1988-12-07December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(?age 1)
51
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, Was held on December 7, 1988, at 7:30 P.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, 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. John T. P. Horne, Director of
Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:31 P.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 Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the items of information on the Consent
Agenda with the exception of Item 4.9 which is to be discussed with Agenda
Item No. 15. 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.
Item 4.1. Memorandum dated November 14, 1988, from Lynn G. Hudson and
Earl J. Shiflet, Department of Waste Management, re: Award of Excellence to
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean CommunitylCommission, was received as
information. The letter stated that Keep Virginia Beautiful and the Virginia
Department of Waste Management's Division of Litter Control and Recycling
announce that the local litter prevention and recycling program earned an
Award of Excellence in the 1988 Governor's Clean Virginia Awards Program. The
Award of Excellence is the top category of recognition in this statewide
program. ~
Mr. Way congratulated CAC3 for receivingi~the Award of Excellence.
Item 4.2. Letter dated November 16, 1988, from Carl A. Leibl, Centel,
re: Cox~unication Tower Strobe Light, received as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of November 1O, 1988, concerning the
Communication Tower Strobe Light. ~
I am pleased to report that we also had received some of the same
concerns and have been working with a nu~ber of folks to determine
what could be done to lessen the impact ~his light would have on the
community, since this is an FAA requirem~t for this tower.
We are pleased that we were able to screen the bottom 30 percent of
the Strobe Light for the full 360 degreeS. Hopefully this will be
acceptable by all parties who found it objectionable."
Item 4.3. Letter dated November 16, 198~i, from Charles L. Conyers and
George H. Irby, Department of Education, addressed to N. A. Overstreet,
Division Superintendent, re: Approval of EGIA Chapter 1, Migrant Education
grant for fiscal year 1989, received as information. The letter noted that a
grant for fiscal year 1989 was approved in the amount of $30,736.53.
52
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 4.4. Albemarle-Charlottesville Joint Security Complex Financial
Statements for the year ended June 30, 1988, as prepared by Robinson, Farmer,
Cox Associates, accompanied by letter dated November 8, 1988, from Irvin J.
Farmer, Jr., Certified Public Accountant (copy on file in Clerk's office),
received as information.
Item 4.5. County of Albemarle Juvenile and Domestic Relations District
Court report on audit for the year ended June 30, 1988, accompanied by a
letter dated November 14, 1988, from the Auditor of Public Accounts (copy on
file in Clerk's office), was received as information.
Item 4.6. Report on Audit of Commonwealth Revenues of Melvin A. Breeden,
Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, as of June 30, 1988,
accompanied by letter dated September 14, 1988, from the Auditor of Public
Accounts (copy on file in Clerk's office), was received as information.
Item 4.7. Letter dated November 28, 1988, from E. C~ Cochran, Jr., State
Location and Design Engineer, Highway Department, re: Approval of spot
improvements at intersections of Route 631, SPCA Road (Route 659), revised
plan for intersection of Route 631 and Penn Park Road (Route 678), and Agnese
Street, received as follows:
"I would like to take this opportunity to advise that~ the Common-
wealth Transportation Board of Virginia at its meeting on November 19,
1988, approved the location and major design features of these
projects in accordance with the plan as proposed and presented at
the public hearing for the proposals of the intersections of Agnese
Street and SPCA Road (Route 659), and the revised plan for the
intersection of Penn Park Road (Route .
768) which wou~ reduce the
impact on abutting properties as much as practical."
Item 4.8. Letter dated November 28, 1988, from Delegate George F. Allen,
re: Sunset Clause for the Fire Programs, was received. M~. Allen said he
dmrectly to
would like a greater percentage of the funds to go ' ~ the fire
departments, however, if the funding allocation stays the same, he will
support a continuation of the funding program. He does n0~ want anymore funds
than are necessary to be allocated to "administration".
Item 4.9. Memorandum dated November 30, 1988, from G~y B. Agnor, Jr.,
County Executive, re: Pro3ect~ons of FY 89-90 Local RevenMes. Mr. Bowie
asked that this item be discussed with Agenda Item No. 15.~
Item 4.10. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments for the Month
of October, 1988, was received as information. ~
Item 4.11. A copy of Planning Cox~ission's minutes f~r November 15 and
November 22, 1988, was received as information.
Item 4.12. Memorandum dated December 1, 1988, from Gqy B. Agnor, Jr.,
County Executive, with accompanying report: Engineering D~partment
Policy/Procedure, Virginia Marine Resources Commission, wa~'received as
information.
Item 4.13. Copy of letter dated November 10, 1988, f~om Mayor Elizabeth
B. Waters, City of Charlottesville, to Secretary of Transportation Vivian
Watts, re: Resolution related to the Route 29 North Environmental Impact
Statement, was received as follows:
"On November 7, 1988, the Charlottesville City Council~!passed the
(attached) resolution related to the U.S. 29 North Environmental
Impact Statement. Our purpose in doing this was not [6 express
support for any particular alternative, but to be surelthe study
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
models and examines all options that need to be considered including
the 'Base Case' as it is defined in the CAT Study with grade sepa-
rated interchanges at Rio Road and Hydraulic Road.
We recognize the Department of Transportation considers interchanges
to be a design feature but in our view the 'design' choice at the
Rio Road and Hydraulic Road interchanges may dramatically affect the
level of service the base case provides. We believe the model needs
to be run to evaluate the performance of the Base Case with, as well
as without, grade separated interchanges. The grade separated
interchanges are part of our officially adopted CAT Study and we
want to be able to see how that alternative measures up to all the
other options.
It seems to me this is a relatively modest request given the over-
all size, cost and importance of this endeavor. Thank you for any
assistance you can provide."
Agenda Item No. 5. Certificates of Appreciation. Certificates were
presented to Howard Allen and Karen Hayden; and in absentia to Regina Withers,
Leo Clawson and David Morris.
Mr. Way recognized Mr. Allen and Mr. Morris for their eight years of
service on the Piedmont Virginia Community Coilege Board. During that time
13,000 square feet were added to the main buiilding, expanding the Library and
Learning Laboratory facilities; another 26,000 square feet were added in 1987,
to provide laboratory and classroom space for the College's technical pro-
grams; in 1987 also a new art gallery, staff lounge, fitness room, and coun-
seling offices were added. New programs in eiectronics and computer-aided
drafting were added as well. The student population has grown to over 7,400
students during the 1987-88 academic year. Approximately ten percent are
minority students with almost 1,700 from Albemarle County enrolled in the fall
of 1987. Mr. Allen also served as Vice-Chairman of the PVCC Board, and
because of the efforts of these men tremendous progress has been made at PVCC.
Mr. Way expressed the Board's gratefulness to, Mr. Allen for giving his time
and expertise.
