it should be
considered for acquisition. He pointed out t~at this is a political decision
which is outside of his expertise, but he sta~ed that the Board will not be
telling the public anything that it does not ~lready know since the six routes
and the City proposal have been identified.
Mr. Bowie said it has already been mentiglned that the Board should not
waste time on some of the routes which are no~i logical, and he believes that
the routes have been narrowed down to two or ~ree of the most probable
routes. He added that this could save the Bo~zd and everybody else a lot of
Mrs. Cooke said she would like to discus~ the City's proposal in the
executive session before other alternatives a~e discussed. Mr. Bowie and Mr.
Lindstrom agreed.
Agenda Item No. 6e.
boards.
Highway Matters:
C~tting of Trees around Bill-
Mr. Agnor reported that the Board has received a memorandum from the
attorney for the Southern Environmental Law C~nter in North Carolina. He said
the Center, which also has offices in Charlottesville, is asking Albemarle
County to take a position on the issue of the.~utting of vegetation by the
Highway Department for the viewing of billboa~s.~ He reviewed VDOT's actions
by saying that in 1983 the State Department ofjTransportation started a pilot
project involving the cutting and framing of ~v~getation in front of billboards
so that the billboards would be visible from t~e highways. In 1986, the
Department started this process as an experim~tal project and the Board took
the position that the Department should not ha~e experimental projects without
holding public hearings first. The Departmen~ of Transportation proceeded
with the experimental projects. In October, !989, the Transportation Board is
going to consider whether to make this vegetation removal a permanent policy.
He added that the Environmental Law Center is iAsking that the Board reaffirm
its opposition to the policy. Mr. Agnor said :~he information goes on to say
that there are several states which do allow ~ee cutting in the southeast.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the policy would ~ply only to billboards that are
on public property. Mr. Agnor answered, "no."~ He explained that if a bill-
board is' on private property, it would still b~ located behind the trees that
are on public property. Mr. Agnor explained t~at this policy allows vegeta-
tion to be cut on public rights-of-way only to frame a billboard, if needed.
He added that this policy has nothing to do wi .h cutting trees on someone's
private property where the billboard is actual y located.
283
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that since the City has made its proposal of a
road on a very specific alignment, he had asked Mr. Tucker if he would check
with the County Attorney to see if it would be consistent with the provisions
of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act to discuss this proposal in execu-
tive session, under the category of property discussion.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 7)
284
Mrs. Cooke agreed that she does not want vegetation to be removed from a
public right-of-way just so a billboard can be seen. She said she would not
support a permanent policy of this nature.
Mr. Bowie remarked that visitors to this area from other parts of the
country have commented about the lack of billboards along certain roads. He
he does not believe that anybody really wants billboards to be seen along the
highways.
Mr. Way asked what the Board should do. Mr. Agnor responded that a
motion is needed to adopt a resolution to be transmitted to the Transportation
Board for its October meeting indicating that Albemarle County opposes the
State changing its policy which currently prohibits the cutting of vegetation
in a public right-of-way.
Mr. Bowie said he assumes that Mr. Agnor meant that the Board should
oppose the cutting of vegetation on a public right-of-way around billboards.
Mr. Agnor responded that this is what he meant.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt a
resolution as set out below.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~'
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of!iTransportation is reviewing
its "experimental" policy begun in 1983 ~f cutting trees and vegeta-
tion to make billboards more visible; an~
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors o31 Albemarle County,
Virginia, has consistently opposed veget~%ion removal along public
rights of way, except for this "experimental" project; and
WHEREAS, the majority of states forbid tree cutting in front of
billboards; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County, Virginia~:~ is a region of great natural
beauty where trees provide a scenic buffer along Virginia's highways;
BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED that the i~Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, opposes the ~irginia Department of Trans-
portation changing the current policy of .prohibiting cutting of
vegetation on public rights-of-way; and
FURTHER, that the Board of SupervisOrs of Albemarle County,
Virginia, opposes the extension of the "~perimental" policy to a
permanent policy.
Agenda Item No. 6f. Other Highway Matte~ from the Board and Public.
~ d
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Roosevelt if he kn~s the schedule for the roa
project near the Crozet School site (Route 81~). He said a number of people
have complained about the vegetation as they a~proach- the school site. Mr.
Roosevelt said the Department is working on a point project to be administered
through the County School Board. The Department will pay to lower the surface
of Route 810 in front of the school, and the S%hool Board will pay to widen
the roadway entrances, etc. He does not know ~he school system's schedule,
but the Department is currently reviewing plans, agreements and proposals. He
said the School Board will set the pace as to i~hen the work will be done.
Mr. Perkins samd the proposed school pro3~,ect ~nvolves takmng out a la ge
sycamore tree and two feet of pavement, He i~'~i sure that cutting some of the
vegetation on the right side of Route 810 goi~ toward White Hall would be
helpful.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 8)
285
Mr. Perkins said a citizen who lives near the intersection of Buck
Mountain Road and Route 810 has complained about the large number of accidents
that have occurred there. Mr. Perkins asked if it would be possible to put
rumble strips across the road to alert people to this difficult turn. Mr.
Roosevelt said that VDoT has rejected using rumble strips to slow down traf-
fic. If a driver is not alert to the strips, the chances of losing control of
the vehicle are very good, especially with motorcycles and longer bodied
vehicles such as fire trucks. He said he would look at the intersection and
would examine the Department's policy relating to this matter.
Mr. Bowie asked if VDoT is involved in determining whether a school bus
stop is safe. Mr. Roosevelt said that VDoT gets involved in school bus stop
safety when the school transportation staff asks the Department to get in-
volved. The school transportation staff looks at a bus stop first, and if
the school staff feels that the stop has to be there and the sight distance is
not good, VDoT will look at the bus stop with the school staff and help
determine if a sign should be posted. Often, bus stops can be moved or
vegetation can be cut to improve the sight distance.
Mr. Bain said he has had several complaints concerning Route 678, but he
said he would speak to Mr. Roosevelt about the matter some other time.
In reference to the executive session, Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks
before the Board takes a formal position on agy of these Route 29 North
alternatives, it would be appropriate to hold~a public hearing. He said he is
not proposing that the Board decide on a position in today's executive ses-
sion; however, he thinks the Board needs to d{Scuss the specific character of
a proposal which relates to property and personnel. He thinks it is impor-
tant, however, for the public to have a chance to discuss any positive posi-
tion that might be taken by this Board.
Mr. Bowie agreed and said the 3oint Transportation Committee should also
be informed of any position taken by the Boardi!on any of the alternate routes.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed that what is really needed is guidance for the members of
the Joint Transportation Committee. '~
At 9:50 A. M., motion was offered by Mr.~Bain and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to adjourn into executive session i~iaccordance with Virginia Code
Section 2.1-344.A.1, "Discussion or consideration of or interviews of prospec-
tive candidates for employment, assignment, aPPointment, promotion, perfor-
mance, demotion, salaries, disciplining or resignation of specific public
officers, appointees or employees of any publ~ body, and evaluation of
performance of departments . . where such matters regarding such specific
individuals might be affected by such evaluat~On"; and Section 2.1-344.A.3,
"Discussion or consideration of the condition,~'ilacquisition, or use of real
property for public purpose, or of the dispos~i~ion of publicly held property,
or of plans for the future of a state institution of higher education which
would affect the value of property owned or d~irable for ownership by such
institution". !!i
Roll was called and the motion carried b~Ithe following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs
NAYS: None.
At 10:40 A.M., the Board reconvened into
offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. ~
sions in Executive Session were in accordance
2.1-344.A.1 and 2.1-344.A.3.
Roll was called and the motion carried by
Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
,pen session. Motion was
~in certifying that the discus-
ith Virginia Code Sections
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs~ Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None. ~
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE 14EETING il
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 9)
286
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.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that the Board discussed in the executive session
the specific features of the alignment of the :road that the City proposed. He
said he gave the Board some information he had received about the alignment
and its location, which dealt particularly wi~h its potential impact on public
property owned by the school system and its p~tential impact on University
property. He added that he and Mr. Bowie are~members of the Joint Transporta-
tion Committee, and this Cormnittee is having a meeting on September 21. He
suspects that the meeting is being held primarily to discuss the City's
proposal. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that it wou~d be helpful to him, if the
Board could talk briefly about the proposal i~ general terms, and if the Board
could give him and Mr. Bowie some direction b~fore this Committee meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom said the data generated byi!i!the study indicated that the
problem was overwhelmingly a local traffic problem. None of the alternatives
shown on the maps that the Department conceived before the study was done
really responds to the local traffic problem, li! In his opinion, there is one
exception and that is the Expressway. His understanding is that the City's
proposal is an attempt to respond to that dat~which indicates that there is
not a through traffic problem. He feels that~f the Board is going to really
know what that proposal does for the transportation network, there needs to be
a link that represents this proposal, and it qeeds to be included in the
traffic model so that the Board can see what ~mpact the road will have on the
various roads in the local City/County networ~~. He said he cannot consider
this proposal any further, until the results ~f this study are known. He
mentioned that the proposed road is in the watershed area. The western
bypass, as proposed by the Department of TranSportation, is located even more
in the watershed area. He said that the City!!s proposed road goes close to
some major population concentrations in the c6unty and the topography is
difficult. He thinks all these things must b~ considered, and he is willing
to consider them. However, he thinks the first question that needs to be
addressed is how the proposed road really affects the traffic problems. If
the proposed road does not help the traffic p~oblems, then there is not much
need to waste time studying it. However, if ~he proposed road does look as
though it can be effective with the traffic, q~en he thinks that it is worth
considering further, i~
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Lindstrom's statements and said there have been
half a dozen different plans submitted by different people, but the computer
analysis has shown that some of these plans d~!.not solve the problem. Now all
but six plans have been eliminated. He said ~e City's plan has not been
considered before, and he thinks that it shou~ be submitted to computer
analysis. He said the only question he has i~Whether the proposed road will
solve the traffic problem: if the proposed r~d will solve the traffic
problem, then it should be considered. However, if the proposed road will not
solve the traffic problem, then time does not ~heed to be spent on it. He
believes this should be the Board's position t~at he and Mr. Lindstrom take to
the next meeting of the Joint Transportation C ~mmittee.
Mrs. Cooke said she thinks it would be api~ropriate for this proposal to
be studied and examined the same way as all of the other proposals. She said
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 10)
287
her recommendation to this Board is that Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bowie be given
the authorization to report this to the Joint Transportation Committee.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Cooke if she thinks the consideration of the
City's proposal should start with the computer analysis on transportation.
Mrs. Cooke agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the analysis is something that can be done
simply, inexpensively and quickly. He said there are obviously other issues
and he mentioned that some of the roads are not proposed for funding by the
State. If these roads had to be built by the. County, he would guess that the
two roads combined cost over $50.0 million. He said that probably the Meadow
Creek Parkway alone would approach this figure, if its entire length were
considered. He said some of the money for the portion of the Parkway to be
located in the County would come out of secondary road funds; however, approx-
imately $28.0 or more would come out of the County's capital budget. Even if
the County is authorized to pay for these roads out of secondary road funds,
there would not be enough money available at the current rates, if it were
collected in secondary road funds for the next ten years, to build even one of
those two roads. He said the road will clearly have to be built from primary
funds or it will never be built.
Mr. Lindstrom mentioned another issue reIated to controlling truck
traffic. He said the Ivy Creek Parkway is proposed to limit truck traffic,
but this is something the State controls. Before the Ivy Creek Parkway could
be seriously considered, there would have to ~e someway of assuring that this
prohibition would be sustainable and that the!~iCounty- would be able to deal
with the trucks on the existing Route 29 withi!the proposed improvements. He
said these matters have to be addressed after,the transportation issues are
resolved.
Mrs. Cooke inquired if a motion is neede~ by the Board authorizing Mr.
Bowie and Mr. Lindstrom to relay the Board's ~osltlon to the 3oint Transporta-
tion Committee. She said she believes that al!general consensus of the Board
is all that is required.
Mr. Way agreed and asked Mr. Bain and Mr i! Perkins if they agreed with the
statements that have been made pertaining to ~he City's proposed road. They
both concurred.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the slgn~f~c~ant portion of this proposal is
not the Parkway, but the interchange and road"into the North Grounds off of
Route 250. He had not fully realized how imp~
studied the data that the County staff collecl
the different alignments. He said the interc]
see that will take the traffic off of Emmet S1
dramatically. If the University plans a majo~
he thinks that the interchange will have to bi
advantageous to have the interchange involved
without the Ivy Creek Parkway.
rtant this issue was until he
ed in terms of the impacts of
~nge is the only thing he can
Feet, and it will do this
expansion of its sports arena,
built. He said it may be
;ith the modeling process,
(Mr. Lindstrom left at 10:52 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 7. An Ordinance to amen~
the Albemarle County Code, to align the Count~
State Air Pollution Control Board concerning
Daily Progress on August 29 and September 5,
Mr. Agnor informed the Board that the CoL
the State Air Pollution Control Board regulatJ
burning. At one time, the regulations require
and reenact Section 9-23.3 of
Code with regulations of the
pen burning. (Advertised in the
989.)
nty Code, Section 9-23.3, adopts
ons by reference concerning open
d that the fire departments be
notified when open burning was occurring, but-~hat requirement has now been
removed from the State's regulations. He said! the County staff is attempting
to align the County Code with the State regulations.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Agnor if a permit has ~P be obtained from the County
for any type of open burning. Mr. Agnor replipd that a County permit is not
required. He said there are some regulations~hat relate to times of the year
when burning is restricted during certain hour~. These regulations are almost
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 11)
288
entirely related to the leaf burning season. For example, open burning on
agricultural fields for brush has never required a permit from the County. He
said a person conducting open burning would have to comply with the State Air
Pollution Control Board regulations.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Michael Webb addressed the Board andhe said he lived about a half of
a mile north of Batesville, in the Samuel Miller district. He is concerned
because he thinks the burning law is being misinterpreted. He mentioned that
in his neighborhood there are a lot of 55 gallon containers, and his neighbors
burn plastics, papers, cans, and such in these containers, as well as tires,
sofas, carpets and mattresses. It is his understanding that the burning law
is for the burning of agriculture fields and weeds, and he does not understand
why people are allowed to burn items which increase the toxicity in the air.
