The URL can be used to link to this page

1988-12-14December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 14, 1988, 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 (arrived at 9:14 A.M.), Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:21 A.M.), Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; and Mr. John T. P. Home, Director of Planning and Community Development. OFFICERS ABSENT: Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:06 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 Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Perkins to accept the items on the consent agenda as informa- tion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Perkins and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom. Item 4.1. County Executive's Financial Report for October, 1988, was received as information as follows: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUDGET REPORT FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 1988 TO OCTOBER 31, 1988 GENERAL FUND 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS TOTAL 42,015,027 4,345,706 37,669,321 10.34% 3,720,515 894,903 2,825,612 24.05% 73,000 42,423 30,577 - 58.11% 2,162,057 0 2,162,057 - 0.00% 47,970,599 5,283,032 42,687,567 - 11.01% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC SAFETY PUBLIC WORKS HEALTH AND WELFARE EDUCATION PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSFERS NONDEPARTMENTAL TOTAL 3,164,574 1,115,741 2,048,833 + 35.26% 1,102,322 373,990. 728,332 + 33.93% 4,277,145 1,757,535 2,519,610 + 41.09% 1,718,206 386,784 1,331,422 + 22.51% 2,885,221 971,702 1,913,519 + 33.68% 25,295,750 6,276,033 19,019,717 + 24.81% 1,695,778 531,313 1,164,465 + 31.33% 1,313,054 474,396 838,658 + 36.13% 4,098,057 2,230,766 1,867,291 + 54.43% 2,420,492 80,897 2,339,595 + 3.34% 47,970,599 14,199,157 33,771,442 + 29.60% 72 SCHOOL FUND REVENUES LOCAL SOURCES COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSFERS-IN TOTAL December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD 421,493 81,598 339,895 - 19.36% 16,420,426 4,660,940 11,759,486 - 28.39% 362,987 0 362,987 - 0.00% 25,081,076 6,270,270 18,810,806 - 25.00% 42,285,982 11,012,808 31,273,174 - 26.04% 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD ADMINISTRATION 748,727 297,548 451,179 + 39.74% INSTRUCTION-REG DAY SCHOOL 26,558,872 5,571,926 20,986,946 + 20.98% ATTENDANCE & HEALTH SERVICES 338,966 94,764 244,202 + 27.96% PUPIL TRANSPORTATION 3,010,752 1,109,135 1,901,617 + 36.84% OPERATION-SCHOOL PLANT 4,416,340 2,118,401 2,297,939 + 47.97% FIXED CHARGES 7,201,875 1,730,417 5,471,458 + 24.03% ADULT EDUCATION 10,450 2,034 8,416 + 19.46% TRANSFER 0 0 0 + 0.00% TOTAL 42,285,982 10,924,225 31,361,757 + 25.83% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD LOCAL SOURCES 418,500 211,759 206,741 - 50.60% COMMONWEALTH 300,000 0 300,000 0.00% NONREVENUE RECEIPTS 2,886,902 738,768 2,148,134 - 25.59% FUND BALANCE 4,626,458 0 4,626,458 0.00% TRANSFERS-IN 2,047,256 2,047,000 256 99.99% TOTAL 10,279,116 2,997,527 7,281,589 29.16% EXPENDITURES 88/89 APPROP EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG YTD YTD YTD GENERAL GOV'T ADMINISTRATION 239,571 44,303 195,268 + 18.49% JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION 0 0 0 + 0.00% PUBLIC SAFETY 1,245,945 88,676 1,157,269 + 7.12% PUBLIC WORKS 1,344,525 26,831 1,317,694 + 2.00% EDUCATION 5,385,542 2,982,315 2,403,227 + 55.38% PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURAL 1,336,263 208,668 1,127,595 + 15.62% COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 594,485 431,675 162,810 + 72.61% TRANSFERS 132,785 0 132,785 + 0.00% TOTAL 10,279,116 3,782,468 6,496,648 + 36.80% OTHER FUNDS 1988/89 RECEIPTS BALANCE COLLECTED REVENUES EST. REVENUE YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 0 0 0.00% SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 28,540 21,405 7,135 75.00% MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 1,015,000 256,990 758,010 25.32% CDBG-AHIP 0 63,293 (63,293)+ 0.00% T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 6,422 (6,422)+ 0.00% GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 182 (182)+ 0.00% FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 401,130 158,247 242,883 39.45% DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 31,811 (31,811)+ 0.00% TIPS 1,669 0 1,669 - 0.00% RAGGED MOUNTAIN 440,463 0 440,463 0.00% CBIP SEVERE 377,550 223 377,327 - 0.06% FED JOB TRAINING PART ACT 0 8,771 (8,771)+ 0.00% DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 16,771 0 16,771 - 0.00% December 14, (Page 3) 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) DRUG EDUCATION GRANT SUMMER SCHOOL FUND COMMUNITY EDUCATION ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH CHAPTER I CHAPTER II MIGRANT EDUCATION CAFETERIA FUND JOINT SECURITY FUND JOINT DISPATCH FUND JOINT RECREATION FACILITY TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND MCINTIRE TRUST FUND JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND STORM WATER CONTROL FUND FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT VISITOR CENTER FUND DEBT SERVICE FUND TOTAL 22,500 0 22,500 - 0.00% 113,579 49,688 63,891 43.75% 263,636 87,421 176,215 - 33.16% 5,937 0 5,937 - 0.00% 474,354 0 474,354 - 0.00% 63,423 0 63,423 - 0.00% 34,991 0 34,991 - 0.00% 1,394,845 205,945 1,188,900 - 14.76% 1,941,259 529,770 1,411,489 - 27.29% 616,826 295,316 321,510 - 47.88% 195,066 7,719 187,347 - 3.96% 218,500 72,014 146,486 - 32.96% 10,000 27 9,973 0.27% 0 100 (100)+ 0.00% 463,036 44,008 419,028 9.50% 143,140 0 143,140 - 0.00% 0 22,578 (22,578)+ 0.00% 2,043,666 183,766 1,859,900 8.99% 10,285,881 2,045,696 8,240,185 19.89% OTHER FUNDS 88/89 EXP/OBLIG BALANCE EXP/OBLIG EXPENDITURES APPROP YTD YTD YTD METRO PLANNING GRANT-PL FUNDS 0 SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION 28,540 MODERATE REHAB. GRANT 1,015,000 CDBG-AHIP 0 VICTIM/WITNESS GRANT 0 T J HEALTH EDUCATION 0 GYPSY MOTH AIPM PROGRAM 0 FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM 401,130 DUPLICATING EQUIPMENT 0 TIPS 1,669 RAGGED MOUNTAIN 440,463 CBIP SEVERE 377,550 FED. JOB TRAINING PART. ACT. 0 DROP-OUT PREVENTION GRANT 16,771 DRUG EDUCATION GRANT 22,500 SUMMER SCHOOL FUND 113,579 COMMUNITY EDUCATION 263,636 ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH 5,937 CHAPTER I 474,354 CHAPTER II 63,423 MIGRANT EDUCATION 34,991 CAFETERIA FUND 1,394,845 JOINT SECURITY FUND 1,941,259 JOINT DISPATCH FUND 616,826 JOINT RECREATION FACILITY 195,066 TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND 218,500 MCINTIRE TRUST FUND 10,000 JUANISE DYER TRUST FUND 0 STORM WATER CONTROL FUND 463,036 FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT 143,140 VISITOR CENTER FUND 0 DEBT SERVICE FUND 2,043,666 TOTAL 2,663 (2,663)- 0.00% 10,218 18,322 + 35.80% 278,540 736,460 + 27.44% 63,293 (63,293)- 0.00% 764 (764)- 0.00% 8,562 (8,562)- 0.00% 10,028 (10,028)- 0.00% 122,862 278,268 + 30.63% 16,285 (16,285)- 0.00% 1,668 1 + 99.94% 58,180 382,283 + 13.21% 72,301 305,249 + 19~15% 2,859 (2,859)- 0.00% 16 16,755 + 0.10% 1,750 20,750 + 7.78% 63,365 50,214 + 55.79% 133,916 129,720 + 50.80% 3,178 2,759 + 53.53% 98,586 375,768 + 20.78% 22,318 41,105 + 35.19% 10,023 24,968 + 28.64% 274,496 1,120,349 + 19.68% 611,548 1,329,711 + 31.50% 179,920 436,906 + 29.17% 18,635 176,431 + 9.55% 70,964 147,536 + 32.48% 0 10,000 + 0.00% 0 0 + 0.00% 50,230 412,806 + 10.85% 97,688 45,452 + 68.25% 22,578 (22,578)- 0.00% 341,303 1,702,363 + 16.70% 10,285,881 2,648,737 7,637,144 + 25.75% Item 4.2. 1988 Property Tax Levy information. The following memo from the County Executive dated December 6, 1988, was received: For your information, listed below are comparisons of local property tax revenue estimates made last November for the FY 88-89 budget, and the revised estimates of those revenues made this November from the recent mailings of the 1988 tax bills. If rates of collections 74¸ December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) remain stable, property tax revenues in FY 88-89 may exceed budget estimates by approximately 6/10 of one percent. This small variance reflects the staff effort to improve revenue projections. Budgeted FY 88-89 Real Estate $17,088,640 Personal Property 7,782,785 Machinery/Tools 910,000 Public Service 928,500 Mobile Homes 72,333 TOTAL $26,782,258 Revised Variance FY 88-89 $ % $17,367,172 $278,532 + 1.63 7,695,515 (87,270) 1.12 830,386 (79,614) 8.75 970,325 41,825 + 4.50 73,285 952 + 1.32 $26,936,683 $154,425 + 0.58 Item 4.3. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's audit report for the Fiscal Year 1988 (copy of file in Clerk's office) was received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: March 20 (A), April 16 (N), May 7 (N), June 12, June 18 (A) and June 18 (N), 1986; October 3 and October 24, 1988. No minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Discussion Route 682 Design. Mr. Bain said the Virginia Department of Transportation had conducted a public information session at Murray School for the people who live on this road. He said progress was made regarding the section ofilRoute 682 which breaks off from Route 787. VDoT has agreed that the pavement width can be 18 feet with six feet shoulder and ditch on each side, where~s, there would be pavement width of 20 feet and seven feet shoulder and dit6h on each side on the portion of road from Crafter's Gallery on Route 250 tO Route 682 because of the higher traffic count. Mr. Bain said this proposali~Was fairly well received by landowners. There will be a need to obtain some additional right-of-way, but the overall response was positive. ~ Mr. Dan Roosevelt from the Department of Transportat~'on, said he appreci- ated Mr. Bain being at the meeting because his presence showed support for the project. He felt there was a better understanding after ~he meeting on the part of citizens as to why VDoT has to meet certain standards, Mr. Roosevelt said he would report back to the Board on the progress that had been made in getting right-of-way acquisition from property owners. (Mrs. Cooke arrived at 9:14 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters: Request to nam~ Route 769. Mr. Agnor said that residents of Route 769 had submitted a petition to the Department of Planning and Community Development to n~a~e Route 769 as Rocky Hollow Road. Since this area had been referenced as Rocky Hollow on most maps, Mr. Horne said the Planning staff would not object t~ this name request. Mr. Agnor pointed out that the petition represented only n~ne parcels out of a total of 38 parcels on this road. He said staff recommend~ that the remainder of the landowners be notified before action is taken on th~s request. Mr. David Thompson, landowner on Route 769, said the ~equest to name the road is to prevent the Post Office from changing box numbers indiscriminately and to help make identification easier for emergency service vehicles. He said there is also the concern that another subdivision de~eloper would name the road something the landowners would not like. He saldlhe had contacted all the resident landowners, which was 17 people. He received one letter. saying it made no difference. Five people came to a meeting to discuss the matter. One person wanted to leave it as Route 769. Motion was made by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bainlito schedule a public hearing on January 18, 1989, to consider naming Rou~e 769 Rocky Hollow Road. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) AY]~S: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:21 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Roosevelt about the status of the traffic signal at the intersection of Rio Road and Northfields Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he hoped to have the results of the traffic analysis at the next Board meeting. Mr. Perkins had given Mr. Roosevelt a suggested plan for a connecting road to Park Road in Crozet prior to the meeting. Mr. Roosevelt said he would get a cost estimate on that suggestion as soon as possible and report back to the Board so that a location and design hearing date could be set. Agenda Item No 7. Albemarle County Service Authority (A.C.S.A.) Information on Crozet sewer system. Mr. Robert R. Humphris, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the ACSA, said the Crozet sewer system has been substantially completed. He said this milepost had been reached after almost two decades of debate, negotiations, planning, and construction. Over sixteen and one-half miles of sewer mains have been installed in Crozet over the last eighteen months. Not including capitalized interest during construction, the cost of this project exceeds $5,500,000. Funding came from available reserves and the sale of $4,400,000 in revenue bonds. No federal, state, or other outside funds were contributed to this project, Mr. Humphris reported. He acknowledged the cooperation and patience of the citizens of