Next, Mr. Way said Mrs. Hayden has served:~as a member of the Library Board
for eight years. She has chaired the Personnel Committee on a number of
occasions during that time. She represented ~he Crozet area primarily and was
most instrumental in getting the Crozet Libraiy moved to its new location in
the old depot building. The Friends of the Jefferson/Madison Regional Library
invited her to continue and sustain her suppoyt by serving as the newly
elected secretary on their Board. He thanked Mrs.Hayden for her dedication
and service.
Mr. Way recognized Ms. Withers for serving on the Social Services Board
and for serving as the Chairman for the past ~hree and one-half years.
He said Leo Clawson has been a member off'the Social Services Board as
well. He has especially served as a "watchdog" for the poor and disabled.
Mr. Way said those recognized in absentia, would receive their certifi-
cates by mail.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-88-69. Richard Thomsen, Jr. (deferred from
November 16, 1988).
To summarize from the November 16, meeting, Mr. Home sai-d the intent of
the special permit is to allow the division of*Parcel 27 (in Reveille Subdivi-
sion) into two lots. The proposal by the applicant is a transfer of a devel-
opment right from Parcel 13, located outside o~ Reveille Subdivision, to
Parcel 27. The staff recommended that this noi~ be viewed in the context
proposed by the applicant, but be viewed as aniadditional development right on
Parcel 27. Action on the special permit was dAferred by the Board based on
some ~erbal statements made by Mr. Thomsen in Chat he was willing to proffer,
or voluntarily comply with, the condition that! the special permit would limit
the development of Parcels 13, 13A and 12 to s6mewhat less than what could be
done by-right.
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
Mr. Home said the staff had analyzed a proposal made by Mr. Thomsen at
the previous Board meeting concerning a possible limitation on development of
three existing parcels north of the Reveille Subdivision. The staff under-
stood from conversations with Mr. Thomsen that he would agree to limiting the
development of these parcels as a condition of approval of SP-88-69, which
would allow one additional lot to be created from Lot 11 within the Reveille
Subdivision. The staff can verify that six to eight dwellings could be
constructed on the three parcels in question. In the opinion of the staff,
Parcel 13 can have five structures built on it and Parcel 13A can have one
structure built on it. The final verification of a legal building site on the
portion of Tax Map 27A that had been combined with Parcel~13 with its one
development right, and on the parcel shown as owned by Henry G. Jones, is less
certain. A plat was submitted to subdivide Parcels 13 and 13A. The only
change to this proposed plat would be that the Henry G. Jones property would
be divided between the proposed Lot 1 and the proposed Lot 2. It would appear
that Mr. Thomsen is offering a condition that would eliminate between two and
four dwellings that could be constructed on these parcels. Mr. Thomsen has
told the staff that he has the control of the Henry G. Jones parcel. The
Board may wish to require verification of that fact if it considers accepting
this proposed condition of approval.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how everything is tied together. Mr. Horne said the
Board could put a condition on SP-88-69 that there shall be no more than four
dwelling units built on Tax Map 72, Parcels 12, 13 and 13A~ Mr. Lindstrom
said the Board would, in exchange for relinquishing three to four development
rights on Parcels 12, 13 and 13A, by special permit, create a new lot as there
is no existing development right on Parcel 27. Mr. Horne Said that is correct.
Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Horne's recommendation on this new proposal.
Mr. Horne said his original recommendation in the staff report remains the
same. He does believe this new information somewhat softehs the effect of a
precedent for going outside of the site of the special per~lt and limiting
development in one parcel in order to accommodate development in another
parcel. He is not certain that eight lots would in fact b.e created out of
these lots, even if, in theory, it could be done. Mr. Lin~strom asked if any
deed restrictions were proposed so as to prevent Mr. Thomsen or a subsequent
owner from coming back and requesting a rezoning. Mr. Hor~.e said no.
Mr. Richard Thomsen, the applicant, said the parcel a~ross the road at
the easternmost end of the lot was examined previously by ~r. Jeff McDaniel,
of the Health Department, who determined that although the~'.ilot was not an
ideal building site, it did have an area on it for a septi6 field. In addi-
tion, the development right that came with that lot is sti~l allowable in
Reveille Subdivision. The subdivision could still be divi~ied into several
12 is presently under contract and a deed ha~ been drawn and
lots.
Parcel
signed. ~
With respect to Parcel 12, Mr. Lindstrom asked if the iPlanning staff has
a normal procedure to determine that the applicant has con~rol over properties
he proposes for a special permit or rezoning. Mr. Horne rE
Parcel 12 was not originally a part of this proposal. The
therefore, did not require that verification. Mr. Thomsen
contract'on Parcel 12 and has no problem with the Board ma~
tion of the special permit. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks
evidence of a contract if the request is approved.
plied yes, but
Planning staff,
said he has a
lng that a condi-
~ere should be some
Mr. Bain said, because of the unusual conditions, he does not think that
approval of this special permit would set a. precedent. He ~an support allow-
ing the additional lot on Parcel 27, knowing that there wil~l be a reduction in
use of the property that adjoins the subject property. He ~hen offered motion
to approve SP-88-69 subject to the two conditions of the st~ff and a third
condition as follows:
1. Subdivision of Tax Map 72, Parcel 27, shall be ink, general
accOrdance with a plat prepared by Tom Lincoln dated
August 2, 1988;
2. Subdivision plat shall be reviewed by Planning
Commission;
3. The Planning Commission to have final plat approval of
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
55
Parcels 12, 13 and 13A and with no more than four lots
being created and so noted on the plat for this particular
subdivision which was identified on documents before the
Board as "Subdivision plat showing ~Lots 1 through 4,
'Reveille II' composed from Parcels 13 and 13A, Tax Map 72
as shown on plat in D. B. 960, P 1234 located at the inter-
section of State Routes 635 and 688 Samuel Miller Magisterial
District, Albemarle County, Virginia," as drawn by Roudabush,
Gale & Assoc., Inc. Mr. Thomsen is to provide proof by
virtue of contract and/or deed, submitted to the Planning
staff, that he has the ability to control the Henry G. Jones
parcel.
Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Bain what he thinks is so unusual about the
request. Mr. Bain said he considered the history of the subdivision. Also,
there would be a reduction in the number of lbts on the property adjoining the
subject property;which~s different from simply transferring development
rights. Mr. Lindstrom said, although it may ~ot have been understood clearly,
the plat for this subdivision was approved with no further development rights
on that parcel. He does not think that approval was intentionally misleading.
That forces him to look at this proposal in the same context, although on a
much smaller scale, as the Blandemar Farm application. The effect is the
same; the Board would be swapping a reduction~on one parcel for an increase on
another parcel. He cannot support that as an across the board precedent in
the County. If the density allowable on one parcel is increased in exchange
for the reduction on another parcel, there n~ds to be some assurance that the
applicant does not come back in another year.pleading hard times and
requesting the Board to then increase the overall density in the rural area.
He has a hard time making a distinction between this application and how
approval would be generally applied in the future.