He began contacting people about this problem in December of 1988, and on
January 24, 1989 he wrote a letter to this Board of Supervisors. He went on
to say that his next door neighbor has a daughter that is the same age as his
daughter, and they frequently play together. He said that one day the daugh-
ter's friend was at his house, and Mr. Webb asked her if her father was
burning trash. Her reply was that her father-lwas burning an old sofa. He
added that he has called Mr. Butler, of the A~r Pollution Control Board, and
Mr. Butler told Mr. Webb that the County had ~o enforce the law. He then
called Mr. Robert Jenkins, Fire Officer for t~e County, and set up a date for
discussion of the issue. He said Mr. Jenkins icalled him back and said it was
a State matter. Mr. Webb then called Mr. But~er again and asked him what the
laws were, and Mr. Butler sent Mr. Webb a copH of the State laws. Mr. Webb
learned, in reading these laws, that it is against the law to burn garbage if
there is trash pickup available. Mr. Webb stated that Mr. Jenkins could not
tell him whether this law pertained to a County pickup or a private pickup, so
he has not gotten any further with the matter!i
Mr. Webb said he knows that some of the ~oard members advocate the
burning of household garbage, and he is sure ~hat this is because they do not
want to fill up the landfills So quickly. Ifi~the,~ County began a recycling
program, this would reduce the amount going into the landfill. He said he
recycles everything that he possibly can. He'iremarked that there is a gentle-
man in his area who picks up the trash as wel~ as recycled items. The last
time he called Mr. Butler, Mr. Webb said he l~t a message on his answering
machine complaining that a mattress was being~i?burned in his neighborhood. Mr.
Butler never responded. He said he wants to ~ow what he needs to do now, if
these neighbors are in violation. He added t~at he has been in contact with
the American Lung Association, as well as Mr. '!~enkins, Mr. Butler, Mr. Reed,
Mr. Colony and Mr. Loving. He asked the Boar~ if it is permissible to burn
household garbage in the County. i'
Mr. Bowie answered, "no." He said he redycles almost everything, and he
has built an incinerator where he burns paper,~ He said the law is clear that
garbage cannot be burned, neither can plastic~, toxic materials, wet garbage,
paint or things of that nature. This is a Stance law. He said that State law
does allow people to burn appropriate household refuse unless twice a week
there is a trash pickup or transfer station provided by the County. To date,
the County does not provide trash pickup, or t~ash receptacles anywhere except
at the Keene area. He does not think toxic materials should be burned;
however, if paper is burned, other things could be thrown into the fire along
with the paper. He wonders if the County can ~rohibit burning if trash pickup
is not provided at County expense. He said h~i~has discussed this with the
County Attorney several times, and the way thai law is worded, the trash pickup
would have to be at County expense before burn ~ng can be prohibited. If this
law is ever eliminated, he thinks it will prob '~bly take a long court case to
accomplish it. He clarified his statements by saying that a person cannot
burn garbage or toxic materials, but household refuse can be burned at the
appropriate time and under certain conditions.
Mr. Way asked if it is illegal to burn th~ types of materials that Mr.
Webb described in his letter to the Board. Mr Bowie answered, "yes," accord-
ing to the research that he has done on this i~sue.
Mr. Bain asked who enforces the law. Mr. ilWebb said this is the problem.
At first he was told that the County had to enforce the law, and then he found
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 12)
289
that the State has to enforce it. So far, no one has enforced it. He said
people are burning these things, and they are getting away with it. He said
he is infuriated by the whole matter because he cannot find anyone to enforce
the law, and these people are burning anything that they please.
Mr. Agnor commented that the County's fire regulations are geared to the
safety of public areas and structures and not the enforcement of individual
burning in someone's private yard. He added that Mr. Webb is correct that
there is a State regulation, and it is the responsibility of Mr. Butler's
office to enforce the regulation. However, Mr. Butler's time is spent on
major issues, such as burning at landfills and dumps, and not the concerns of
individual property owners. He said this is not an excuse, it is a reality.
He said that Mr. Butler is responsible for a large territory, and he is not
going to deal with individual situations. Mr~ Agnor explained that Mr. Butler
looks to the County to enforce the law, but it is a State law. He said the
law is referred to in the County ordinance only to be sure that it is applica-
ble to Albemarle County as a State coordinated law.
Mr. Agnor said the Solid Waste Task Force will present proposals to the
Board soon, which will involve incineration and recycling. He said there are
also a new set of waste management regulations that involve a different
department. These new regulations are not related to air pollution, but to
the management of waste. He thinks it is probable that waste management is
going to get more seriously involved in the stream of waste from its origin to
its ultimate disposal. He said the County will pursue the matter to determine
what the State's waste management regulations-~can do for these kinds of
circumstances. He said an individual burning.problem is so small in terms of
the total problem, and yet, all of the small ~ntributions add up to air
pollution. However, a State agency is not geared to deal with these
individual situations.
Mr. Bain said he assumed that the regulations have to be enforced by the
State, and yet, Mr. Agnor has indicated that ~he state is looking to the
County to enforce (hem. He would like to lea~h from the County Attorney if
the County can legally enforce the regulation~!i If the answer to that ques-
tion is yes, then he thinks that the County n~'eds to consider whether person-
nel are available who can address specific complaints. He thinks Mr. Bowie's
statement is correct that an officer cannot go~ onto someone's property without
a specific complaint. He wondered if there i~l a specific complaint from a
property owner, would there be County personn~ available to enforce the
regulation. He said that if the County can l~ally enforce the regulation,
then the County should have someone available ~{o address the complaint.
Mr. Perkins asked if there is a .part of ~he Code that addresses burning
in a developed area relative to acquiring a n~ghbor's permission. Mr. Agnor
replied, "no." He said this Board debated the matter relative to the County
regulating burning in the heavily populated u~ban area, and it was not adopted
by the Board. He said there is no requiremen~!'that neighbors be notified of
burning. ~"
Mr. Webb stated that within a half mile ~Adius of Batesville, there are
more than 20 five-gallon containers being use~!for burning in violation of the
State' s 300-foot regulation. ,~
Mr. Bowie said he believes the County has~?the authority to send someone
to look at the situation near Batesville, since there is a complaint, because
it is also in violation of the County's own regulation.
Mr. Webb said he owns his home, pays taxe~ and feels he has the right to
do something about this situation. He said hi~ neighbor even caught her
property on fire at one time. He said these p~ople are not aware of how bad
the situation is because the burning of these ~ypes of materials has been
passed down through the generations. He said .~t costs $5.00 per month to have
trash picked up in his area, and most of the f~milies there ca~L afford that
cost. He said he would like to know who to co~tact concerning this complaint.
Mr. Agnor asked in which specific area Mr. Webi, wished to file a complaint.
Mr. Webb answered that he wished to file a legal complaint. Mr. Agnor said
that if Mr. Webb wishes he can file a complain against his neighbor in civil
court.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 13)
290
Mr. Bain said he wants a legal opinion from the County Attorney as to
whether the regulations of the State Air Pollution Control Board can be
enforced by the County. Mr. Way asked that Mr. Webb be notified when the
matter is before the Board again, so he could attend the meeting.
Mr. Webb said there are three violations~,that concern him. One is the
burning of household garbage which includes plastics and probably paint. The
second is the burning of sofas, tires and mattresses, etc., and the third is
that this burning is taking place less than 300 feet from something that is
combustible which includes his woods.
Mr. Way closed the public hearing, since there was no one else who wished
to speak.
Mr. Bowie asked if the County can require notification of open burning to
the fire departments, if the State does not require it. Mr. Agnor explained
that the fire departments also want open burning notification removed from the
ordinance. Elsewhere in the State, fire departments have been notified of
cases of open burning, and they did not respond. Later, in some instances, it
was learned that adjacent property was involved. He added that the fire
departments have adopted a "zero liability policy," which means that they
respond to every call of a fire.
Motion was made at this time by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to
adopt the ordinance which follows as recox~nended by the County Executive.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the !ifollowing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way.
None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 9-23.3(a)
CHAPTER 9. FIRE PROTECTION.
ARTICLE IV. BURNING OF BRUSH, ETC.
OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 9-23.3(a) of the CEde of Albemarle is hereby
amended and reenacted as follows: ~
Sec. 9-23.2.
Adoption of resulations of state air pollution
control board.
(a) Subject to the foregoing, there~ are hereby adopted by refer-
ence the regulations of the state air pollution control board concern-
ing open burning, consisting of a portio~,~of section I, section
120-02-11 and sections 120-04-4001 to 20-!04-4005 (Rule 4-40) of the
Regulations for the Control and Abatement~of Air Pollution of the said
board, as set forth in a publication of the said board entitled
"Regulations Concerning Open Burning," as the same may be amended by
the said board from time to time. Ail references in the said regula-
tions to the said board shall be construe~ to apply, mutatis mutandis,
to the county hereunder.
Agenda Item No. 10. Request to set public hearing to vacate right-of-way
known as White Pine Street.
Mr. Cilimberg said this matter was brought to the Board by a letter from
Mr. Norman Lamson, attorney for Heinz and Freda Gadient. The Gadients own
property near Scottsville shown as Tax Map 130~1-16, part of what was called
Hayman's Subdivision. "White Pine Street", shown on an early plat of this
subdivision, runs right through the Gradient l~t. Title search of this
property indicates that there has been no abandonment by any public entity of
whatever rights the public may have in this portion of "White Pine Street".
Mr. Lansom said he does not believe that legally the dedication was effective
as a statutory dedication. However, a common ~aw dedication may have occurred
at one time that gave the public rights. The Cadients want to have the title
cleared.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 14)
291
According to Mr. Lansom's letter, there is a concrete warehouse con-
structed on the right-of-way that has been in place since the 1930's. No
evidence exists that White Pine Street was ever used as a street insofar as it
crosses Tract No. 2. Mr. Lansom requested that the Board take action to
abandon this right-of-way to public use.
Mr. Gadient addressed the Board members and informed them that part of
the right-of-way goes through a warehouse that has been on the property since
the 1930's and that is the main reason that he would like to see the
right-of-way abandoned. He said he wanted to,get the property cleaned and he
wants to get rid of the right-of-way because there is no road there, and there
never has been.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to set the
question of abandoning this right-of-way for a public hearing on November 15,
1989. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to set public hearing to vacate right-of-way
in Berkeley Subdivision at end of Commonwealth Drive. At the applicant's
request, this item will be carried over to the October 11, 1989, agenda.
Agenda Item No. 8. An Ordinance to amend, and reenact Sections 4-24,
4-32, and 4-37 of the Albemarle County Code to provide for dogs and cats to be
licensed at the age of four months. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 29 and September 5, 1989.)
Mr. Agnor said this amendment is to aligq~:: the County Code with the State
law which provides for licensing and inoculatibns of dogs and cats at the age
of four months rather than six months.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing and no ',!one was present to speak on this
amendment. Mr. Way then closed the public he~ing and placed the matter
before the Board. I!~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the
following ordinance. Roll was Called and the ~'motion carried by the following
recorded vote: '~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. P~rkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None. ~-
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
AN 0RDINANC~
TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE II, DdGs
OF THE CODE OF ALSEMARLE
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of SuperVisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fo~, Article II, Dogs, of the
Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and i~eenacted in certain sections
as follows:
Sec. 4-20.
Division 3. Licenses~!.
Required.
It shall be unlawful for any person ito own a dog four months old
or over in the county unless such dog is licensed, as required by the
provisions of this division.
Sec. 4-24. When license tax payable.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting) 292
(Page 15)
The license tax imposed on dogs by this division shall be due and
payable as follows:
(a) Not later than January 31 of each year, the owner of any dog
four months old or older shall pay a license tax as prescribed in
section 4-23.
(b) If a dog shall become four months of age or if a dog over
four months of age unlicensed by this county shall come into the
possession of any person in this county between January 1 and October
31 of any year, a license tax for the current calendar year shall be
paid forthwith by the owner.
(c) If a dog shall become four months of age or if a dog over
four months of age unlicensed by this county shall come into the
possession of any person in this county between November 1 and Decem-
ber 31 or any year, the license tax for the succeeding calendar year
shall be paid forthwith by the owner and such license shall protect
the dog from the date of payment of the license tax.
Sec. 4-32. Same--Collar and tan to be wo.rn by dog~ exceptions.
It shall be unlawful, for the owner to permit any licensed dog
four months old or older to run or roam at large at any time without a
license tag. The owner of the dog may remove the collar and license
tag required by this section (i) when the dog is engaged in lawful
hunting, (ii) when the dog is competing in a dog show, (iii) when the
dog has a skin condition which would be ~xacerbated by the wearing of
a collar, (iv) when the dog is confined Or (v) when the dog is under
the immediate control of its owner.
Sec. 4-37. Penalty for failure to obtai~ license.
Any person convicted of failure to p~ay the dog license tax
imposed by this division prior to February 1 of any year or at such
other time as may be required by this division on any dog four months
of age or over and owned by him shall ben,fined not less than the
amount of the license tax required for s~Ch dog nor more than ten
dollars, and shall be required to obtain i~he proper license for such
dog forthwith.
FURTHER ORDAINED that in all other ~espects Article II of Chapter
4 of the Code of Albemarle remains the same; and
BE IT ALSO ORDAINED that this ordinance shall be effective
immediately upon adoption.
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of
School Bonds of Albemarle County, Virginia, i~ii~the maximum amount of
$13,675,000 to the Virginia Public School AutHority at an estimated average
rate of interest of 7.50 percent per year. (A~vertised in the Daily Progress
on August 30 and September 6, 1989.)
Mr. Agnor explained that this is a public
adopting a resolution which authorizes the sta
school bonds to the Virginia Public School Aut
rate of interest is assumed of 7.50 percent a
than it will actually be when the bonds are so
will be paid over the 20 years of the life of
7.50 percent interest, will be $10,297,000.
tion is adopted, it will be forwarded to the
which will authorize proceeding with the bond
actual amount of the bond issue is $13,675,000~
hearing for the purpose of
:f to continue with the sale of
Lority. He said an estimated
rear which he believes is higher
.d. The amount of interest that
~e bonds, if they were sold at
~ said that after this resolu-
.rginia Public School Authority,
.ssue. He stated that the
He said this amount can be
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 16)
293
amended before the end of September, however, there is no reason to believe
that adjustments will have to be made.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing. Since there was no one who wished to
speak concerning this matter, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the
matter before the Board.
Mr. Bowie commented that the County is going to have to spend $10.0
million in interest to acquire $13.0 solely because the meals tax law did not
pass.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the
following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF SCHOOL BONDS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $13,675,000 TO
THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA: ~
1. The Albemarle County School Bo~d has advised the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginfa (the County), of the
necessity to undertake capital projects i~or public schools. The
Board of Supervisors hereby determines ~hat it is advisable to do so
and to borrow money for such purpose and issue the County's general
obligation bonds therefor. ~
2. Pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act, there are
hereby authorized to be issued school b6~ ds of the County in the
maximum amount of $13,675,000 to provide funds, together with other
available funds, to finance capital proj
The bonds shall be sold to the Virginia
state agency prescribed by the General A
VII, Section 10(b) of the Constitution.
3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-186 of
1950, as amended, the Board hereby estix
of interest to be borne by the bonds is
amount of interest charges required to
$10,297,000. In making this estimate thc
20-year debt retirement schedule providi]
~cts for public schools.
?ublic School Authority, a
~sembly pursuant to Article
the Code of Virginia of
~tes that the average rate
'.50% per year and the
pay and retire the bonds is
Board has assumed a
g for approximately equal
annual payments of principal. .~
4. The bonds shall bear such date 9r dates, mature at such
time or times not exceeding 40 years from their date, bear interest
at such rate or rates not to exceed the ~.~imum rate authorized by
law at the time the bonds are sold, be il
form, be executed in such manner and be
and in such manner as the Board of Super
by appropriate resolution or resolutions
5. The bonds shall be general obli
the payment of principal of and interest
credit shall be irrevocably pledged.