Mr. Bain said he does not think this apP%ication is the same as the
Blandemar request~ The total density of the Blandemar request was 68 and that
is what was presented to the Board. Mr. Bowi~ said he thinks this request
makes sense and is fair. He would like to poi~nt out that the vote on the
Blandemar request was a 3-3 tie which means t~ere was no decision on support-
ing any transfer. ?i
Mr. Bain asked Mr. Home for some of the:ihistory on this property. Mr.
Horne said his knowledge of the property is secondhand. He understands from
Mr. Thomsen that in 1984, late in the approva~ process, it became clear to the
owners that by providing only one development~right to Parcel 27 the parcel
could not be subdivided; therefore, since a p~rtion of Lot 6 was physically
separated from the rest of the lot by a state,maintained road, it was felt to
be more appropriate to put the development right there instead of leaving it
with the original lot. In essence the owners ~felt that one development right
would provide them the ability to subdivide t~e lot.
There being no further discussion, roll ~as called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 7. Request to consider Roslyn Ridge Subdivision for
connection to the Albemarle County Service Authority public water system
(deferred from November 9, 1988). ~
To refresh the Board's memory, Mr. Home ~aid the property is on the west
side of Hydraulic Road. The subdivision is partially developed. The edge of
the growth area is Hydraulic Road. Roslyn Ridge Subdivision is an area
designated for rural development in the Comprehensive Plan and is currently
zoned RA, Rural Areas. He said it also lies w~thin the watershed of the South
Rivanna River Reservoir. Extension of water or sewer facilities to this
property would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and would be
inconsistent with past actions by the Board to<limit utility extensions into
areas outside of designated growth areas. In the staff's opinion, it would
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
set a very broad-based precedent inconsistent with the overall intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and the rural areas zoning district. Staff recox~ended
denial of the request. The property is to be developed by-right~m~ there has
been no demonstration of any quality or quantity problems of the individual
wells in the area. This request was referred back to thePlanning Commission
to look at, in conjunction, with its consideration of the utility policy with
the new Comprehensive Plan. Based on that policy, the Commission does not
recommend that water be extended to this property because it would not meet
the strategies proposed for designation of jurisdictional areas.
Mr. Horne said in the past, the Board allowed extension of water to a new
RA subdivision (Inglecress), which had very similar circumstances. Essentially
the staff views that as a mistake. The staff is recommending in the new
Comprehensive Plan that the Board set a clear policy on what it will do in the
future, so this is the time for the Board to reverse whatever precedent was
set by that approval. A new process should be started so that only in cases
where the waterline is near or adjacent to the property, or there was a
demonstrated danger to public health would the Board allow public utilities
outside of a growth area. His understanding of the reasons for extension of
service to Inglecress was that the lots had already been divided and could not
be further divided, nor could the subdivision foster addit~ional development,
so it was felt there would be no harm in providing publicwater. If this
service is extended in this instance, the staff feels thatiit would be diffi-
cult to deny access to other people who make similar requests.
Mr. Dennis Rooker, one of the applicants, provided some handouts to the
Board (copies on file in Clerk's office). He thinks any p~ecedent that would
be set would be extremely narrow and more so than past ac~ions by the Board.
Again the reasons for wanting this water is that it is a tremendous conve-
nience for their households, results in lower insurance premiums and provides
better fire protection. Mr. Rooker then summarized the handouts which inclu-
ded an article from the Daily Progress and minutes from p~t meetings of the
Board of Supervisors. When residents are willing to pay f~r the water to
their property, that fosters the goal of providing better ~ire protection. In
comparison,f~ Inglecress is not located within or adjacent~!ito a growth area
and is not surrounded by utilities. As previously ngted, ~oslyn Ridge cannot
be further divided. The adjacent property behind the subd&vision is the Ivy
Creek Natural Area and is not subject to division. To thelilwest is Roslyn
Estates which is not subject to division, nor is the small~arcel to the
north. At present there are seven lots that have been sol~ in the subdivi-
sion. A house was built and is occupied and is already experiencing well
problems. Mr. Rooker mentioned to the Board that water service was extended
to a house off of Georgetown Road because the well used byi~his house actually
supplied three houses and was expensive to keep up. He thinks this request is
in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan and he then read Goal 11 of the Plan.
Although there is adequate precedent for allowing this ext~sion, the primary
reason is that it makes sense.
Mr. Jeff Smith, owner of Lot 2 in Roslyn Ridge, said ~is well has an
adequate flow rate, however he has experienced difficulty Mith the quality of
the water which has required an expensive filtering system.! He is in support
of the request for the other lot owners so that they do no~ have to go thrOugh
what he experienced.
Mr. Rooker, again addressed the Board, said the cost ~or running water to
this subdivision was estimated by the Albemarle County SerVice Authority at
approximately $60,000. The lot owners are willing to sharei in that expense
thus minimizing substantially the expense for any single property owner.
Mr. Way asked how many houses have already been built ~n the subdivision.
Mr. Smith replied two.
Mr. Lindstrom said he knows more of the history on thi~ particular
property than any other Board member. At the time a reques~ came before this
Board to amend a development permit to allow urban density ~evelopment in that
area, several issues ~e~e,,~ed. A determination was made!!ithat~-Bea~zt
~4~ of public wate~'er~V~czc~lge~--~i~m was~%onsistent~!iwith the Comprehen-
sive Plan, and the Bo~%d denie~a site plan for d~velopment.!in this area.
Needless to say, the Board was~romptly taken to court defending its decision
to keep rural densities on tha~property based' solely on th~ Board's ability
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
to refuse the extension of utilities. Although the decision of the Court was
appealed, the Board eventually won the suit. A very significant part of the
federal court's record recited the Board's consistency in defending the
watershed from development and the consistency with which it had dealt with
its policies on public utilities. He has voted against all of the requests
for extension of water with the exception of the one mentioned by Mr. Rooker.
That parcel is very small and was surrounded by developed land.
Mr. Lindstrom said not setting precedents is what has saved the Board in
the past but there are times when a mistake becomes a precedent. These
property owners purchased this land knowing it was zoned Rural Areas. A
report in the Daily Progress this past weekend from a respected environmental
scientist indicated that the reservoir is already exceeding its safe yield
because of the effects of drought, evaporation, sedimentation, etc. That
underlines not only the importance of discouraging development in the water-
shed, but the importance of water as a public commodity. These lots are large
and he is not sure he would vote to extend water to these lots even for a
hardship case. He thinks it would be a tremendous mistake to extend water to
this area. He does not think the Board can afford to take a step to violate
what has been a closely adhered to Board policy.
Mr. Way said he voted for the extension 6f water to Inglecress and he now
thinks it was a mistake. He said these properties in the watershed were
purchased knowing that the utility was not available. He cannot support the
request for extension of water.
Mr. Bowie said he also voted for extension of water service to Ingle-
cress. In most cases the Board is presented with valid reasons for extension
of water service. He cannot see any reason to change the Board's policy.
Mrs. Cooke said she also voted for extension of water to Inglecress. At
the time, it seemed like a good idea and there were some good arguments for
the extension. She thinks the Board must be ~ensitive to the water supply,
taking into consideration protection of the watershed and highway projects if
built in the watershed area which would affec~ the water supply. If extending
water to Inglecress was a mistake, she sees nd reason for repeating that
mistake. She also is not in favor of this re~est. If problems occur, that
is something that will have to be dealt with ~n the future.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom~ seconded by Mr. Bain, to deny
the request. There being no further discussigm, 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. 8. An ordinance to add ~ush Estates Subdivision as an
area where dogs are prohibited from running afl large (deferred from Octo-
ber 21, 1988). Ii
Mr. Alan Rasmussen, an opponent of the proposed ordinance, said he has
talked to some of his neighbors and made an effort to come to an understanding
with them. Some of the people in favor of th~! leash law realized that they
did not have enough signatures for a majority.~ He recommends at this time
that the matter be dropped from the agenda.
Mr. Way noted that there were no proponents for the leash law present.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded ~y Mr. Bowie, to strike the
request from the agenda.
Roll was called and the motion carried by:i the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
Agenda Item No. ~9. ZTA-88-04. David Spradlin. To amend the definition
of "public garage" in the Zoning Ordinance to include a salvage yard for
storage of inoperable vehicles. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
November 22 and November 29, 1988.)
Mr. Horne acknowledged a letter, dated December 6, 1988, from Mr. J.
Benjamin Dick, Attorney for the applicant, addressed to Mr. Horne, requesting
deferral.
Mr. Horne said the representative for Mr. Spradlin has submitted a zoning
text amendment to the RA zone to change the definition of "public garage" by
special permit, the application of the "public garage", a zoning text amend-
ment to LI to allow "junkyards" with the provision to allow a special permit
under LI, and a rezoning to HI. HI is the only current district that would
allow Mr. Spradlin to do what he wants to do. Mr. Horne said the rezoning to
HI is scheduled to come before the Board in February. The intent of the
applicant is to have all of this come together at one time. He would like to
know if the Board wants him to go ahead and process all of these requests at
one time.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested letting all the applications go through the
normal procedures. Mr. Way said he thinks in the long run it would be better
to hear everything at one time and not in bits and pieces.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bain, to defer
ZTA-88-04 to February 15, 1989. Roll was called and the m~tion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-88-71. David Spradlin. To OPerate a public
garage and salvage yard on 5.514 acres, zoned RA. Propert~y located on the
north side of Route 620 about three-fourths mile north of ~the Route 620/728
intersection. Tax Map 104, Parcel 14Fl. Scottsville Dist~ict. (Advertised
in the Daily Progress on November 22 and 29, 1988.)
This request had not been acted on by the Planning Co~mission, therefore,
no action was required by the Board.
Agenda Item No. 11. ZTA-88-05. V. Ross Johnson. To~i~amend Section 27.0,
LIGHT INDUSTRY, LI, of the Zoning Ordinance to include bod~ shop by special
use permit. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 122 and November 29,
1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Public Purpose to be Served: To provide a definitior~ and category
of use to distinguish a body shop from other automobile uses. To
permit a use with nuisance aspects in the nature of industrial types
of uses, within industrial zoning subject to special use permit and
certified engineer's report review and in accordance ~ith supplemen-
tary regulations.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan: Chapter 5 ofi the Compre-
hensive Plan includes:
Light Industry: Includes land occupied by warehousing and light
manufacturing uses which produce some noise, traffic c~ongestion and
dangers but which are of such limited scale or character that they
present no serious hazard to neighboring uses from fir!e, smoke,
noise or odors. Examples include lumber yards, wareho~uses, research
laboratories, bottling plants, bakeries and electronic plants.
Heavy Industry: Includes all land occupied by uses w~ich may be of
a dangerous or nuisance producing character. Such uses include bulk
storage of oil or gas, meat processing, chemical plants, brick
manufacturing plants, scrap metal yards, rock quarries, gravel pits
and junk yards.
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Staff Comments: Staff overlooked a specific provision for body shop
in the development of the present Zoning Ordinance. It was not the
intent to have it included under automobile service station or
automobile, truck repair shops. With no distinctive category of
use, those preceding categories have historically been interpreted
as inclusive of body shops. In addition, they have been permitted
as accessory in the service department of automobile dealers.
According to the Zoning Administrator, the proposed language will
continue to permit the latter.
Under the previous Zoning Ordinance, body and fender work was a
special permit use in the more intensive industrial district equiva-
lent to the present Heavy Industry zoning. A brief survey of other
localities shows major vehicle service and repair by special permit
within the less intensive or general industrial zoning district.
It is the staff's opinion that a body shop is consistent with the
intent of the light industrial uses.
The applicant proposes the additions to definitions, supplementary
regulations, and light industry by special use permit. To reduce
customer traffic, restrict commercial part sales, and limit waste
fluids and the like, mechanical repairs are limited to those inci-
dental and necessary to the body work.
Staff recommends amendment to the proposed Supplementary Regula-
tions, to delete the first sentence. With the exception of odor,
the other listed nuisance aspects of the ~use are regulated by the
certified engineer's report and the site~.iplan regulations. Section
4.14 outlines performance standards for ~oise, vibration, glare, air
and water pollution, radioactivity and e~ectrical interference.
Odor ~s a nuzsance factor not easzly meaS~ured mn standard terms, and
is not a typical problem with body shops~ The suggested language
bases compliance on an individual's perception rather than standards
of measurement, as the performance standards do. The site plan
ordinance addresses the storage of waste ~products in terms of water
pollution and of screening objectionable i?features. Staff recommends
additional language to limit the areas fdr vehicles awaiting repair
to those locations designated on the sit~ plan."
Mr. Horne noted that in the proposed language in Section 5.1.31, BODY
SHOP, Subsection (b) in the last sentence the i~ord "designed" should be
"designated".
Mr. Home said the Planning Commission, ~t its meeting on November 15,
1988, unanimously recommended approval of thi~ zoning text amendment, by
adding a definition for body shop in Section ~.0; by adding 5.1.31, Body Shop,
to Supplementary Regulations in Section 5.0; and by adding Section 27.2.2.11,
as a use by special use permit in the Light I~dustrial zone.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Fred ~ayne, representing the appli-
cant, said the applicant wanted this body shop to be as unobjectionable and as
restrictive as possible. The applicant has no problem with the staff's
recommendation. The applicant has attempted to eliminate concerns as they
come up. Ail work is to be done from inside tlhe shop, none from outside. The
vehicles awaiting repair will be out of sight from any public road or residen-
tial property. It is also the intent that in ~he review of the special
permit, performance standards and site plan, nothing in these Supplemental
Regulations is intended to limit the effect of~ any of those ordinances.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowie said he has no prOblem with theirequest. Mr. Lindstrom said he
also has no problems with the request. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, secondedlby Mr. Lindstrom, to approve
ZTA-88-05 by adopting the ordinance set out below. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
6O
AYES:
NAYS:
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way.