· such denominations and
old at such time or times
[sots may hereafter provide
ations of the County for
on which its full faith and
This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Mr. Bain asked how the figures concernin
April, that have already been given to the Bo
that the interest rate will be 7.50 percent.
estimated payment for the first interest paym,
the first interest payment in
rd, will be affected assuming
Mr. Agnor responded that the
nt was $850,000, and the
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 17)
294
estimate received this week was within $15,000 of that amount. He said it
seems that the amount is close to the estimate.
Mr. Bain asked when the County will know the exact interest rate. Mr.
Agnor replied that it will be around the first of November. He said the
current rate is approximately seven percent, so the staff is hoping that the
rate will be closer to the seven percent figure rather than seven and a half.
Mr. Bain agreed that Mr. Bowie's statement is correct concerning the
meals tax.
Mrs. Cooke said that unless something actually involves people individu-
ally, they have no interest in it until they realize what is taking place.
She said the public hearing on the issuance and sale of school bonds was
advertised, and, yet, there is no one present to speak to the expenditure of
millions of dollars that the taxpayers of this community must provide to pay
for just the interest alone on these bonds. She added that a meals tax would
have been a real asset to the County's financial position. She said she is
at the absence of the public at this hearing.
Mr. Bowie wondered where the people were who had said the meals tax was
not needed, and he wondered, too, if these same people are happy to spend this
$10,000,000 in interest.
Agenda Item No. 12. Proration of PersonAl Property Taxes.
Mr. Agnor said that during the budget review last Spring, the staff
proposed that the County begin the proration Of personal property taxes in
January, 1991. In order to prepare for the ir~lementation of the program,
staff has to start work on computer programs. He wants to make certain that
the Board was aware that the staff was beginn~.ng this work and that the staff
e mentioned that Mr. Melvin
had the authority to proceed with the plan.
Breeden, Director of Finance and Mr. Gene Har~
a number of localities which prorate personal
their programs. Estimates made of the increa~
proration were based on estimates made by oth~
proration will raise an additional $800,000.
figures will change slightly. He encouraged
lng, City Treasurer, had visited
property taxes in order to study
e in revenues resulting from
r localities. He stated that
Mr. Agnor added that by 1991 the
he Board to allow the staff to
proceed with this matter since the City is also going to implement the pro-
gram.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks that proration df personal property taxes is
fair. If personal property taxes are prorate~!, he thinks the license fees
should also be prorated. If the tax rate is changed, then he thinks the same
rules should apply to everything else that can be prorated. Mr. Agnor said
staff will look into this matter.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie authorizing
staff to begin planning for the proration of ~rsonal property taxes to become
effective January, 1991, in conjunction with ~e same program in the City of
Charlottesville. '~
Roll was called and the motion carried bP!the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum dated
follows:
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Enforce'~ent of Parking Violations.
September 5, 1989, which
"Under current enabling legislation, the
enact and enforce ordinances regulating
first, the Airport, Piedmont Community co
:ounty has the authority to
~rking in three categories:
[lege and the University of
Virginia; second, on County property; and third, handicapped spaces
on public or private property and on private parking lots with fifty
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 18)
295
or more parking spaces (apartment complexes, shopping centers,
etc.). It is staff's opinion that unlike cities and towns, we do
not have the authority to regulate parking on State roads/streets.
In order to avoid a manpower and workload allocation problem for our
police officers, staff has developed a draft ordinance which ad-
dresses only handicapped parking violations. This draft ordinance
will enable police officers to place tickets on the windshields of
vehicles violating handicapped parking regulations instead of
serving a sun, nons on the driver of the vehicle, which is the current
procedure.
As I believe you know, County officers now have to wait for drivers
to return to vehicles in order to serve a summons on the driver for
parking violations. This ordinance will enable County officers or
uniformed personnel to cite violations in a manner similar to City
officers.
Additionally, the ordinance establishes an administrative procedure
for voluntary payments of fines at the C~unty Finance window(s) or
by mail. If voluntary payment is not chosen, the recipient of a
notice of violation can follow a proceduce of filling out a form
provided by the Finance Department requesting an administrative
review and dismissal of the charges. T~e Commonwealth's Attorney
will decide whether the charge is dismissed. If the charge is not
dismissed, the recipient of the notice of violation can demand a
hearing in General District Court.
Finally, the ordinance levies a fine of i~50.00 if paid within 48
hours, and $100.00 if paid after 48 houri~. If the review procedure
is followed, the fine is to be paid 48 h~urs after denial, or the
fine is doubled, unless a court procedur~ is demanded. These fines
are comparable to those levied in the City and at the University.
Your concurrence in considering this ordinance for approval after a
public hearing is requested, and recommended."
Recently, Mr. Agnor said, the Independen~ Resource Center asked the City
and University to emphasize the enforcement o~ handicapped parking. Even
though the County was not asked to enforce handicapped parking, the staff felt
it was a community effort, and that is why thais ordinance focuses on the
issue. This ordinance allows volunteers to e~force parking regulations, as
long as they have on an identifiable uniform.!~ These volunteers do not have to
be paid. Mr. Agnor pointed out that in Charl6ttesville and other Virginia.
communities, handicapped citizens are volunteering their time to ticket
vehicles that are violating handicapped parking spaces. He said this ordi-
nance would provide for volunteer services, a~ well, so that there would not
necessarily be uniformed police officers giving the tickets.
Mr. Agnor added that the enforcement of ~arking regulations on private
parking lots of 50 or more parking spaces wasjnot included in the ordinance.
He does not think police officers need to be ~kken off of patrol activities to
enforce private parking lot regulations. If ~his was done, the workload could
become cumbersome because often the parking 16!t regulations are not enforced
by the owners of the parking lots since they ~ not want to upset their
customers. If it is a residential parking lo~, they want to upset their
tenants. He said that often the police are c~lled to enforce regulations, and
they have that authority; however, it is not f!elt to be important enough for
public safety purposes to use police officers ito do this. He added that this
is the staff's opinion, and the drafted ordinance can be amended, if the Board
disagrees. ~
Mr. Bain asked, in relation to parking o~ State roads and streets, if
this is something that should be addressed wi~h the General Assembly so that
the County would have that authority. He thinks this could be a problem in
the future. Mr. Agnor replied that this issue can certainly be addressed with
the legislators, i~l
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 19)
296
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to set a public
hearing on October tl, 1989, to consider adopting an ordinance concerning the
enforcement of parking regulations on handicapped spaces. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 14. Police Department Reimbursable Overtime Rate.
At an earlier meeting this year, Mr. Agnor said, staff was requested to
review the reimbursable overtime rate being charged commercial establishments
for additional police security, and to examine the County's exposure to
liability. He said the rate .the City is charging varies from $18.00 to $20.00
an hour; the University charges $20.00 an hour; and privat~ security officers
charge $11.00 to $12.00 an hour. The County is not trying to compete with
private companies, so Mr. Agnor recommended that the County's rate be in-
creased from the current $8.00 per hour to $20 per hour, with an additional
$3.00 collected for overhead costs. He pointed out that often private busi-
nesses want the arrest powers available that are not available through private
security companies. ~
Mr. Agnor said Mr. St. John researched t~e potential for liability and
has concluded that the service is the same as~!~n°rmal police work, and the
County has insurance coverage for this kind o~ liability. Mr. Agnor said the
cost of insurance is included in the rate cha~ged for this service. He added
that Mr. St. John does not think the liabilit~ exposure is a critical matter.
Mr. Agnor said that Chief Miller feels that the program should be allowed
to continue because it: 1) enhances employment satisfaction by affording
police officers an opportunity to augment the}r salaries; 2) extends addition-
al police service; and 3) provides additional~visibility for the Police
Department throughout the community. Because'!!.~Chief Miller approves these
types of jobs, there is an amount of control ~nd restrictions. Mr. Agnor said
that sometimes the visibility of the departme~
received calls from citizens wondering why po
private businesses rather than being out in
positive aspect of the Police Department's vii
cox~ercial qperations the opportunity to enga~
police officer with arresting powers. He add.
cured simply by a police officer's presence.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Agnor has a writts
ney relating to this police activity. Mr. Ag~
request a written opinion from Mr. St. John.
have a written opinion from the County Attorn~
Mr. Perkins mentioned that the County's
~ is controversial. He has
ice officers are in certain
e County. He noted that the
iibility is that it gives private
e the services of a well-trained
d that sometimes problems are
opinion from the County Attor-
~r responded that he did not
~r. Bain said he would like to
~are of the hourly rate had
remained at $3.00 while everything else had iAcreased. He suggested that the
County's share be adjusted to $4.00 which wou~d increase the hourly rate to
$21.00. Mr. Bain asked if the $20.00 hourly ~te recommended by Chief Miller
is in addition to the $3.00 County share. Mr~i Agnor answered that the Coun-
ty's share of $3.00 is included in the $20.00 ~ee. He said it was felt that
some payment was needed for administration of~he program, but the volume of
activity increased so much, that the amount of~ money for administrative costs
was far in excess of the cost that was actual~ estimated.
Mr. Perkins noted that a County car is being used to transport the
officer to the particular job. He asked if Mr~ Agnor feels that $3.00 is
enough to cover the cost of the car. Mr. Agnok replied "yes", because of the
volume of the activity. If the Board chooses,.~this cost can be adjusted. He
added that the staff was trying to develop a r~te that was similar to other
police departments in the area. ~
Mr. Way stated that the Board would wait ~o take action on this matter,
until a memorandum could be received from Mr. ~t. John.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 20)
297
Agenda Item No. 20a. Appropriations: 1) Technology Initiative Bonds,
and 2) Virginia Commission of the Arts.
Mr. Agnor said the State is to pay the debt service for the State program
entitled "Technology Initiative Bonds", but the County has to record it in its
financial system both for revenue and expenditure purposes. He stated that
$26,086.94 is the amount of principal and interest on those bonds.
Mr. Agnor said the FY 1989-90 budget included an appropriation to the
Virginia Discovery Museum and the Piedmont Council of the Arts of $7,250 each.
This was to be funded with $10,000 in local money and a $4,500 grant from the
Virginia Commission of the Arts. The actual amount granted was $5,000, so an
additional $500 must be appropriated to each of these organizations.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Perkins to
approve the appropriation requests as recommended by adopting the following
resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. P&rkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. ~
FISCAL YEAR 89/90
DEBT SERVICE
NUMBER 890001 FUND
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TO RECORD ISSUANCE AND AUTHORIZATION
TO EXPEND FUNDS FROM EDUCATION
TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE BONDS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1990068000910028
1990068000920028
EDUCATION TECHNOLGY SERIES-1989
EDUCATION TECHNOLGY SERIES-INTEREST
~ TOTAL
$16,515.90
9~571.04
$26,086.94
REVENUE
2990025000250100
DESCRIPT%ON
LITERARY FUND
TOTAL
AMOUNT
$26,086.94
$26,086.94
FISCAL YEAR: 89/90
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
COMMISSION OF THE ARTS.
ADDITIONAL FuN]Ds RECEIVED FROM THE VA.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1100079000560401
DESCRIPtiON AMOUNT
VIRGINIA DISCOVERY MUSEUM $250.00
1100079000560410
REVENUE
250.00
PIED. COUNCIL OF THE:~ARTS
TOTAL $500.00
DESCRIPTIDN AMOUNT
2100051000510100
GENERAL FUND BALANCEIi:
TOTAL
$500.00
$500.00
Agenda Item No. 20b. Rivanna Park.
Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum datedl
"The Rivanna Park Project has received fi
construction and equipment needed to comp]
September 7, 1989 as follows:
al prices on all of the
iete the park. These
prices involve sewer, roadway and concession stand construction plus
playground equipment. These costs have b~en distributed to the Park
Committee, and their total exceeds availa$1e funds by $177,670.
The County's share (one-half) is $88,835. { To fund this shortfall,
the following transfers and reappropriations are recommended:
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 21)
The reappropriation of $27,000.00 of the end of year
balance of the 88-89 Parks and Recreation operating budget
to the Rivanna construction budget.
o
The reappropriation of $43,000.00 of the unexpended
balance of the County's 88-89 Rivanna Operating Appropria-
tion to the Rivanna construction budget.
The transfer of $10,500.00 of the County's 89-90 Rivanna
Operating Appropriation to the Rivanna construction
budget.
The transfer of $8,335.00 in surplus Capital funds from
code 1900071000701012, Greenwood Community Center, to the
Rivanna construction project.
Your approval of these transfers and reappropriations is requested,
and if approved, will allow the park project to proceed and be
completed by early 1900."
298
Mr. Bowie stated that he has no problem ~ith these reappropriations, and
he asked Mr. Mullaney if the $10,500 from the County's 1989-90 Rivanna Operat-
ing appropriation to the Rivanna construction budget is because of the late-
ness of the opening of the park. Mr. Mullaneyl answered, "yes."
Mr. Agnor stated that he wanted to commend Mr. Mullaney publicly for
having the ability to analyze the financial resources and shift funds around
in order to accommodate problems such as this one. Mr. Agnor said that Mr.
Mullaney makes his job a lot easier. He said?that Mr. Mullaney is a careful
financial manager. !~
Mr. Bowie agreed with Mr. Agnor's statem~hts about Mr. Mullaney.
(Note: The actual appropriations will ben'shown in Items 20d and 20c.)
Agenda Item No. 20d. Reappropriations -~:Capital Projects.
Mr. Breeden said the reappropriations ha~e been presented in three parts:
Capital Projects; the General Fund and School!~ctivities; and Storm Drainage
Projects. He said the capital Improvement it,s total approximately
$4,787,000. He said this just carries forwardlthe balance of the projects
that have been approved and have not yet been i~ompleted. He indicated that
this will leave a balance of unallocated funds in the Capital Improvement Fund
of $67,000.
Mr. Way suggested that the Capital Projects be voted on first.
Mr. Bain called attention to the item entitled Rivanna Park-Access Road.
He asked if the figure of $360,428.85 is the amount that the road will cost.
Mr. Breeden answered that this figure is the ~ount that has not been expended
at this point. Mr. Bain asked if the contract has been let and if the bid is
close to that amount of money. Mr. Agnor ansW~red that the money for the
project should be reasonably close to the amour estimated.
Mr. Bowie asked if the $360,428.85 listedi!for the Rivanna Park-Access
Road is an accounting adjustment and has nothing to do with the actual cost.
Mr. Breeden said "yes".
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the
reappropriations as explained in the September'S!7, 1989, memorandum from the
Director of Finance by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vpte:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
September 13,
(Page 22)
FISCAL YEAR: 89/90
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
1989 (Regular Meeting)
REAPPROPRIATION FROM FY 88/89 TO FY 89/90
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
299
1900012200800700
1900033020700002
1900041000700006
1900041000800960
1900041000950011
1900041000950035
1900041000950049
1900041000950037
1900041020950032
1900041020950036
1900041020950050
1900041020950051
1900043100800901
1900060100950052
1900060203312350
1900060203312400
1900060203580000
1900060203800200
1900060203800650
1900060210312400
1900060211800650
1900060213800650
1900060214800650
1900060301312350
1900071000950002
1900071000950003
1900071000950004
1900071000950009
1900071000950020
1900071000950021
1900071000950027
1900071000950029
1900071000950046
1900071000950047
1900071000950048
1900071001800605
1900071002312400
1900071002800650
1900071002800680
1900073020312350
REVENUE
INFORMATION SERVICES
CORRECTION & DETENTION
ENGINEERING-IVY LANDFILL
ENGINEERING-STREET LIGHTS
ENGINEERING-HYDRAULIC RD SIDEWALK
ENGINEERING-NORTH BERKSHIRE RD
ENGINEERING-GEORGETOWN PATHWAY
ENGINEERING-KEENE TRANSFER STATION
ENGINEERING-PEYTON DRIVE
ENGINEERING-BERKMAR DRIVE EXTD
ENGINEERING-RT 678 RELOCATION
ENGINEERING-AVON ST RT 20 CONNECTOR
COUNTY OFFICE BLDG RENOVATIONS
SCH BD-ASBESTOS ABATEMENT PLAN
CROZET ELEM-PLANNING!i
CROZET ELEM-ENGINEER~NG
CROZET ELEM-MISC
CROZET ELEM-FURNITUR~ & EQUIP
CROZET ELEM-CONSTRUC~ION
STONE ROBINSON-WATERiiTANK
ST POINT ELEM-CONSTR~CTION
YANCEY ELEM-CONSTRUCTION
CALE ELEM-CONSTRUCTI~N
ALB HIGH .SCH-PLANNINC
PARKS & REC.-IVY CRE]
PARKS &REC.-CROZET
PARKS & REC.-MINT S~
PARKS & REC.-SCOTTS¥
PARKS & REC.-SCOTTSV
PARKS & REC.-SCVL AS]
K TENANT HSE
ARK IMP
INGS PARK
ZOMM CTR
~CH REPAIRS
~STOS REMOVAL
PARKS & REC.-GREENWOOD COMM CTR
PARKS & REC.-MEADOWS ~COMM CTR
PARKS & REC.-MER LEWI~S SCH
PARKS & REC.-BEAVER ~EEK PARK
PARKS & REC-ALB HIGH
SOUTHERN PARK CONSTR~CTION
RIVANNA PARK-ENGINEERING
RIVANNA PARK- CONSTRUqTION
RIVANNA PARK-ACCESS ROAD
LIBRARIES -PLANNING
DESCRIPTI0~
$130,093.87
533,795.18
231,149.96
40,000.00
27,703.19
3,800.00
1,475.00
111,054.00
191,561.60
250,000.00
53,750.00
77,000.00
74,907.03
11,834.30
54,256.22
8,969.57
30,000.00
80,000.00
37,205.00
48,000.00
547,741.06
534,140.27
340,750.34
33,823.54
8,323.84
1,048.44
50,000.00
9,036.48
189.96
18,328.24
189.96
189~96
13,371.61
25,000.00
12,937.00
815,717.38
3,583.86
8,335.00
360,428.85
8~019.00
$4,787,709.71
AMOUNT
2900024000240000
2900024000240750
2900024000240760
2900041000410500
2900051000510100
CATEGORICAL AID-JAIL ~:~
CATEGORICAL AID-REC ACCESS FUND
CATEGORICAL AID-VA OUTDOOR FUND
LOAN PROCEEDS ~
APP FROM FUND BALANCEi
· TOTAL
$ 325,900.00
126,139.50
75,000.00
1,708,000.00
2~552~670.21
$4,787,709.71
Agenda Item No. 20e. Reappropriations -
Mr. Agnor said this is for uncompleted pR
Mr. Bowie inquired about the amount for t
asked if this is for the whole project. Mr. A
$107,500.00 is only for the engineering design
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and secon ed by Mr.
reappropriations as recommended in the Septemb.~ 7, 1989,
Director of Finance by adopting the following ~esolution.
the motion carried by the following recorded vpte:
½torm Drainage Projects.
~jects.
~e Lickinghole Creek Basin and
nor answered that the
Bain to approve the
memorandum from the
Roll was called and
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 23)
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
FISCAL YEAR: 89/90
FUND: STORM DRAINAGE
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FROM FY 88/89 TO FY 89/90
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
300
1910041031360000 WINDHAM/JARMAN GAP RD-ADV $ 124.60
1910041031800975 WINDHAM/JARMAN GAP RD-IMPROVEMENTS 10,799.00
1910041033360000 SMITHFIELD RD STORM SEWER-ADV 150.00
1910041033800975 SMITHFIELD RD STORM SEWER-IMPROVEMENT 5,011.80
1910041034312400 BERKMAR DETENTION BASIN-ENGINEERING 167.00
1910041034360000 BERKMAR DETENTION BASIN-ADV 105.20
1910041034800975 BERKMAR DETENTION BASIN-IMPROVEMENTS 11,234.01
1910041035800975 FOUR SEASONS BASIN-IMPROVEMENTS 1,313.70
1910041036312400 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN-ENGINEERING 2,248.91
1910041036360000 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN-ADV 300.00
1910041036800750 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASIN-PURC OF LAND 3,000.00
1910041036800975 BIRNAM/WYNRIDGE BASI~-IMPROVEMENTS 85,100.00
1910041038800975 BERKELEY STORM SEWER!iiPH I-IMPROVEMENT 1,258.62
1910041039800975 LICKINGHOLE CREEK BASIN-IMPROVEMENTS 107,500.00
1910041040800975 BERKELEY SEWER PH II'IMPROVEMENTS 680.00
1910041041800975 LYNCHBURG RD STR SEW~:~R-IMPROVEMENTS 8,000.00
1910041042800975 SOLOMON RD IMPROVEME~.~TS-IMPROVEMENTS~ 17,100.40
1910041043800975 FOUR SEASONS CHANNEL~IMPROYEMENTS
19,000.00
BERKSHIRE ROAD CHANNeL-IMPROVEMENTS~ 15,000.00
1910041046800975
1910041047800975 KING GEORGE CIRCLE-I~PROVEMENTS 11,000.00
. $299 24
'1 TOTAL ,093.
REVENUE DESCRIPTIQN AMOUNT
2910051000510100 APPROPRIATION-FUND B~L $299~093.24
T6TAL $299,093.24
Agenda Item No. 20c. Reappropriations -~iOperations.
Mr. Breeden explained that these reappro~riations are for projects which
have been started or for purchase orders that"~re outstanding. He said he
would point out the few exceptions during his
memo of September 7, 1989, and discussed each
Relating to the reappropriation concernil
came under the Engineering category, Mr. Agno~
volved were Peyton Drive, Berkmar Drive Extend
road from Avon Street to Route 20 South.
discussion. He referred to his
reappropriation separately.
g various road projects which
remarked that the roads in-
,d, Rio Road, and the connector
Mrs. Cooke asked when the Peyton Drive p~'~ject will be completed. Mr.
Agnor replied that bids would be received tow~ rd the end of September. If the
County receives a favorable bid, it is hoped ~at construction can start this
fall.
Concerning the reappropriation for the K~ene Landfill, Mr. Bowie asked if
this money is for closing the old landfill andi opening the new transfer
station. Mr. Breeden replied "yes". He said .~dditional funds may be needed,
but it is hoped that as much as possible can b~ done with the balance of funds
carried forward from last year. I
Relating to library repairs and maintenance, Mr. Bain asked if some of
the work has already been done. Mr. Breeden s~a~d yes , but the work has not
been completed. He indicated that the $17,11~?.38 figure is only for repairs.
Mr. Agnor said that the figures shown in ~r. Breeden's memo indicate the
situation as of June 30, 1989. Mr. Breeden s~d there will be some minor
adjustments once the auditors finalize their ~ ~.tivities.
Mr. Bain inquired if Mr. Breeden thinks t ~ese figures will be close to
the final auditor's report. Mr. Breeden answe ~ed that the books have to be
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 24)
301
kept until August 15, and there are a number of adjustments that do not occur
until that time. One item of concern for staff is that the School Fund
contains a number of programs that should be self-sustaining. Instead there
are reimbursable items which are often not approved for reimbursement. When
this occurs, these items have to be covered from the School Fund by either
transferring the expenditure into the School Fund or transferring the funds
from the School Fund into that particular program. He added that the reduc-
tion in the School Fund balance could amount to approximately $17,000.
Mr. Bain asked if the School Fund balanc& would be approximately
$450,000, if this adjustment takes place. Mr~ Breeden indicated that is the
figure, even with the adjustment.
Mr. Bain asked if the figure of $400,000~in general revenues means that
this amount has not been spent or that there is $400,000 more in revenues than
was projected. Mr. Breeden responded that it is a combination of both. There
were a number of revenue items well in excess'.of the budget and a lot that
were less than the budget. He reminded Board'that $2,500,000 in last year's
General Fund budget came out of the Fund Balance. He said the County collect-
ed $1,500,000 in excess on revenues with a godd portion of that coming from
real estate and utility taxes. Expenditures are $843,000 less than were shown
in the budget.
Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Breeden to explainlthe Travel item listed under the
Planning portion of his memo. Mr. Breeden explained that Planning was one of
the categories where there was not an outstanding purchase order involved. He
said this travel is related to the additionall.work the Board had asked the
Planning staff to do involving the Route 29 N~rth analysis and some of the
Comprehensive Plan work.
Mr. Bain asked if this was unexpended mohey left in the Planning Depart-
ment'~ budget that will be put into this yeari~is budget. Mr. Breeden said,
"yes. He said some of their projects were a~ded since this year's budget was
prepared. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the
reappropriations as outlined in the SeptemberiiT, 1989, memorandum from the
Director of Finance, including $70,000 to the!'gapital Fund from the Department
of Parks and Recreation, by adapting the foll6~ing resolution.
Roll was called and the motion carried b~! the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. P~rkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
FISCAL YEAR: 89/90 '~
FUND: GENERAL '
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: REAPPROPRIATION FROM FY 88/89 TO FY 89/90
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND
1100011010310000
1100011010999993
1100012030312700
1100012140800100
1100012140800200
1100012200601200
1100012200800901
1100021060800200
1100031010350000
1100031010580902
1100031010601000
1100031040950054
1100034000110000
1100039000565500
1100041000312700
1100041000800200
1100042040390001
BD OF SUPV-PROF SERVIC~FIRE STUDY
BD OF SUPV.-VISITOR BUREAU
PERSONNEL-CONSULTANT
FINANCE-MACHINERY & EQUIP
FINANCE-FURNITURE & FIXTURES
INFO. SERVICES-BOOKS & SUBSCRIPTION
INFO. SERVICES-ALT TO 5bILDING
CLK OF CIR CT-FURNITUREi~& FIXTURES
POLICE-PRINTING
POLICE-DRUG ASSETS
POLICE-SUPPLIES
Egll IMPLEMENTATION
INSPECTIONS-SAL-FIRE STUDY
SPCA (ANIMAL SHELTER)
ENGINEERING-CONSULTANT
ENGNEERING-FURNITURE & ~IXTURES
KEENE LANDFILL ~
$ 5,000.00
8,642.00
35,000.00
23,072.63
8,339.00
184.90
1,800.00
800.00
1,550.00
32,942.96
765.30
35,000.00
5,000.00
946.00
8,445.00
2,000.00
11,913.18
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 25)
1100042040700006
1100043000331200
1100043000332200
1100043200312702
1100053020341000
1100073020331200
1100081010160801
1100081010312700
1100081010312701
1100081010350000
1100081010360000
1100081010550400
1100081010550600
1100090400930020
1100093010930004
IVY LANDFILL 39,345.78
STAFF SERVICES-REPAIR/MAINT. BUILDING 18,893.00
STAFF SERVICES-MAINT~ CONTRACT BUILDING 331.52
TELEPHONE STUDY 7,070.00
SOC SER-PUBLIC CARRIER 1,900.00
LIBRARY-REPAIR &MAINT BUILDINGS 17,117.38
PLANNING-WORK STUDY 2,368.00
PLANNING-CONSULTANT 4,185.00
PLANNING-D.P. CONSULTANT 4,000.00
PLANNING-PRINTING 11,750.00
PLANNING-ADVERTISING 100.00
PLANNING-TRAVEL-EDUCATION 750.00
PLANNING-TRAVEL-SUBSISTANCE 675.00
CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE CLEAN COMMUNITY
COMMISSION-LOCAL SHARE 1,400.00
TRANSFER TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROG. 70,000.00
SCHOOL FUND
1210061101160100
1211161101601300
1211161101800200
1211161103800100
1211161104601300
1211161107601300
1211261102601300
1211261102800100
1211461320601300
1220161101601200
1220161101601300
1230161101601200
1230161101601300
1230161101800100
1230261101601300
1230261101800100
1230261105601300
1230361101800100
1242062140600100
1242062140800200
1243164600331200
1243164600800200
1243362420331200
EDUCATION-CAREER LADDER 2,000.00
INSTRUCTION-REG-SUPPLIES 68.49
INSTRUCTION-REG-FURNIT~!{RE & FIXTURES 220.13
INSTRUCTION-VOC ED-MACH & EQUIP 1,490.00
INSTRUCTION-GIFTED-SUPPLIES 769.51
INSTRUCTION-ADULT ED-SUPPLIES 187.50
STUDENT SER-SPEC ED-SUPPLIES 202.10
STUDENT SER-SPEC ED-MAC & EQUIP 272.50
MEDIA SER-SUPPLIES 269.95
BROADUS WOOD-INSTRUC-BOOKS & SUBS 887.62
BROADUS WOOD-INSTRUC-SUPPLIES 294.03
ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL (iAI{s) 2,935.99
INSTRUC-BOOKS & SUBS ,~
AHS-INSTRUC-SUPPLIES 950.00
AHS-INSTRUC-MACH & EQU~P 250.81
WESTERN ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL (WAHS) 406.57
INSTRUC-SUPPLIES
WAHS-INSTRUC-MACH & EQUIP 13,932.81
WAHS-ACTIVITIES-SUPPLIES 239.85
MURRAY-INSTRUC-MACH & EQUIP 250.81
PERSONNEL-SUPPLIES 68.00
PERSONNEL-FURNITURE & FIXTURES 4,866.14
FISCAL SER-BUILDING IMP~REP & MAINT 12,304.00
FISCAL SER-BUILDING-FUR~ITURE & FIXTURE 2,679.37
BUILDING SER-REPAIR &MAINT 34,273.16
CHAPTER II PROGRAM ~
CHAPTER II-BOOKS & suBSCRIPTIONS
1310261101601200
JOINT DISPATCH CENTER ~
1410031041800300 JT DISPATCH-COMMUNICATION EQUIP
232.50
26,924.10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
1900071002800650 RIVANNA PARK CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL :~
70,000.00
$538,262.59
REVENUE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
302
2100051000510102
2200051000510102
2310251000510102
2410051000510102
2900051000510110
APP FROM GENERAL FUND BALANCE
APP FROM SCHOOL FUND BALANCE
APP FROM CHAPTER II PROGRAM FUND BAL
APP FROM JT COMMUNICATIONS FUND BAL
TRANSFER TO CIP FROM GENERAL FUND
TOTAL
$361,286.65
79,819.34
232.50
26,924.10
70~000.00
$538,262.59
Agenda Item No. 21. Transfer Deed to Sco~tsville School to Jordan
Development Corporation, and appropriation for .asbestos removal.