None.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OP THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE CONCERNING BODY SHOPS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE
COUNTY that the Zoning Ordinance of the County of Albemarle be, and
it is hereby, amended, by the addition thereto of a definition in
Section 3, and by the addition of Subsections 5.1.31~and 27.2.2.11.,
as follows:
3.0 Definitions
Body Shop: A facility, other than a private garage, designed
or used for the repair, replacement and/or restoration of the
body and/or chassis parts of motor vehicles, including col-
lision repairs, in which mechanical repairs are performed only
as is incidental and necessary to such body work.
5.1.31 BODY SHOP
There shall be no storage of parts, materials or
equipment except within an enclosed building.
No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any
portion of such property so as to be visible from
any public road or any residential property{ and shall be
limited to locations designed on the approved site plan.
Nothing herein shall be construed to limit ~the authority
of the governing body in the review of any iSpecial use
permit, including, but not limited to, the ~regulation of
hours of operation, location of door and/o~!windows and
the like.
27.2.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
11. Body shops (reference 5.1.31).
Agenda Item No 12. SP-88-91. V. Ross Johnson. To operate a body shop
on 2.8 acres, zoned LI. Property located in the Airport Center subdivision on
the north side of Route 649, about 1500 feet east of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport. Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E3. Rivanna District. (Advertised
in The Daily Progress on November 22 and November 29, 1988i,i)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
"Character of the Area: This property is served by a!~private indus-
trial subdivision road, DobleAnn Drive. This lot (Lot #4) is
located at the end of the cul-de-sac, and is surrounded by property
zoned LI, Light Industry. Crutchfield is adjacent to.:ithe west, and
Poster Well Company is presently under construction t6 the south.
This property is heavily wooded primarily with mature~ideciduous
trees. It slopes down from a level area adjacent to ~ihe road. No
residential or rural properties are visible from this ~site.
Staff Comment: The applicant proposes construction, of a new build-
ing for a body shop. He states 'all repair activities' would be
inside with parking for employees and customers only.
The development will be served by an internal road wi~h an existing
entrance with turn lane to Airport Road. The road was approved as
part of Airport Center subdivision plat, and is presen~tly under
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
61
construction. The completion of the road is a condition of issuance
of a certificate of occupancy for two current site plans, and will
also be a condition for the body shop plan.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has commented: 'This
section of Route 649 is currently non-tolerable.' Improvement to
include widening to a four-lane divided highway, is #27 in the Six
Year Secondary Road Plan. The top fifteen projects are presently
budgeted and are, at least, in the design phase. A body shop use
generates similar types and amounts of traffic as by right indus-
trial uses.
Planning staff recommends that the development be designed such that
the building is located close to the road on the front of the
property. This will minimize grading on the slopes to the rear of
the lot, and will allow for the preservation of the most trees.
A letter of objection has been received from the owner of Crutch-
field Corporation. Staff is of the opinion .that the concerns of
screening vehicles awaiting repair and protecting adjacent proper-
ties from paint vapors can be met by the proposed zoning text
amendment and the performance standards.
The applicant is also the applicant for ZTA-88-05, a provision for
body shops, and has agreed to compliance, with regulations recom-
mended by staff. In staff's opinion, this petition will not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent properlty and is consistent with
the Zoning Ordinance, the Comprehensive ~lan and the public health,
safety and general welfare. Therefore, Staff recommends approval
subject to the following: '~!
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.31 Supplementary Regulations."
Mr. Horne said the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting
on November 15, 1988, unanimously recommended:iapproval of the above-noted
petition subject to the condition of the staff and the two conditions which
follow:
2. Site plan review shall include preservation of existing
trees and landscaped screening as mudh as possible;
3. The Certified Engineer's Report shall address disposal/
removal of wastes.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the meaning of the Pianning Commission's condition
#3. Mr. Home said some members of the Planning Commission had some concern
about waste products, i.e., oils, paints, solvents, used during auto painting
and that those products not be discharged into a septic system and that there
be some method proposed in the Certified Engineer's Report on how to dispose
of the products. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant verbally
stated that the products would be temporarily istored on site and then taken
off the site by a certified firm qualified to'dispose of such types of wastes.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this approval would beia part of the site plan review.
Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Lindstrom said th~ statement should then read "A
Certified Engineer's Report shall provide a recommendation for the disposal
and removal of wastes which will be a conditiQa of the site plan.
The public hearing was opened at this ti~e. Representing the applicant,
Mr. Fred Payne said the the body shop is intehded to be a high tech operation
to include a unitized body repair system, a paint work station and a special-
ized paint booth. He thinks that the staff report is complete and the appli-
cant has no problem with the conditions recommended. Crutchfield's objection
related to the visual aspect and paint vapors.? In response to those concerns,
there will not be any paint vapors and no car~' will be visible from any public
roads. At the Planning Commission meeting, th~ applicant also stated that the
screening would be done even if it was not made a condition. Also, the
applicant intends to save as many trees as possible.
There being no further comments from the Public, the public hearing was
closed.
62
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the request. He then stated the
following amendment to condition #3 as follows: "The Certified Engineer's
Report shall provide recommendations for the disposal and removal of wastes
which shall be incorporated as a condition of approval for the site plan."
Mr. Bowie then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve SP-88-9I
subject to the conditions of the Planning Commission and the amendment of
condition #3 as stated. The conditions of approval are set out below:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.31 Supplementary Regulations;
Site plan review shall include preservation of existing trees
and landscaped screening as much as possible;
The Certified Engineer's Report shall provide.recommendations
for the disposal and removal of wastes which shall be incorpo-
rated as a condition of approval for the site plan.
There being no further discussion, 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.
(At 9:17 P.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at
9:26 P.M.)
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of IDA Bonding Resolution:
Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. ~.
Westminster-
Mr. Bowling said in the winter of 1987-88 the Industrial Development
Authority of Albemarle County requested the Board's authority to issue
$25,000,000 in Industrial Revenue Bonds for the project knewn as Westminster-
Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. Later, it was discovered that more money was
needed. What is before the Board tonight is a request that the amount be up
to $27,000,000. The IDA held a public hearing on the proposed bond issue,
approved a resolution and now is submitting the resolution~ito the Board for
approval. Mr. Bowling noted on the Fiscal Impact Statemen{ attached to the
proposed resolution, a statement that Westminster-Canterbury anticipates
filing for real estate tax exemption. ~
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
following resolution. 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 Industrial Development Authority of liAlbemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") has considered the application of
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge ("Company") ~questing the
issuance of the Authority's residential care facility .!revenue bonds
in an amount not to exceed $27,000,000 ("Bonds") to assist in the
financing of the Company's acquisition, construction ~nd equipping
of a facility for the care and residence of the aged, ~iiconsisting of
approximately 121 residential units of cottages and apartments and a
59 bed health center ("Project") to be located on an a~proximately
24 acre tract of land located just north of Route 250 iEast off North
Pantops Road on Pantops Mountain, in the County of Al~marle,
Virginia, and has held a public hearing thereon on No~ember 22,
1988; -~
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue ~de of 1986,
as amended, provides that the governmental unit havingii jurisdiction
over the issuer of residential care facility revenue bbnds and over
the area in which any facility financed with the proceads of resi-
dential care facility revenue bonds is located must approve the
issuance of the bonds; I'
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia ("County"); the Project is to be located in
the County and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia ("Board") constitutes the highest elected governmental unit
of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve
the issuance of the Bonds~ and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the
issuance of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, a
certificate of the public hearing and a Fiscal Impact Statement have
been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Author-
ity for the benefit of the Company, as required by Section 147(f)
and Section 15.1-1378.1 of the Virginia Code, to permit the Authority
to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of~'the Bonds does not consti-
tute an endorsement to a prospective purahaser of the Bonds of the
creditworthiness of the Project or the Cgmpany.
3. Pursuant to the limitations contained in Temporary Income
Tax Regulations Section 5f.103-2(f)(1), £his resolution shall remain
in effect for a period of one year from ~he date of its adoption.
4. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its
adoption.
Agenda Item No. 14. Claim Against the CoUnty - John Carter.
Mr. Bowling read the County Attorney's response, dated November 18, 1988,
to Mr. Carter's claim against the County as f~llows:
"I have examined the claim of Mr. John C~rter for payment by the
County of an amount equal to what the County expended to publish the
fact sheet relative to the referendum oni!a County tax on food and
beverages. ~
I do not believe this claim can lawfully !be paid. In my opinion it
would be an unlawful expenditure of public funds."
Mr. Carter was present. He said the issue is more than money, but
whether or not the County can violate an Attorney General's opinion regarding
the expenditure of public funds to inform the !people on matters at dispute. A
cursory reading of that opinion will show tha~ where the County has a right to
present its side in a matter to educate the public, it clearly has no right to
go beyond informative statements, nor does the~ County have any right to warn
the public of dire consequences should the public not conform to the County's
wishes. In his opinion, the information sheet, provided by the Board included
several misstatements, of which he then proceeded to quote. These are errors
the County Attorney has ignored. The County Attorney also has not commented
on the Attorney General's opinion. He then read the Attorney General's
opinion, dated February 6, 1980, on which he was basing his claim and asked if
any Board members had read the opinion. Mr. C~arter said he feels his organi-
zation and the public are entitled to a reasonable response. Since the County
Attorney did not explain his reasoning that complying with this request would
be an improper use of public funds, it surely !will be improper for the County
to expend public money for the court costs tha~ will ensue as a result of this
claim. He feels it is a sad state of affairs '~when elected representatives of
the people feel no need to justify their actio!ns.
Mr. Perkins asked how the actions of a school board, on which this
Attorney General's opinion was based, comparesi~ to action taken by the Board of
Supervisors, considering that a school board has no legal authority to call a
64
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
referendum. He then asked where this case occurred. Mr. Carter commented
that the board of supervisors and the school board on which this case was
based, were both governmental bodies. The case from this Attorney General's
opinion was in New Jersey.
Mr. Lindstrom said individual jurisdictions have different laws and
regulations and he does not feel the opinion on which Mr. Carter bases his
claim is applicable to Virginia. Mr. Carter said this is an opinion provided
by Virginia's Attorney General. Mr. Lindstrom said that may be true, but the
opinion is referring to another jurisdiction. Mr. Carter said the opinion is
referring to a matter of how, when, where and why a body can advertise an
issue-that is before the public.
After some further discussion, Mr. Bowling read the following on which
the County Attorney based his opinion: "The inquiry presents the common
question whether public bodies may use public resources to inform the public
of the position of these bodies as to an issue before the electorate. The
referendum proposes significant changes affecting the service of governmental
progress. Reasonable people may disagree on the need for the amendments or on
the issue whether essential governmental functions will be' affected adversely.
However, just as the will of the people will be served by having the opportu-
nity to speak at the polls, so will the views of the governing bodies be an
essential element in the debate of this issue. It would thus seem proper for
the Council and School Board to make an appropriate comment on the affects of
a proposed charter amendment and the impact of an amendment on the operation
of government. Accordingly there will be no prohibition against sending
properly drafted materials home with the public school system." Mr. Bowling
said the opinion continues, and even if the Board decides 'Mr. Carter is
correct, it still would be in the County Attorney's opinio~ that it would be
illegal to give money to the organization Mr. Carter represents. If the Board
has improperly spent money, the remedy is to take the money out of their
pockets and pay it back to the County treasurer, not to a :third party
organization. ~'
Mr. Carter continued his presentation and said the Board did not give his
organization an opportunity to provide its side of the issue, which is require~
by the law.
Mr. Way said he personally is willing to accept the op~inion of the County
Attorney on this matter and is willing to stand behind thaC opinion. In terms
of the errors claimed to be on the fact sheet, he would be'~ore than happy to
discuss that with Mr. Carter. It seems to him that if the 5Board does not wish
to react positively to this request then the only recourse ils for Mr. Carter
to take it to court and let a judge make the decision.
Mr. Carter said he finds it rather disappointing that.i~he County Attorney
did not see fit to explain his reasoning and that only Mr. iBain stated that he
had read the opinion. Following some more discussion, Mr.~Lindstrom stated
that he had read the Attorney General's opinion and did no~ care to debate the
issue further tonight. ~
There being no further discussion, the subject was closed.
Agenda Item No. 15. Presentation by Audit Committee ahd~ discussion of
role of Audit Committee. t
Mr. Bowie presented the following report from the Audi~ Committee, dated
December 2, 1988: ~
"I.Background: In a report from Rick Bowie dated J~nuary 9, 1987,
the below recommendations were approved by the Board:
'D. That this review be updated next year tO determine if
further tax rate reductions are possibl~.
E. That this type review be conducted annually to
determine a tax rate which would be used as initial
budget guidance from the Board to the Cgunty Execu-
tive. ' ~
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
65
At the December 9, 1987 meeting, the follow-up report dated
December 2, 1987, required by the above approved recommenda-
tions was presented and included the following recommendation:
'E.
That this annual reporting function become the
official responsibility of the Board's Audit Commit-
tee, with the report presented with the annual Audit
Review.'
These recommendati6ns, from both the January and December
reports were approved by the Board of Supervisors. This report
is a continuation of that process.
II.
Methodology: In developing these recommendations, the Audit
Committee worked continually and closely with the County
Executive and Deputy County Executive. Each recommendation
and/or finding was discussed as it was developed and the final
report reviewed together before it was released.