Mr. Agnor referred to his memo of September 5, 1989, which informed the
Board that the staff has received a bid of $55~i.000 for the removal of asbestos
from the old Scottsville School. Once the asbestos has been removed, the
County will be in a position to transfer that Dortion of the property to the
Jordan Development Corporation. He said the B~ard should also authorize the
.1
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
303
Chairman to sign the deed at that time. He said the deed will transfer 2.27
acres to the Corporation, and leave approximately 4.6 acres for the County's
use.
Mr. Bain asked if the expenditure of $55,000 had been anticipated. Mr.
Agnor said this expenditure was not anticipated because the Jordan Development
Corporation had originally agreed that the Corporation would remove the
asbestos. When the Corporation's grant from the State failed, the Corporation
asked the County to pick up that cost and the:~Corporation agreed to pick up
the revenues lost under the grant. In order to complete the project, the
Board had requested that a bid be received for the asbestos removal, and
indicated that it would consider an appropriation after the bid process.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Bowie to approve the
appropriation request by adopting the resolution which follows, and to author-
ize the Chairman to sign the deed transferring 2.27 acres to Jordan Develop-
ment Corporation at the appropriate time.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
FISCAL YEAR: 89/90
FUND: CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ASBESTOS REMOVAL AT OLD SCOTTSVILLE SCHOOL.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1900043000950055
OLD SCOTTSVILLE SCHOOL-ASBESTOS
TOTAL
$55~000.00
$55,000.00
REVENUE
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2900051000510100 APPROPRIATION-FUND BAL
$55~000.00
TOTAL $55,000.00
At 12:24 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:40 P.M.,
with Mr. Lindstrom present.
Agenda Item No. 16. ZTA-89-10. James R.~Skove. An amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance to add the following as a use~by special use permit in the
Planned Residential Development, PRD, District'~ 19.3.2.8, Swim, golf, tennis
or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.36). (Advertised on August 29
and September 5, 1990.)
Mr. Cilimberg presented the staff's report as follows:
"Staff Comment: Certain issues should ben, clarified regarding corre-
spondence between the applicant and Zoning Administrator.
1. The PRD, among other th~ngs, is ~ntegded to provide 'flexibility
and variety of development for residential purposes and uses
ancillary thereto . Staff supports She Zoning Administrator s
determination that outside membershi~ in a golf club is not
permitted under Section 19.3.1(5) asla 'non-commercial recrea-
tional facility' and furthermore, st~ff opinion is that a golf
club which must rely on membership o~tside of a PRD should not be
viewed as an ancillary use;
2. The applicant maintains that such usage would maintain 'sensitiv-
ity to the natural characteristics of the site'. Although a golf
course retains substantial acreage as open or 'green' space, it
typically requires substantial grading and artificial main-
tenance;
Only one PRD has been approved without common open space
(19.6.3). As can be seen from AttacHment C, this development was
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
not a proven success and in staff opinion was contrary to the
intent of the PRD.
The applicant opines that 'swim, golf, tennis or other athletic
facilities' is allowed by special use permit in the RA, VR, R-l, R-2,
R-4, R-6, R-10, and R-15 districts and should, therefore, be likewise
permitted in the PRD district. It should also be noted that cluster
development, where permissible in these districts, requires common
open space. Staff can support this request provided that any such
activity which is not under direct ownership/control of the homeowners
and/or relies on outside membership or participation not be allowed to
account for open space as required under Section 19.6.
Staff recommends the following amendments:
1. Amend Section 19.6.1 to read:
'Not less than twenty-five (25) percent of the area of any PRD
shall be in common open space, except as hereinafter expressly
provided.'
Add to 19.0, Planned Residential Development (PRD), as a use by
special use permit: Section 19.3.2. 8 Swim, ~olf~ tennis or
similar athletic facilities (reference-5.1.16)."
304
Mr. Lindstrom asked if he is correct in thinking that these athletic
facilities can be operated only ~.~ after approval of a special permit and
are not limited to non-commercial operations. He said he believes that the
intended structures would all be governed by whatever conditions are placed on
the special permit. Mr. Cilimberg agreed.
Mr. Way opened the public hearing.
Mr. Skove, a planner representing the applicant, addressed the Board and
said he agrees with the staff recommendations. He said the staff has pointed
out that swimming, golf, tennis and other similar athletic facilities are
allowed by special use permit in all of the ocher residential districts. He
went on to say that this request is asking that these athletic facilities be
allowed in the Planned Residential District. 'He added that there is no major
problem with the idea that 25 percent of the area devoted to residential use
be in common open space, but he prefers that the golf course be considered
open space. He said the staff has pointed out that the requirements are
similar to the requirements of the Planned ReSidential Districts. He urged
the Board to accept the Planning Commission's !~recommendations.
Next to speak was Mr. Dennis Rooker, an attorney in Charlottesville. He
indicated his strong support for the amendment.. He thinks this is in keeping
with the stated goals of improved flexibility ~and increased level of amenities
which are stated in the ordinance as goals of i~hel PRD. He ~then said that in
the interest of time, he would like to adopt ~r. Skove's statements as his
own.
There was no one else present who wished ~o speak, so Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before th'e Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt
the following ordinance approving ZTA-89-10 as. recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Roll was called and the motion carried byi!the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs~ Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT
THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
IN SECTION 19.0
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - PRD
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Section 19.0, Planned Residential Development, of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and reenacted by
the addition of a new use in 19.3.2, Uses by Special Use Permit, and
by amending the language in subsection 19.6.1, both to read as fol-
lows:
19.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities
(reference 5.1.16).
19.6
MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL
USES
19.6.1
Not less than twenty-five (25) percent of the area devoted
to residential use within any PRD shall be in common open
space except as hereinafter expressly provided.
305
Agenda Item No. 23. STA-89-02. To amend Section 18-36, Private Roads of
the Subdivision Ordinance, to specify circumstances under which private roads
may be permitted in rural development (Deferred from June 14, 1989).
Mr. Agnor referred the Board to his mamo=andum dated August 15, 1989,
which stated that the Planning Commission has recommended some amendments to
the private road section of the Subdivision O~dinance which were scheduled for
discussion at today's meeting. Some represent!atives of the development
community have recommended changes to these amlendments which would substan-
tially change the intent of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the
Board. He added that in order for these recommendations to be considered
fairly, the staff asks that the amendments be ~teturned to the Planning Commis-
sion for further consideration before they are-~heard by the Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has no objection to returning these amendments to
the Planning Commission. He is concerned, however, that the Planning Commis-
sion has taken action and made recommendations and these recommendations were
intercepted before they got to this Board for !its action. He noted that in
this particular situation, he would like to see the original recommendation
come back to this Board simultaneously with the new recommendation.
Mr. Bain remarked that this matter was deferred in June so that further
recommendations could be made. He pointed out, that the Planning Commission
acted on this matter in April, and he asked Mrli~ Cilimberg if the Planning
Commission had seen any of this information since that time.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commissio~ has not been involved with
this matter since April. He said the way the ~evelopers' recommended ~,_C
allow private roads is very different from the~i~way private roads have been
allowed in the past. For this reason, the staff felt the best way to approach
this matter would be to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to consid-
er what the staff feels would be a change in t%e intent of the private roads
section of the ordinance. If there had been m~nor changes in the wording or
references to the way that private roads have Always been handled, the staff
would not have suggested that the amendments b~~ sent back to the Commission.
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, pointed out that the County Attorney
had expressed an opinion on this matter after ~he Commission had taken its
action. He said this opinion would have substantially changed the Commis-
sion's recommendations~ He added that, given ~his circumstance, the staff
felt that the recommendations should be sent back to the Commission. He said
the Board was not giventhis information earlier because the staff will soon be
taking amendments concerning the RA zone to the Commission, and these amend-
ments may affect the private road recommendatidns. He said that rather than
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 29)
306
continuing to bring private road material back to the Board, the staff tried
to pnt it all in one group of amendments.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the Rural Areas District amendments will come
ire this Board and if they have already been sent to the Planning Con~nis-
sion. Mr. Cilimberg said the RA amendments have not been sent to the Commis-
sion because the drafts and language have to be reviewed by the County Attor-
ney. He hopes this information will go to the Commission in October and, if
it is feasible, these recommendations could come before this Board in Novem-
ber.
Mr. Lindstrom said he hopes these recommendations are presented to this
Board before his term as a Board member expires. Mr. Keeler assured Mr.
Lindstrom that the material relating to these irecox~endations was being typed
at that moment.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the recommendation of the staff to
the information back to the Planning Commission. He said he does not
want to get involved with information that the Planning Commission has never
considered.
Mr. Way asked if there were people in thg audience who wished to speak to
this issue. There was no one in the audience!'.who wanted to speak, so Mr. Way
asked for the Board's action. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to return
STA-89-02 to the Planning Commission for further consideration as recommended
by staff.
Roll was called and the motion carried b~ the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. ZMA-89-7. Virginia ~Land Trust. To rezone 17.3 ~6'~/~~
acres from R-1 to HI. Property on Route 29 North (Deferred from September 6,
1989).
Mr. Cilimberg told the Board members that they are in receipt of a copy
of the following six proffers, contained in a letter dated September 12, 1989:
"September 12, 1989
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Ref: ZMA-89-07
I will proffer the following on the zoning request.
1. 50 feet setback on rear of property
2. 15 people employment maximum
3. 20-foot parking line from right-of-way
Landscaping berm to be 16 inches to 20 inches high
Plants to be of the azalea type. Trees will be street type
(Pinoak, Maple, etc.) ~
6. Storage of units to be worked on will be in rear of the property.
Sincerely,
(Signed) Charles Wm. Hurt"
Mr. Cilimberg said the proffers set out above would be in addition to
those already offered. He reviewed the applicant's original request. He
noted that the staff feels that proffer~ three, four, five and six of the new
proffers can be required as part of site plan review. Since these proffers
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 30)
307
have been specified, there would be no question that this would be considered
during site plan review.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there has been any discussion on the number of
units that would be in the front of the property for display purposes. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that the number of display units was not discussed.
Mr. Lindstrom noted that the number of display units could not be con-
trolled during site plan review. Mr. Cilimberg agreed, but said that an area
could be designated in the site plan review to control the number of display
units.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understands the applicant's need to display what he
is selling. He is concerned, however, that t~ere will be a number of mobile
homes located close to the 20 foot parking lot. He worries, too, that there
may be other mobile homes that need repairs located further down on the lot,
without any screening in front of them. He added that he has no problem with
a limited number of display units in front so that the public will know what
is available. He said his question is whethe~ the display units in front
could be limited and whether the number of units that were not for display
could be effectively screened.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that it was the feeling of the staff that the
berm and plants would provide screening. He Said the number and location of
the mobile homes was not addressed by the staff. He then mentioned that the
applicant had stipulated that the units being~remanufactured will be located
toward the rear of the property, but there is~not a proffer as to how many
units will be located close to Route 29.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Cilimberg if the amount of space available for the
location of units along Route 29 could be con~rolled during site plan review.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that during site plan review it is possible to work with
the applicant so that areas for parking, etc., could be controlled. He said
this would allow for some limitation physically as to how many units could be
displayed. Mr. Keeler responded that the appiicant would have to agree to
these limitations.
Mr. Bowie asked what happens if the appli~cant does not agree to the
limitations at the site plan review. Mr. Lin~strom explained that the appli-
cant would only be allowed to do whatever tha~ particular zoning requires, if
the applicant does not agree to the limitation imposed during site plan
review.
Mr. Lindstrom explained that if this property is rezoned, and the appli-
cant is not in agreement with the staff's recommendations, then the staff has
no authority to enforce its recommendations. .He said the applicant could do
whatever he has the right to do according to the zoning. He remarked that
this set of proffers would allow the applicanti~ to place as many units on the
front of the property that could fit within tke front and side setbacks. If
the staff recommends that a certain percentage~ of the area be planted in
grass, and the applicant disagrees, the applic~gnt could use 100 percent of
that space for parking units. He said he woui~ like for this matter to be
cleared up at this time, or he would like to khow whether or not the Board
will have any ultimate control over the displa~ area.
(Mr. Bowling returned to the meeting at 2i02 P.M.)
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if the applicant is agreeable, under the
first proffer, there would be a 50-foot undistgrbed buffer rather than a
setback. He does not think the applicant has ~ problem with this, because it
has already been discussed with him. He said the appropriate language could
be incorporated in the proffer, if the applicant is in agreement. He said if
the Board wishes for further comments on the n.~mber of units that would be
located on the front of the property, Mr. Batc~elor would have to respond.
Mr. Bain asked if the 200-foot turn and t~per lane recommended by YDoT
i 1!
would show on the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg re ponded, yes.
Mr. Bain asked if the 200-foot turn and taper lane would stay in place
until the crossover is closed. He read from tl~e staff's report which
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 31)
308
mentioned YDOT's recommendation and wondered if VDOT is asking that the turn
and taper lane be built, even though it will not serve any purpose if the
crossover is closed. Mr. Cilimberg answered that Mr. Keeler had mentioned
that it may not be feasible to build the turn and taper lane, sin'ce the
crossover is listed as one of the Hollymead area crossover closings. He said
this matter would be studied further, and a report would be given to the Board
in November. He indicated that it would be more appropriate to present the
staff's recommendation concerning the crossover for the Board's response,
before the site plan review is held.
Mr. Lindstrom said that Mr. Perkins has pointed out to him that it seems
the applicant is anticipating the sale of these units to the public once they
have been manufactured. He asked if this is what is meant by HI zoning for
mobile home manufacturing ahd distribution. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the
responsibility of the Zoning Administrator to interpret the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg then cited a similar set of circumstances involving Mr. Charlie
Burgess, a former Zoning Administrator, and Oakwood Mobile Homes.
Mr. Lindstrom is concerned that the concept of distribution means retail
sales. He believes that there is a different!iimpact with retail sales than
for deliveries on a periodi~ basis of items t~at are manufactured or
remanufactured. He said that advertising wilt be involved, which will have a
significantly different imp
would be generated than by
may want to consider amendi
sales is not considered dis
tion" is used in one place
another place, then he thin
sales, he remarked, there m
public knows what is availa
product. He said that sell
certain establishment in gr
visual impact. He added th
away from the site.
~ct on the visual 9ffect. He said more traffic
~ centralized distribution area. He said the Board
~g the text of the~ilordinance to state that retail
Lribution. He added that when the word, "distribu-
in the ordinance a~d "retail sales" is listed in
~s that they mean ~omething different. For retail
· st be advertising mt the site so the general
ble and can come ir
ing retail encourai
~ater numbers, cau~
· t distribution me~
Mr. Bowie agreed that his question at th,
the meaning of the word, "d~stribution."