III. Timing: As this was the first year the Audit Committee
attempted this analysis, we felt that we should have the final
draft of the Audit prior to releasing our recommendations.
This was communicated to the County Executive who advised that
a delay to the December 7th meeting would not materially effect
the timeliness of the budget process. In the future, to
eliminate any possibility of such a delay, the Committee will
prepare its recommendations from the 'draft' audit for presen-
tation at a November meeting, the d~y meeting if the draft is
ready.
IV.
1987/1988 Performance: As in priori'iyears, revenues actually
received exceeded budget expectations. Likewise, overall
expenditures were below budget. Details are included in
Enclosure (1) (on file) to this mem9, but revenues exceeded
budget by $897,566 and expenditures were $1,228,663 less than
expected for a total potential surplus of $2,126,229. (This
potential surplus is shown in the end year fund balance of
$10,101,011 [Undesignated] as shownlin Exhibit 1, page 3, of
the Audit Report.)
Staff should be commended for the v~stly improved revenue
forecasting (99 percent accuracy). !!Also, both General Govern-
ment and the Schools ended in the 'black' giving us the poten-
tial surplus from savings in operations.
End Year Adjustments: After the close of each fiscal year, it
is usual to make adjustments allocating unused funds to various
activities. Enclosure (2) (on file~ gives the details of the
adjustments for FY 88/89. Included~are $1,149,195 in transfers
to the CIP, $305,926 in reappropria~ions to the current year to
finish 87/88 programs and numerous Other items including
$91,544 to cover additional health insurance costs. The
largest single item (after the CIP)%was the necessity to
transfer $960,306 from the Fund Balance to the School Budget to
balance the current year's budget.
The effect of all of the adjustments was to reduce the end year
Fund Balance of $10,101,011 on June !30, 1988, to $7,641,959 as
of November 15, 1988. On that same !date, the School Fund had a
balance of $62,726.
In the January 9, 1987, report, it Was stated that a working
reserve of $8 million was required ~1
~o assure adequate cash flow
for normal County operations. Whil~ the present Fund Balance
1 suffIcient to meet operating needs, to reduce it further
would create the risk of having to ~orrow funds on a temporary
basis to fund day-to-day operations,~~ as well as the loss of
interest income on the fund. The F~nd Balance can no longer be
considered as available to balance Budgets.
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
Estimated 1989/90 Revenues: The County Executive's memo of
November 30, 1988, 'Projections of FY 89-90 Local Revenues,'
states that estimated local revenues for 89/90 will reach $46.9
million, an increase of $4.8 million over the current year.
The most significant increase is in the area of real property
tax increases caused by the reassessment of $2.3 million or
14.3 percent. (In developing the current CIP, an estimated 10
percent increase was used.) Had the Meals Tax passed, the
Audit Committee would recommend a reduction in both real and
personal property tax rates to offset this unexpected increase
in revenue. Without the Meals Tax, these funds:will be required
to meet CIP needs. With a 14.3 percent increase in real
property taxes caused solely by reassessment, h~wever, the
Committee can recommend no increase in property .tax rates. It
appears that the $46.9 million in local funds will be the only
available source for funding the cash needs of both the Coun-
ty's Operating Budgets as well as the non-borrowed funds for
the CIP.
VI.
Public View: In the Chairman's statement to the HJR 125
Subcommittee, the Board approved the inclusion of this state-
ment:
'The recent meals tax referendum in the Coun~ty, which
would have covered the capital projects' shortfall, failed
miserably with 63 percent of County voters voting against
such a tax. The message from this vote was i clear. County
residents do not want to pay increased taxes to fund
projects from which they believe they will ~:~ot benefit or
that are necessitated by future growth and development.'
The Audit Committee further believes that the people of this
County are saying that we should manage our business within
available resources. It is with all the above i~formation in
mind that we present the Committee's recommendations for budget
guidance for development of the FY 89/90 budget.'~
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS: For budget guidance for both G~neral Govern-
ment and School Departments:
Budgets will be submitted to the County Executiv~ balanced
within announced spending guidelines.
B. The total local funds available for the 1989/90 operating
budgets be limited to a four percent increase (inflation rate)
over 1988/89 income - a total of $43,697,628. This is an
increase of $1.7 million.
C. Fund Balances are not to be considered as available for balanc-
ing the 1989/90 budgets.
D. Any department that feels a program must be cut d.r curtailed to
meet this spending limit should be required to p~ioritize its
functions and show that the program being cut is :.ithe least
important.
E. The difference between the $1.7 million being allbcated to the
operating budgets and the $4.8 million increase i~ expected
revenues ($3.1 million) be set aside and held as ~ reserve for
unforeseen operating requirements and for the CIP!.
F. Guidance for the CIP update include instructions ~that the plan
is to be developed within presently available funds with the
most important items in the County included in th~ funded
portion. Any additional items shown as unfunded i% in priority
order.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to accept the Audit Report as submitted.
Mr. Perkins seconded the motion.
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
67
Mr. Bain said in his opinion the recommendations made by the Audit
Committee are a function of the County Executive. The charge to the Audit
Committee was to provide the Board, early in ~he development of the budget,
guidance on the tax rate as a reporting function. Included in this report are
recommendations on how funds should be spent and the allocation of funds,
which is in his opinion, is beyond the charge. The Board looks to the County
Executive for specifics. Mr. Bain said he is not opposed to receiving the
report, but does not think these recommendations should be coming from the
Audit Committee and he cannot support them.
Mr. Bowie said the Audit Committee is not recommending what goes where,
but does recommend setting aside an amount of money in reserve. If the $4.8
million is allocated, there will be nothing left. Also, he feels this budget
guidance is given to the Board to enable it to set a policy. During last
year's budget discussion, he stated that if staff did what the Audit Committee
did here, it would in effect be giving itself budget guidance. The Committee
believes that it is proper for the Board to take these recommended actions.
Mr. Way said he sees the recommendations in the report as being guidance
for the County Executive, but it does not mean that the County Executive
cannot make different recommendations. He thinks the Board needs to make some
kind of statement for the budget developmentland guidance. There has been a
tendency to allocate all of the funds that are expected to be available. It
makes sense to him to provide this guidance and if the County Executive says
it is unreasonable, then Mr. Way said he is willing to listen to alternatives.
Mr. Bain said he thinks it is too early[~o make statements about the
amount which should go to operating and the a~nount which should go to capital.
For example recommendation "B" limits operatihg budgets to a four percent
increase; that does not take into account grQ~th, and although the $1.7
million would probably take care of School nM~ds, it would do nothing for
General Government needs. Again, he does no%~think these recommendations are
appropriate coming from the Audit Committee. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the Board.~s early involvement in the
budget process in a meaningful way. He felt ithat the January 9, 1987,
statement from Mr. Bowie was appropriate in si~ating the resources that were
available and the statement was presented in an excellent fashion. His
support for that statement has not changed an4 it makes no difference to him
whether he receives a report from the Audit Committee or the County Executive.