Mr. Lindstrom said the applicant, at las'
that he planned to have ret
sales "distribution." Mr.
on an industrially zoned tr
ment. Mr. Lindstrom said t
precedent, but he thinks th
that the applicant's busine
during working hours to buy the
ms the public to come to a
lng more traffic and a greater
ns that things will be hauled
meeting last week related to
week's meeting, had answered
~il sales at the s~te, and he considers retail
Zilimberg said the~akwood Mobile Homes business is
· ct and is operate~ as a retail sales establish-
ne Oakwood Mobile Homes business probably set a
m ordinance should ~ibe amended. Mr. Bain commented
ss is in the HI district, and it seems clear to him
that retail sales are not pmrmitted.
Mr. Llndstrom said tha~, to be falr to t~ls applicant, he believes that
his application should be considered under whatever definition has been given
by the Zoning Administrator. He said the ordi?ance cannot be amended before
this application is approve~. He said the applicant has made itclear what he
intends to do. He questionDd the use because ihe had never thought about this
aspect of this type of zoniDg before. He sai~iilhe~ would like to see the Board
consider a zoning text amendment which would ~ applicable to applications in
the future. ~
Mr. Keeler explained that LI zoning permits a limited amount of floor
area to be devoted to items for retail sales ~at are actually produced on the
premises. He said there is no similar languag
are a number of references to distribution in
Board decides to adopt a resolution to change
resolution be rather loosel~ worded to give t~
at a number of areas. He then gave an example
pointed out that anyone can go to any of the c
blocks. He said there are some instances whet
because of the type of business, and there are
as important.
Mr. Bowie agreed that the Board members'
he said that they should not apply to this app
a in the HI zoning, but there
{I zoning. He suggested, if the
he HI zoning language, that the
staff an opportunity to look
of a concrete mixing plant and
,ncrete plants and purchase
~ retail sales are inherent
other cases where it may not be
bservations are important, but
~ication currently before the
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 32)
309
Board. 'He added that if manufacturing is done, the product will have to be
distributed.
At this time, Mr. Way re-opened the public hearing.
Mr. Batchelor, representing the applicant, spoke to the Board. He said
the Board has been concerned about the visual effects of the display area.
Although the ordinance calls for a ten foot setback, he has proffered a 20-
foot setback with berm and landscaping. He believes that the additional ten
feet will be very attractive to people in vehicles traveling at 55 miles per
hour along Route 29 North. He said the units will not be right at the road-
way. He said he wants this site to be attractive, and he feels that this
additional ten feet gives a much better appearance.
Mr. Bowie commented that he has seen mobile home sales businesses where
there are one or two units displayed nicely and the rest are behind a berm or
screening. He said he has also seen such businesses with numbers of the units
spread across the front of the property.
Mr. Batchelor said it is not possible to know how the units will be
displayed until the site is graded. Sometimes a double-wide is displayed,
which uses up space that could have been used for three single units. He
said sometimes there will not be very many visible units; at other times, more
units will be displayed. He said a lot depends on how the units are turned,
and he stated that it is to the applicant's a~vantage to make the site as
attractive as possible. ~
for
Mr. Lindstrom asked what is the frontage this piece of property. Mr.
Cilimberg answered that the frontage of this ~roperty is approximately 500
feet.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he is not inclined to support the application
unless there is some indication of the number !of units that are going to be
displayed. He said that ten units on 500 fee~_' of frontage are quite a number
of units, yet, the area would not be saturate~~. Without a limitation, he does
not know why a person would not display a considerable number of mobile homes.
He thinks there should be a place for a reason, able number of units on the
front to give the public a feeling for what i~ilavailable, but he thinks the
rest of the units should be screened, and not ~ust by landscaping. He added
that unless there is a limitation anyone couldii"'put as many units as he wanted
in that area. The aesthetic benefit of the sci~eening and berming would be
lost.
Mrs. Cooke said she thought that a landsQ~ping plan had been discussed at
the last meeting for the front of the propertyi~ that would enhance the display
of these units.
Mr. Lindstrom agreed that landscaping was!~iI discussed, but he said he was
talking about limiting the number of units, specifically. He thinks landscap-
ing is appropriate, but he is not sure that la~dscapingi will have a great deal
of impact if there are a lot of mobile homes p~rked behind some shrubbery. He
added that an excess of units does not need
to~ibe located in the front of the
property to let the public know that there is a variety of them for sale. He
does not think it hurts the applicant to be limited on the number of units
that will be located out front.
Mr. Bowie said he is trying to be fair. This application does seek to
open up an undeveloped area on Route 29 North. ili He does not want development
further north on Route 29 to resemble what is ~lready on Route 29, beginning
at Rio Road. He said an effort has been made ~ith this application to do
screening, but no one knows who will own the p~operty in the future. He said
he is looking for a fair way to resolve this i~sue so that Mr. Batchelor can
proceed with his business, and the Board can p~otect further development of
Route 29, because the Board now has some auth°~ity under the new State condi-
tional zoning law.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that if the Board ~oes not like the way the
proffers are stated, then it does not have to ~pprove the request. He said
that if the mobile homes were set up a certain tway, there could be 40 of them
placed on the front of the property.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 33)
310
Mr. Batchelor said this is the reason for the proffer concerning the
setback. He said the ordinance and site plan might have dictated some of the
things proffered, but he feels that he has eliminated any concern, with his
proffers about what will actually happen. He added that he has a good idea
about the plan for landscaping and is perfectly willing to do it. He repeated
that he wants the property to be attractive and thinks that, by the proffer,
it will be attractive. He added that he knows of no one else who owns a
business on Route 29 who has proffered this sort of landscaping.
Mr. Cilimberg told the Board that the staff may have over-calculated the
amount of frontage on the property. He said it is probably 350 to 375 feet.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Batchelor if he feels there is a minimum number of
units that could be established for display on the front of the property. He
said it seems to him that 17 units could be placed on 350 feet of property.
Mr. Batchelor replied that it is hard for him to say at this point how
many units he will need to display. He commented that he had a facility in
Harrisonburg where there was a lot of frontage, but there were very few units
on it because he was displaying double-wide trailers. At some point, however,
it may be desirable to display single units. He added that he does not want
to agree to something that may not work out, nor does he want to display
something that is not attractive. He said it ~pays his company for the front-
age to be as attractive as possible.
Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Batchelor if he needs~.to display every possible unit.
Mr. Batchelor responded, "no." He repeated t~t he is not sure how many he
will need to display.
Mr. Lindstrom commented that it was clea= from past discussions that this
was one of the Board's concerns. He said the !question is whether the Board
will rezone the property for this use in this !location where there is no
development already there. He does not think!ithe Board should continue to
debate with Mr. Batchelor when it is clear that Mr. Batchelor wants to have as
many mobile homes displayed as possible. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands
Mr. Batchelor's position, but he thinks that ~is is not a reasonable use for
the property. He can support the application~iif there is a maximum number of
display units as a proffer, but he believes t~at the Board should consider the
request on the basis of the September 12 proffer. If the request is approved
by the Board, then the applicant will have thei~flexibility that he desires.
He said that he feels uncomfortable in trying ,bo extract an action from the
applicant that he clearly does not want to pr0~fer. Mr. Batchelor answered
that it is not that he does not want to proffe~ to limit the number of display
units. He said it is difficult to do, but he .~ill agree to it, if it makes
the difference between an approval of the application or a disapproval°
Mr. Bowie asked if the 50 feet mentioned in the proffer is a buffer and
not a setback. Mr. Batchelor responded that the 50 feet is an undisturbed
buffer.
Mr. Cilimberg related back to the initial!iproffer of 3uly 28, and read
that there would be a 50-foot undisturbed buffer~ area along the lot line that
abuts the planned residential property.
Mr. Bowie then mentioned that the parking
and is opposite Route 29, and the landscaping
inches high along Route 29. Mr. Batchelor men
taller. He said he is in favor of this landscl
tive.
lot lies along the right-of-way
long the berm is to be 16 to 20
ioned that the bushes will be
.ping because it will be attrac-
Since no one else wished to speak to thisllapplication, Mr. Way closed the
public hearing and placed the matter before th~ Board.
Mr. Bowie commented that he will make a motion only because the applicant
has made a definite effort to meet the concerns of the Board. Mr. Bowie
stated that this is the first application wher~ he has tried to examine
conditional zoning, and he mentioned that he i~ concerned about the appearance
of future development on Route 29 North. He b~lieves that these are all the
proffers the Board will get for this applicatign, and the Board will have to
either vote for or against the motion. ~
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 34)
311
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve
ZMA-89-7 subject to the original proffer limiting the uses as presented by
staff with the additional proffers dated September 12, 1989, and including the
clarifications as discussed.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the proffer legislation is not new. He
said the only thing that relates to the new legislation is the limitation on
the number of people who will be employed; everything else relates to old
legislation. He said the land is not currently zoned for this use, and the
Board does not have an obligation to rezone it. He said he does not think
that the Board needs to feel that it has to rezone this property; there are
other uses available under existing zoning and other possibilities for rezon-
ing. He said this is an area of Route 29 that is not developed and, yet, the
first available use there that can be seen from Route 29, will be a mobile
home sales operation. He said there will be a 16- to 20-inch berm with bushes
and trees, and the property has five acres with a 20- foot setback. He does
not think, however, it makes very much difference whether the setback is 10 or
20 feet. He believes what will make the difference is how effective the
landscaping is and how many units can be seen~ from the road. He noted that
there is no requirement for any screening or any placement of the
remanufactured units. He said that there is no limitation on how many units
will be at the setback and no limitation on any of the visual components as to
how this property will look to the public. H~ is concerned that this section
of Route 29 will start being developed with t~is kind of use. He pointed out
that the applicant is not being asked to restrict what he can do on the
property or the amount of business that can bl done on the property. Mr.
Lindstrom thinks it is reasonable to limit th~~' number of units displayed as
well as screening the other units from view. the believes this is a legitimate
reaction to the visual impact this business w~ill have on a part of Route 29
that has not been cluttered. He said that he,ban not support the application,
and he told the Board that it has an opportunity~ to make better decisions due
to the rezoning legislation changes.
Mr. Bain said his concern is the generalt overall appearance of the
transportation corridors. In terms of the Comprehensive~ Plan, he said, the
Board was concerned about how to handle these ii!kypes of situations when the
Board was not in control of rezoning issues, ii!He mentioned that some of the
appearance of the corridors has been lost, an~ he thinks the Board needs to
work extensively on the corridors so that the~'appearance of the property not
yet developed can be controlled. He does not ~think the Board should be rushed
into making a decision because of this one application, since once zoning has
been established on a particular property, a D?ecedent has been set. He
believes that the Board needs to establish some regulations as rapidly as
possible.
Mrs. Cooke asked what constitutes a reas~ ~able approach. Mr. Lindstrom
said he thinks it would be reasonable for thi~! applicant to have ten units
displayed on the front of the property with the rest screened from the road.
He pointed out that the proffers are now written in such a way that all of the
units could be seen if a person is tall enough~ to see over the two foot
screen.
Mrs. Cooke mentioned that even if the applicant was limited to ten
display units he could put all ten of them si~e by side and it would still be
unattractive. Mr. Lindstrom agreed, but said ~he property would be less
unattractive than if 17 units were placed sidei{by~ side all the way across the
property. ,~
Mrs. Cooke asked if it would be possible ~o allow the applicant more
units, but require that each unit be displaye~ilin a landscaped setting.
Mr. Lindstrom said it takes ten years for~landscaping to amount to
anything. He said the County does not have enough inspectors to enforce the
maintenance of landscaping. He mentioned that
cars in the wrong place, but the County does n~
require that the cars be moved. He thinks the'
display units will improve the effectiveness o~
rated that fewer display units will not hurt t~
property, he said, is a major tract of land wh
employment center of Albemarle County, and yet
!Jim Price Chevrolet always has
t have an inspector who can
lessening the density of the
the landscaping. He reite-
~e business. Behind this
.ch will probably be the premier
one of the first uses in front
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 35)
312
of this property will be a line of mobile homes. He said he is in favor of
mobile homes and has supported almost every mobile home application that has
come before this Board. However, he said, he thinks that selling them in
large quantities on Route 29 in that particular area should require more than
a two foot berm and some landscaping.
Mr. Bowie said that, although he made the motion to approve this applica-
tion, he still has some problems with it. He is concerned about opening up a
large tract of land, but he thinks it is the responsibility of government to
be fair. He is still worried about the precedent that will be set with the
approval of this application.
Mr. Bain said he appreciates Mr. Bowie's comments. He remarked that he
would be willing for this Board to offer some expenditure of funds to help
existing businesses with buffering to improve the view. He thinks it would
make a tremendous difference to the public. He mentioned that this could also
be an alternative for this application, because it would not take a lot of
money to develop something that would work. He believes that the Route 29
situation has to be examined carefully and a decision has to be made by this
Board as to what will be allowed there. He sgggested that a certain amount of
money be set aside for berm or landscaping depending on the type of business.
He said he was mentioning this possibility to re-enforce what he has already
said about the corridors, because he thinks i~ is that critical. He added
that improving the views on Route 29 will ben~fit the public for many years
into the future.
Mrs. Cooke agreed with Mr. Bain. However!, she said, the Board had an
excellent opportunity to start this landscapih, g procedure approximately a
month ago when an owner of a business on Rout~~ 29 was before this Board. She
said she and Mr. Lindstrom tried to initiate ~ landscaping requirement at that
time, but no one on the Board supported them. iill She added that now, a month
later, Mr. Bain is suggesting that owners of ~usinesses on Route 29 be asked
to beautify the area.
Mr. Way stated that the difference, fromiThis standpoint, was that the
earlier request related to a piece of propert~in the middle of an already
developed portion of Route 29, while this application relates to a piece of
property that has not yet been developed.
Mrs. Cooke reiterated, however, that the'Board had the opportunity to get
the landscaping procedure started a month ago.
Mr. Bowie remarked that he would support:any regulation that required a
landscaping procedure for all property owners on Route 29 who were making any
sort of change to their property. He believeS!this regulation should apply to
everybody. He commented that he is talking against his own motion, but he
believes that this application opens up new territory. He asked for a couple
of minutes to come to a decision.
Mr. Lindstrom said the proffer could be r~vised to state the number of
display units and that the rest of the units w~uld have to be screened. He
said the Board should do the right thing concerning this matter, and the
applicant could still come back to the Board w~th a response, if he wishes.
Mr. Batchelor said he understands the Bo~.~d's concerns. He mentioned
that some time ago he was in Boca Raton, and h9 noticed that all of the
parking lots had a hedge around them. He said~the tops of the cars and the
hoods could be seen, but the wheels were not v~sible. He said he wants the
community in which he lives to lo0k as nice as!Ipossible. He remarked that a
mobile home does not work like a tractor trailer because the wheels are in the
middle of a mobile home,, and the back end swings when the mobile home is
turned. He said he thinks he can work out a s~itable number of units in front
for display, even though he has some concerns.i! He said he does have some
problems with the screening because it will occur in an area where the mobile
homes will have to be turned. He said that instead of taking up a consider-
able amount of room for an attractive fence, a~lot more space will be needed
for the screening. He said he is willing to p~offer that ten display units
would be limited to the front of the property,!i~however, the screening in the
back of that is a big problem for him. He sai~ that mobile homes are large
vehicles and need lots of room for the turning radius.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 36)
313
Mr. Lindstrom asked if a building is planned for this property. Mr.
Batchelor answered, "maybe." He said that if a building is constructed, he
would want that to be at the back of the property because that is where the
work will be going on with the most unattractive of the units. He said he
would not want this work carried on close to Route 29.
Mr. Lindstrom remarked that five acres allows considerable room for the
mobile homes to be maneuvered. He agrees that ten display units are reason-
able, but he is concerned if there are not any restrictions as to where the
others will be located. He said the location of the other units might be
handled with the site plan review, and if the Board could retain the right to
review the site plan, then it would give the Board more flexibility with the
proffers.
Mr. Batchelor responded that if a single 70-foot long unit is displayed
on the front of the property, there has to be approximately 70 feet in back of
the mobile home to get it out of the parking spot, or it will have to be
pulled across the berm. He added that the double-wides are displayed by their
width instead of lengthwise. He pointed out that the number of double-wides
that can be displayed is minimal because of the radius that is needed to get
them out of the parking area. The number of Units that would be in the back
of the display units would also be minimal. ~
Mrs. Cooke asked if the units could be displayed in an angular fashion.
Mr. Batchelor replied that some angle parkinglcould be used. He added,
however, that angle parking takes up more spa~e.
Mrs. Cooke remarked that the Board is concerned that not more than ten
units be displayed on the front of the proper~y, however, the Board is not
telling Mr. Batchelor how they should be parked. She said that if they were
displayed at an angle, the moving radius would be easier to facilitate.
Mr. Batchelor mentioned that there will ~e times when there will only be
two or three units displayed. He also stated .ithat some of the units are very
attractive and have wood siding and shingle rqofs. He said that from a
distance these units cannot be distinguished ~irom a house.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks that the Bo~Yd wants the applicant to have a
reasonable amount of display but does not want
public display. He noted that Mr. Batchelor ~
ability of the units. He asked Mr. Batchelor
his proffer to grant the Board authority to rE
specifications indicating that ten units will
the location of the remaining units would be ~
site plan review. He said that when Mr. Batc]
then the Board can examine the issue of scree~
gate the other units in a meaningful way. He
allow Mr. Batchelor time to examine the situa~
the remainder of the units on
concerned about the maneuver-
if he would consider amending
view the site plan with the
be allowed for display and that
~termined by the Board during
~lor has worked up a site plan
Lng or setback that will segre-
~ointed out that this would
.ion and will not cause the Board
to make a quick decision. He added that this ~ill also allow the Board the
ability to work with Mr. Batchelor in terms of the movement of the units. He
asked if this is agreeable to Mr. Batchelor. 'Mr. Batchelor said he is uncom-
fortable with Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion, but ~he is willing to do it.
At this time, Mr. Bowie amended his motion to include Mr. Lindstrom's
suggestion as the seventh proffer. He asked Mr. Lindstrom to repeat his
suggestion again. Mr. Lindstrom said the condition would be that ten units
would be displayed publicly and the remainder 6f the units would be set back
or screened at the discretion of the Board to be reviewed at the time of the
site plan review.
· Lindstrom s sugg,~stion is totally acceptable to
Mr. Bowling asked if Mr '
the applicant. Mr. Batchelor replied, "yes."
Mr. Bowie told Mr. Batchelor that the Bo~ ~d is not comfortable with the
situation, either, but it is trying to be fair! He said he considers the
Board's action today as a message to the staffi~and Planning Commission. He
said he will not support, in the future, an application where there is not
adequate screening and controls on Route 29 No~th.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 37)
314
Mrs. Cooke then told Mr. Batchelor that it is her intent to work with him
as best she can to facilitate his needs to carry on his business and have
adequate visibility for it. She said the Board is trying to do the best it
can do for the Route 29 corridor.
Mr. Way said that Mr. Batchelor has proffered a Number Seven which states
that no more than ten units will be displayed in front of the property, and
that there will be Board involvement in the site plan review. He asked if Mr.
Bowie had included this information in the seventh proffer of his motion.
Mr. Bowie agreed and stated that the seventh proffer would be added to
the six proffers listed on the September 12, 1989 letter from Dr. Charles
Hurt. He said there was a previous proffer on the use of the land which is
also included in ,his motion.
Mr. Lindstrom said that to make the proffers clearer, it should be noted
that Number One should read that there will be a 50-foot undisturbed buffer.
He said that Proffer Number Three is intended to be a 20-foot parking line
from the right-of-way of Route 29.
Mr. Way asked Mrs. Cooke, as the seconder of the motion, if she agrees
with the added proffer. Mrs. Cooke agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom thanked Mr. Batchelor for his patience and for working with
the Board.
Roll was called and the motion carried by, the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs~. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers, as amended, are set out inifull below:)
1. 50 foot buffer on rear of property; ~!
2. 15 people employment maximum; .~
20 foot parking line from right of way of Route 29 North;
Landscaping berm to be 16 to 20 inches high;.
Plants to be of the azalea type, trees will be street type
(Pinoak, Maple, etc.);
Storage of units to be worked on will be in rear of the property;
I proffer out all the usages except:i mobile home manufacturing,
distribution~ fire and rescue squad Stations; electric, gas, oil
and communication facilities excluding multi-legged tower struc,
tures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and
related facilities for distribution Of local service and owned
and operated by a public utility; wa~er distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations a~d appurtenances owned and
operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority; and public
uses and buildings such as schools, ~ffices, parks, playgrounds
and roads funded, owned or operated ~y local, state or federal
agencies; public water and sewer trahsmission, main or trunk
lines, treatment facilities, pumpingi!stations and the like owned
and/or operated by the Rivanna Water-~and Sewer Authority;
A limit of 10 units to be displayed ~or the public with setback
and screening for the remaining unit~ to be determined at the
Board's discretion during site plan ~eview.
Agenda Item No. 22. Resolution regarding solid waste regulations.
Mr. Agnor explained that the staff is req~esting the Board's support of
the draft of solid waste management regulation: with which the Solid Waste
Task Force has been involved. He said the Stale is conducting a hearing in
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 38)
315
City Council Chambers on September 20, 1989. The Task Force has reviewed some
of the proposed regulations and has asked the City Council and the Board of
Supervisors to support the recommendations that respond to the State regula-
tions. The Task Force is requesting that the Mayor of Charlottesville and the
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors combine their efforts and make a presen-
tation at this hearing on September 20. Because this Board has a meeting on
that night, Mr. Way will be unable to be involved at that time. Mr. Agnor
then described what the resolution involved.
Mr. Bowie said he does not think the Board can be too specific at this
point, since this is the first opportunity it has had to express concern with
solid waste management regulations. He believes that the resolution briefly
says what should be stated at this time.
Mr. Bain said he believes that the individual localities in the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District will make their own con~nents as well as TJPDC. He
thinks the resolution applauds the State for what it has done relative to
solid waste management, and he believes that the resolution expresses the
concerns that the City, County and TJPDC have had'. He feels that the burden
for solid waste management will fall on the State and regional agencies rather
than individual localities, and he thinks that the statement is general enough
to allow for concerns to be expressed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the
following resolution of support. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messr~ Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
WHEREAS, the State Department of WaSte Management is conducting a
hearing regarding the draft regulations for the Development of Waste
Management Plans; and
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Task Force,has reviewed the proposed
regulations and prepared comments and'recommendations;
BE IT, THEREFORE, RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that it supports those recommendations and
comments attached hereto, i
Agenda Item No. 15. ZTA-89-08. Great Eastern Management. Request to
amend Section 10.2.2, Uses by Special Use Permit in the Rural Areas District
of the Zoning Ordinance to add the following: "Expansion of existing uses in
other districts adjacent to the Rural Areas district into the Rural Areas
district and/or into the setback adjacent to the Rural Areas district" (appli-
cant requests deferral to October 18, 1989).
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and s~conded by Mrs. Cooke to defer
this item to October 18, 1980, at the request ~f the applicant.
Roll was called and the motion carried byi~the following recorded vote:
AYES: lqr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Not Docketed: It was decided that the discussion regarding Route 29
North should continue at the work session scheduled for September 20, 1989, at
3:30 P.M.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that the staff analyze two other screen lines. Mr.
Cilimberg responded that all of the screen lin~s have been noted that are
available to the staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked i~ the staff could draw its own
screen lines. Mr. Cilimberg answered, "no." ~e said the staff would have to
have access to the model to establish scre~rt l~nes. At this point, only the
consultant has access to the model.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 39)
316
Mr. Lindstrom said a screen line is needed south of Rio Road. He thought
the traffic count was already done, so the line could be drawn to show which
lines would be crossed under each alternative. He added that another screen
line is needed to represent the north/south section of the road east of Ivy
Road on Route 250 so that this section of Route 250 could be studied under
each of the alternatives. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff will check to see what
is available as far as traffic counts to other points of the road.
Agenda Item No. 18. Revised Personnel Policies. Due to lack of time,
this item was moved to the September 20, 1989, work session.
Agenda Item No. 19. Meeting with School Staff in Rooms 5/6. At 3:01
P.M., the Board recessed and moved to Room 5 for a demonstration of systems
and equipment available to improve education through technology. The Board
reconvened back in Room 7 at 4:24 P.M.
Mr. Way said the School Division has requested funds for the Educational
Technology program just described to the Board.
Mr. Agnor referred to a memorandum dated ~September 6, 1989, from Mr. Andy
Overstreet, which indicates that the School Board is requesting $100,000 from
School carry-over funds from 1988-89 for the one-time purchase of equipment
for the Educational Technology Program.
Mr. Overstreet explained that the School ~Division decided to upgrade its
~edia Services Department to the Department of~ Instructional Technology and
~edia Services. He said this upgrading was not done last year during the
budget cycle so there was not an opportunity t6 put it into the routine budget
for consideration. There is a need for starter funds for certain activities,
and there is money available for these activities because of the surplus from
last year. He noted that $360,000 has been set aside from last year for the
operational budget for this year, and he believes that at least this much more
money is available to the school system. He w6uld like to target the $100,000
that is being requested for the Educational TeChnology Program.
Mr. Bain asked how the $100,000 that wil!~be received over a period of
years from the State will relate to the purchase of the equipment. Mr.
Overstreet replied that the State assisted the'~County with electronic class-
rooms and putting computers into the middle sehools. He said these are
entirely different activities, and there is n~iirequirement by the State that
the money received be matched by the County. !~r. Overstreet said there is no
State involvement in this beginning effort of i~he Department of Instructional
Technology. He said it is totally a local effort.
Mr. Bowie called attention to the final n~tion relating to surplus funds
during approval of the 1989-90 budget. He sa~d approval was given for the
schools to receive $350,000 and all of the reset of the money would go into the
Capital Improvement Program, not only for the school system, but also for the
general government.
Mr. Agnor said the school surplus was approximately $800,000 of which
$300,000 had been allocated for the operating budget, $79,000 had been
reappropriated for carryover expense.s and there was a net of unallocated
school funds of approximately $460,000.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is a portion ~f the money that was supposed
to go back into the capital program. Mr. Bowi~ answered that Mr. Lindstrom is
correct. ~
Mr. Agnor next explained that the unaudited fund balance is $843,989, an
increase over last year's ending fund balance 9~f $623,000. He said this is a
combination of revenues exceeding estimates an~ expenditures being less than
appropriations ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the $843,989 includes the excess for both the
schools and general government. Mr. Agnor replied, "no." He said the
$843,989 is the excess only for the schools. ~e said the school system
started the fiscal year of 1988-89 with $220,0010 that was a surplus, and none
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 40)
317
of it was used. He said this past June, $620,000 was added to this amount.
He reiterated that the General Fund is separate from that. He reminded the
Board members that they had reappropriated approximately $79,000 for the
schools which comes out of this fund balance. He believes that $300,000 was
placed in this budget year for the schools' operational needs and was approved
in the budget cycle. He said that when these two allocations are.taken out of
the $843,989 end of the year balance, there is still approximately $460,000
unobligated. He added that this amount is unaudited, so there may be some
slight adjustments.
Mr. Bowie asked if, according to the motion approved by this board, the
$460,000 should be referred for use in the Capital Improvement Program. Mr.
Agnor answered, "yes." He said that another $350,000 came from what was to be
allocated originally to the capital budget from the School Fund balance. He
said that a year ago when the Board was planning to use carryover funds from
the School Fund and the General Fund to help finance capital needs, it was
projected that $350,000 would come from the School Fund. During the budget
cycle, when the Board was trying to find ways~to fund the operating budget,
the $350,000 was earmarked for operations, and it was decided that there would
not be anything left for the capital funds. }towever, if there was anything
left, after that money was allocated for operational needs, then it would go
to the capital fund. He said that if $350,000 had been originally planned for
the capital fund, then it is available, and i~ $100,000 is needed for the
Technology Program, it is available, also. Hq said this would cut the School
Fund balance down to between $10,000 and $14,000.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when all of the balance over this request would be
eliminated. Mr. Agnor responded that the County has never gotten to this
point. He said the funds have always been le~t as a School Fund operating
balance and used only if there was a need.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not realize th~ significance of this request in
relation to the position that the Board took ~uring the budget cycle. He was
very concerned, at the time that the budget was adopted, that money would be
taken out of the carryover balance for operations. He wonders whether there
would be $350,000 left if the $100,000 is all~Cated for the Technology Pro-
gram, and he thinks the $350,000 of the $450,~00 should be acted on by this
Board and put into the capital budget. He mi~t be willing to consider
funding the $100,000 for this program or anything else that is needed~ but he
does not think the $350,000 should be left wh~e it is now, because it will be
spent. He said it is not that money is being ?~.spent for programs that are not
important, but that there has been a tremendous overage in terms of the amount
of expenditures that is needed for the school ~system. Today the Board author-
ized the $13,500,000 bond issue, and there wi}~ be considerably more building
expense in the school system. He said that ma~ey must be put into the capital
budget for non-school items or the County wil~!inever have funds available for
other important issues. He is reluctant to a~thorize this expenditure based
on where this money is coming from, and he thinks the capital budget needs to
be taken seriously.
Mr. Agnor said that normally the transfe~ to the Capital Fund would occur
once there was an audited figure, and it is certain the money is available.
Mr. Agnor said, however, he is certain this m0~ey is available even without
the audited figure.
Mr. Lindstrom said he wants to make it cli~ar that the balance should go
to the capital fund.