The problem he has is that the report was supposed to focus on resources
available. He does not think this report hasJlaid the foundation for the
constructive discussion that the Board should~'undertake to determine how to
deal with those resources. He personally cannot support the recommendations.
He can accept the report up to item "VI". Hi~ problem with the remainder of
the report is that it not only provides information, but a position. He has a
problem with a limit being set on operating e~penses which he does not think
is realistic. He is also uneasy about the extent of the report and because
this is a formal set of recommendations presented by only two of the Board
members. He feels this report goes beyond th~ charge to the Committee.
Mr. Perkins said it is possible that theiireport goes too far, but it also
assumes that the real property tax rate will ~emain the same. The County
Executive has based his revenue projections o~ the same tax rate. Mr. Lind-
strom said he still thinks that the report isi~Ibeyond the charge given by the
Board. If the Audit Committee wants to infor~ the Board on whether a tax rate
reduction is possible, that is about as far as he feels comfortable with the
Audit Committee going. He would like to have this information presented in a
more neutral fashion.
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with some of the statements made by Mr.
Lindstrom and Mr. Bain. She would prefer that this report be received by the
Board as information and not vote to accept the recommendations. Mr. Lind-
'~VT"
strom said he could support the report up to i-- · Not only is he not in
total agreement with the recommendations, but iby adopting this report it would
seem to endorse the '
Committee s characterization of the meals tax vote which
he does not feel is accurate.
68
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Agnor then discussed some of the needs from both General Government
and the School Division that would be forthcoming, including salaries, State
mandates and health insurance. For example, just to keep abreast with the
health plan, the cost is expected to increase 34 percent. Mr. Lindstrom said
he thinks that it would be important to take the information from the Audit
Cox~ittee and the information from the County Executive and put it all into a
preliminary report to show what resources are available and what needs must be
taken care of, and present that information at a work session. Mr. Bowie said
taking that approach assumes that everything that was spent last year was
needed and would be needed again this year. In reference to a statement made
by Mr. Agnor that school classified employees did not get a salary increase
last year, that was done by the school administration by designl He would
assume that all of the administrators and top personnel got their increases
and the administration just "stuck it to" the classified employees. There was
a conscience choice made in who was going to get the raise. He thinks that
somewhere the Board needs to make the statement that if a'department is adding
something new, then there is something that can be removed.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is the kind of discussion hethinks the Board
needs to have at a work session and not this late in the night. He feels that
the Board has made a commitment to a Capital Improvements~!Program and knows
that over the next five years there will be a shortfall ofover $5.5 million.
One of the things he would like to see done with excess revenues is have them
committed to the CIP.
Mr. Agnor then summarized his memo (from the consent i~genda) on obliga-
tions and discussed needs such as operational and the CIP2~ At this point he
would recommend allocating $2 million to operations, $200~000 to a reserve,
$320,000 to revenue sharing, $30,000 to debt service, keeperS1.4 million in
reserve for the CIP and beyond that $850,000 from the CIP~for reassessment.
This recommendation would be passed to the school system informing them that
there is no more money, this is a reassessment year, and the tax rate will not
be increased. Mr. Bowie said that is in essence what the Audit Cox~nittee is
recommending. Mr. Lindstrom commented that it takes a little more creative
reading ability than he has to find that in the set of recommendations.
Mr. Way said he feels strongly that the 'Board needs t~O give some guid-
ance. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels strongly that the $2.6 ~million needs to be
set~ aside to cover either revenue sharing or capital imprdvements.
Following some more discussion on the effects of growth in the schools
and school needs, Mr. Way suggested .deferring this item until December 14 in
the afternoon. Mr. Lindstrom then offered a substitute mo~ion to accept the
recommendations of the audit report through "VI" and then i~ebate the remainder
of the report on December 14. Mr. Bowie said he would move that the Board go
with the original motion first. Mr. Way said he would rat~er defer any
further discussion until next week. Mrs. Cooke said she a'~rees with Mr. Way.
She does not think that they are in a position to do anyth~ng constructive at
this point. Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to defer all f~rther discussion
until December 14. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr~i Bowie then with-
drew his original motion and agreed to defer action. Mr. ~erkins then with-
drew his second on the original motion.
The Clerk informed the Chairman that a vote was needed on the substitute
motion. Mr. Way responded that no vote was needed since tSe original motion
was withdrawn. There was no further discussion.
Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion - Legislative Liaison.
Mr. Bain said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Board's request, has considered providing a legislative lis
governments during the General Assembly Session. This lia~
local officials apprised of actions by the General Assembl,
ommission, at the
ison for member
son would keep
which would affect
localities or positions taken by them. The person would b~ on the staff of
the Planning District Commission. Several counties had expressed interest in
participating, pending meetings with their respective Boar~. He said the
allocation of costs would be accomplished by dividing the d!osts by the number
of localities participating, or by using the population percentages. He would
recommend that the County proceed with funding this position and then find out
how many other localities are interested.
December 7, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting) 69
(Page 19)
Mr. Way asked if there is a danger of too many localities wanting to use
this person and then Albemarle County not getting the level of service it
wants. Mr. Bowie said the Commission has stated that even if other counties
go along with this request, the liaison person would still be able to respond
to all specific needs.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to proceed
with the idea of a legislative liaison and to see if other localities are
interested in sharing the cost. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr0m, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments. There were no recommendations.
Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes:~ March 20 (A), April 16 (N),
May 7 (N), June 12, June 18 (A), June 18 (N) and June 19 (A), 1986; August 22
and October 3, 1988.
Mr. Perkins had read the minutes of Augdst 22, 1988, and found them to be
in order.
Mr. Lindstrom had read June 19, 1986 (AX, and found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, sedonded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve
the minutes as read. 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. 19. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Board and Public.
Mrs. Sally Thomas, of the League of Women Voters, said she acts as the
legislative liaison for the University of Virginia and would be happy to lend
her assistance to whoever is given that task as legislative liaison in the
County.
Mrs. Thomas summarized a letter (copy on~:~file) dated December 7, 1988,
which was distributed to the Board. She said the League of Women Voters had
particular concerns about this year's budget ~unding with respect to a study
of ways to strengthen local regulations for septic systems and private wells;
solid waste management; watershed management; ~and providing adequate staff to
carry out recommendations adopted with the Comprehensive Plan. The League is
interested in departments providing informati6n on exactly what it will do
with money it requests. There seems to be no ~way to know where money is going
to or what happens to it if it is cut out of a department's budget. She would
suggest that, as a pilot project, a department be selected to present its
budget in a way that provides information on pxactly what it would add or
subtract for each incremental amount.
Mr. Bain said he would like to discuss next week Route 682 having a forty
foot right-of-way versus a fifty foot right-of-way.
Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. With no farther business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at ll:05i!P.M.
/