Mr. Perkins questioned if the reference t~ two middle schools, under Item
"D" of the technology spending list, was correct. Mrs. Mary King replied that
some of the priorities have changed since the ~ist was made. She said that
everything on the list was requested, but ther~ are some other innovative
programs that should be listed under Item-D. ~he said that other requests
came in after the list was presented to the School Board.
Mr. Bain said he is concerned that the school year is beginning without
anybody knowmng how many new teachers wmll be ~eeded. Maybe the school system
needs $100,000, he said, but it may be more important to use the money else-
where rather than for this program. He does n~t know if now is the time to
appropriate the money or if it would be better to wait for another month.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 41)
318
Mr. Bowie commented that when the school budget was passed there was a
list of critical unfunded needs, yet the first-request is not for anything on
that list. He noticed in the newspaper that there is one teaching position
still unfilled, but the article indicated that there was not enough money to
anyone for the position. He noted that this $100,000 is enough money for
several teaching positions. With all of these critical needs, the first
request that has come before this Board is for the Technology Program. He
said he does not understand the timing or the priorities of the school system.
Mr. Lindstrom said he knows that there will be a lot of good arguments in
favor of this request, but he feels that the Board should put this $350,000
into the capital budget. He said there is $100,000 left over, if the schools
want to spend it on the Technology Program. If they want to wait and think
about it, that is permissible, also. He feels that if the $450,000 is taken
away from the School Division, it may look like a signal to the school system
that it is not an advantage to manage money well because it is spent on things
that do not relate to schools. He believes that the school system is honest.
He said the school system did well at managing money, but did not use it for
known capital program needs. He added that there was $63,000,000 projected
for capital needs by the schools' long range committee over the next ten years
plus $13,500,000 that has already been approved. He said this is not coming
out of the capital budget, but from VPSA bond.~iissues. He noted that the bond
issues cost the County a considerable amount 9if money that is not available in
the operating budget, and he pointed out that?all of this' money is targeted
only for schools. When he considers the mone~ that is needed for parks,
recreational areas, road improvements and rescue vehicles, he is concerned
because no consideration has been given to funding these important items.
Because of this, he believes that the $350,00~ has to go into the capital
budget. He said, though, that he is willing ~o let the schools decide how the
$100,000 will be spent, but he does not think~jthat it is fair to approve this
amount today. Nor does he want to leave the 6~ther $350,000 where it is, and
have the school system come back to the Board ~with requests for other pro-
grams.
Mr. Bowie said the only way he will suppdrt the school system's request
is with the proviso that whatever is left after this request is funded will be
put into the capital budget. He hopes that this action can be taken at
today's meeting. He said that he will not support this request unless he gets
the Superintendent's assurance that nothing e~e will be said relating to lack
of funds for teacher employment.
Mr. Overstreet apologized to the Board m+bers for putting them in this
position. He said he misunderstood about the ~und balance. He knew that last
, approximately $300,000 surplus had to bel!'developed to help fund the
operational side of the budget this year. He ~dded that perhaps too many
programs were curtailed last year, and too muc~ surplus was generated. He
said he has not seen the final reports yet, but in conjunction with additional
revenue, there is probably some revenue beyondT~the level that was projected.
His mistake was thinking that anything beyond ii-he $350,000 could, if needed,
be targeted back to the schools at some time i~ the future. He said he would
have brought this request forward, if he l~d understood the Board's motion
correctly. He wanted to clarify that this pre'ram is a one-time expenditure
and would not inflate further the operations b~dget. When this item came
before the School Board, he said, the School B~ard was also concerned about
any unprojected or crisis issues that might oc~ur this fall, particularly
relating to enrollment, which might be conside.~ed operational type expendi-
tures, such as teaching positions. He said this past Monday, the opening
count of students was completed, and the enrollment increased, but the
increase is approximately 160 students less than the projected enrollment.
Resources are now being shifted to accommodate*!the enrollment.
Mr. Bowie asked if the statement in the newspaper relating to the school
system having the need for one addltmonal teacher could be accommodated by
shifting teachers. Mr. Overstreet replied tha~ teachers can be shifted and
teacher aides used. According to School Boardi~guidelines, higher loads of
students can be accommodated, if more adults a~e included in the ratio. In
some cases where there are overloads of students, it would not be useful to
assign a teacher because there may be no space, to put another class. In
situations such as this, combination classes a~d aides are used. He said that
ten trailers have been assigned to the schools~ and these are some of the
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 42)
319
adjustments that he believes can be made. He added that sometimes it is not
desirable to make such changes after school begins, but this community has
considerable mobility and transient movement, and it is something that has to
be expected and something that cannot be done the first day of school. He
said it takes several weeks for the enrollment to settle down, which is the
same with the bus routes. He said there werepeople at the School Board
meeting this week who were concerned that, in some cases,, there are three
students to a bus seat. These people would Prefer two students to a seat, and
would like to see quicker routes. He said all of these things cost money: to
discontinue combination runs with the middle and high schools would cost
approximately $1,700,000. He said that when he mentions that the school
system can accommodate these adjustments, it does not necessarily mean that
this is what Board members will hear from their constituents, because some of
them have a different level of expectation and one which a few thousand
dollars will not accommodate. He thinks that the school system is ready and
able to handle the adjustments, particularly in view of the fact that the
school system was geared for approximately 370 new students and are 160
students short of that figure.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Overstreet if he would rather consider this
request again or ask the Board to approve thiS request, with the understanding
that the $350,000 is to be put into the capit~l budget. Mr. Overstreet said
he did not realize that this request was coming before the Board today because
his major concern was to get the enrollment data to the School Board so that
problems could be solved and adjustments made.. He said the adjustments amount
mostly to distribution problems.
Mr. Lindstrom said that probably the best thing to do is to take action
on the $350,000 and defer action on the $100,000 so that the School Board can
consider this. request again, in light of the fact that there is not a $450,000
surplus. !~
Mr. Overstreet agreed that the school year is just beginning and there
may be other needs. He said there was no problem, as far as the school system
is concerned, if the Board does not act on the request at today's meeting. He
apologized again for misunderstanding the final outcome of the budget motions.
Mr. Way said he remembers very clearly that the first motion, prior to
the final motion, indicated that all of the surplus be allocated back to the
school system. He added that he was surprised that Mr. Bain put the proviso
in the final motion, although he supported
Mr. Bowie said these motions were part of~ a reading assignment last week,
and that is why he remembered them so well. ~e also commented that Mr.
Overstreet made an excellent response to his questions and concerns. He said
it would be helpful if the school staff would ~eport the same type of informa-
tion as Mr. Overstreet instead of indicating that money is not available for
teaching positions. He thinks that, if there ~s no hurry concerning this
request, the School Board may want to reconsider it. He believes that the
$350,000 must go into the capital budget. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the money can be p~t into the capital budget at
today's meeting. Mr. Agnor responded that a p~blic hearing is not needed to
allocate this surplus to the capital budget, b~cause it is simply a transfer
of funds between the General Fund and the SchoOl Fund.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and s~conded by Mr. Bain to transfer
$350,000 from the School Fund to the Capital F~nd and defer action on Mr.
Overstreet's request until the School Board ha~ had time to re-evaluate the
request. ~'
Roll was called and the motion carried by~,the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs,! Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~?
Mr. Way explained that the motion implies~.that the balance of approxi-
mately $100,000 is available for the school system to use as it wishes. Mr.
Agnor pointed out that the $100,000 will have go be appropriated to the school
system.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 43)
32
Mr. Lindstrom said it should be made clear that, when the appropriation
of that money comes before the Board, it should be earmarked for whatever the
School Board wants to use it for. He said he was sorry that all of the
surplus could not be given back to the school system if it was expected. He
added that he did not favor the compromise reached when the motions were made,
because he did not think that any funds should be put into the operational
budget.
Mr. Bowie said he would be inclined to support any request that the
school system has regarding the $100,000 because he thinks that there should
be a reason to save money.
Mr. Lindstrom said the credibility of th~ schools, regarding budget
matters, is going to be enhanced in the futur~ by the fact that 'there was a
budget surplus this year.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Technology Program is very important,
however, he has heard rumors of equipment being ordered, particularly through
federal grants, and not ever used. He hopes this is not what will happen
here. He thinks the Board would be fooling i~self if it thinks that no more
equipment would be needed in the future. He believes that this type of
equipment can lead to more effective teaching~methods, and perhaps the number
of teachers could be decreased, because there'iis a possibility that one
teacher could teach many more students.
Agenda Item No. 24. Discussion: Proffered Zoning Legislation. The
consensus of the Board was to move this item t.o the September 20, 1989, work
session. It was also agreed that the work session should begin at 3:00 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 25. Discussion: Highwa~ Corridor Design and Protection.
This item was also moved to the September 20, :!989, work session.
Agenda Item No. 26. Appointments.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke concurring
with the reappointment of Mr. James Butler to the At-Large Directorship of the
Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation ~istrict.
Roll was called and the motion carried by~ the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs: Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint
Police Chief John Miller to the unexpired term'of Frank Johnstone on the James
River Alcohol Safety Action Program Board, said term to expire on January 8,
1992. ,,!
Roll was called and the motion carried by':the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to appoint Tom
Trevillian to the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals for a term to expire
on November 21, 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrsl Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 27. Report: Green Belt Committee.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 44)
321
Mr. Bowie said he was invited to the Green Belt Committee meeting by the
City Director of Planning because the two of them were on the Rivanna Park
Committee. He said the purpose of the meeting was to try to have some recog-
nition of the Rivanna River as more than normal property, and he stated that
the Committee was named for the green belt along the river. He said there
have been two meetings and that members of the Committee include one member of
the Board of Supervisors, the chairman of the Planning Commission, the Direc-
tor of Parks, and the Deputy County Executive plus like members from the City.
He feels this is too much involvement for the issues, and he thinks that the
Director of Parks and the Director of Planning can bring forth some recommen-
dations as normal staff work. He does not think, however, that this level of
staff effort should be disrupted to go to these committee meetings, and he
suggested that the County revert to normal staff procedure. He said he wanted
to let the Board know that the Committee had been formed and that the gremn
belt area relates only from the Rivanna Park to the Woolen Mills area. He
said he would like the green belt expanded bolthe Reservoir to the north and
out to Milton on the south. He said this idea is included in the Comprehen-
sive Plan. He remarked that Mr. Cilimberg has informed him that an intern can
start gathering material to make an overlay, so that as rezoning requests are
received, the Board will know where the green~belt is desired. He said the
Board does not need to take any action except~to authorize the hiring of the
intern. He went on to say that his first rec6mmendation is that a joint
committee not be formed to study the green belt because he thinks that the
staff can handle it. Secondly, he recommendsi~that an intern be hired to study
the area from Milton to the Reservoir.
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the staff isilgetting some information from
the University of Virginia that will be available for an intern to use as a
basis for the area from the Rivanna Reservoirlto Milton.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke stating that a
Board appointed committee is not necessary; ahd that the work of the Green
Belt Committee be expanded to cover the area ~om the South Fork Rivanna
Reservoir to Milton; and that an intern be used to gather information on
expansion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 28. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public and Board members.
Mr. Agnor said the Solid Waste Task Force has been meeting for three
months and has a target date of November for its work to be finished. He said
the function of a waste management plan will ~nvolve recycling as one compo-
nent. He added that the State Waste Management Office has grants available
for localities to help start their recycling ~rogram to meet the percentages
of the State's solid waste management regulati!ons for the next several years,
and they are not local match grants. He also .?~exPlained that the State grant
appl~catmon has to be sent back to the State ~efore Frzday of this week. He
said that the Task Force has asked the Cxty Co~unc~l and thms Board to adopt a
resolution, which he distributed to the Board~ The resolution authorizes the
staff to proceed with the application for the ~rant.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and Seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt
the resolution as presented and set out belowi:'~ Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote: ":
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs[ Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None. ~
WHEREAS, there is a demonstrated ne~ for the County to reduce
the amount of refuse taken to the Ivy Landfill; and
WHEREAS, the Solid Waste Task Force ~as preliminarily recommended
recycling to reduce the amount of commercial and residential refuse
for disposal, and the Commonwealth of Virginia has mandated localities
to achieve a recycling rate of 10 percenti~by July, 1991; and
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 45)
322
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of~Waste Management has made
available a grant (Recycling Demonstration Grant) in the amount of
$40,000, with no local match required, to implement recycling programs
which will assist localities in achieving the projected recycling
rate; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and City of Charlottesville will
join in an application for such grant, with the City being the fiscal
agent;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County supports a joint appli-
cation with the City of Charlottesville for a Recycling Demonstration
Grant in the amount of $40,000, and authorizes the County Executive to
take whatever steps are necessary to apply for such grant, with the
City as a co-applicant, on or before the application deadline.
Mr. Agnor said the grant will be spent to develop a pilot program for
commercial and apartment complex recycling. He said there is no data that
indicates what commercial recycling does for communities. He stated that half
of the waste going into the Ivy Landfill originates from commercial sources.
He said that the Board would be getting more information on this pilot program
in November.
Mr. Bowie commented that last Wednesday ~ight he was driving home on
Route 250 and was surrounded by a high speed ~olice chase. He said the
suspect was caught with a car full of stolen goods. He said he was very
impressed with the driving skills and the ability of the County police offi-
cers and the consideration for the safety fore'the civilians. He has written a
letter to the Chief of Police which described ~verything that he saw, and his
reaction to it, and he is distributing a copy!~f the letter to this Board for
its information. He said there were at leasti~wo other police jurisdictions
involved in the chase, and he has asked that ~hese jurisdictions also receive
copies of his letter.
Mr. Perkins commented that he has been reading the press release from the
House of Delegates about the Commission Studying Local Infrastructures and
Revenue Resources, which will hold its first public hearing on September 26,
1989. He asked if this Board should have someDne speak to this issue. Mr.
Agnor responded that the legislative liaison i~ tracking the Commission's
findings, and she is going to ask for some support when she learns more about
the process.
Mr. Bain said this issue was discussed when Ms. Hogshire appeared before
the TJPDC last week. He said she gave a presentation that described the
actions of the Commission. He explained that ghe Commission is just starting
the process, and does not anticipate any action with the 1990 General Assem-
bly. He said this was the first public hearin~ that the Commission has held.
Mr. Perkins asked if Ms. Hogshire could mike comments at a Board meeting.
Mr. Agnor replied that Ms. Hogshire would addrgss the Board on the Commis-
sion's work if the Board so desires.
Mr. Way asked if the concern is that the Public hearing will be held
before this Board meets again. Mr. Agnor repl~ed,,, that the public hearing
would not be held until September 26, 1989.
Mr. Perkins said he believes that if the County is ever going to get any
other sources of tax revenues, then work has to begin now.
Mr. Bain commented that the taxation and ~nnexation issues are being
combined. He said that draft legislation will i~be submitted to the General
Assembly at its next session.
September 13, 1989 (Regular Meeting)
(Page 46)
323
Agenda Item No. 29. Adjourn to September 20, 1989.
At 5:13 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to adjourn to September 20, 1989, at 3:00 P.M. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooker Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
CHAIRMAN