Crozet during the construction. Completion of this project will fulfill .a critical component of the regional plan for water resource management as well as relieve intolerable sewage disposal conditions in Crozet. Mr. Humphris said it is the ACSA's hope that it will also serve in fulfilling the CoHnty government's growth manage- ment objectives as identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked to what extent the revenue generated from Crozet will offset the cost of paying off bonds. Mr. Bill Brent said the service on the Crozet system will cost $500,000 a year. He said even if everyone in Crozet connected, there would never be enough revenues generated to service the debt. Mr. Brent said revenues from the existing houses would pay about 25 percent of the debt service. Mr. Brent said the justification for the cost is the benefit the system offers for the South Fork Rivanna reservoir. The report was received as information by the Board. Agenda Item No. 8 had been deleted from the final agenda. Agenda Item No. 9. Zachary Taylor Estat~ - Acceptance of gift from. Mr. Agnor said a gift of $1,000 from theestate of Zachary Taylor had been received and was specified to be used for Fire Department needs, etc. He said the Jefferson Country Firefighters Association and the City Fire Chief had requested that this gift be used to purchase a device to assist volunteer companies in setting up water supplies in areas not served by water lines. Mr. Agnor requested that the $1,000 be appropriated to the operating budget to purchase the equipment. Motion was made by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt a resolution approving the appropriation of $1,Q00 from the Zachary Taylor Estate for Fire Department needs as set out below: 76 December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) FISCAL YEAR FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: 88/89 GENERAL Appropriation of funds from Zachary Taylor Estate for use by Fire Departments. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100032010700100 DESCRIPTION Fire Dept.-Machinery & Equipment-New TOTAL AMOUNT $1,ooo $1,ooo REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100018100181100 Donations & Gifts-Taylor $1~000 TOTAL $1,000 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. 10. Resolution: Amend ICMADeferred Compensation Plan. Mr. Agnor said that in addition to the County's deferred compensation plan with PEBSC0, there is also a plan with the ICMA Retirement Corporation, for one participant, Mr. T. M. Batchelor, Jr., former County Executive. The ICMA Retirement Corporation had requested approval of a Change to the plan by adopting the ICMA-Retirement Trust. The change is required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Trust ensures that ICMA woUld function solely as the investment advisor of the Trust. A second investment manager actually serves as the Trust assets manager. The Trust also protects the plan assets. Failure to adopt the Trust may result in the assets of the plan being moved out of the Trust. He recommended adoption of the resolution. Mr. Bain offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the proposed amended resolution as set out below. Roll was call d 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 Employer maintains a deferred compensation plan for its employees which is administered by ICMA Retilrement Corpora- tion (the "Administrator"); and WHEREAS, other public employers have joined together to estab- lish the ICMA Retirement Trust for the purpose of r~Presenting the interests of the participating employers with respect to the collec- tive investment of funds held under their deferred ~i'ompensation plans; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Employer hereby exe- cutes the ICMA Retirement Trust, attached hereto as Appendix B; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Personnel shall be the coordinator for this program and shall receive ~ecessary reports, notices, etc. from the ICMA Retirement Corporation as Administrator, and shall cast, on behalf of the Employer, any required votes under this program. Administrative duties to carry out the plan may be assigned to the appropriate departments. Agenda Item No. 11. Authorize Chairman to execute deed for purchase of property adjacent to Old Scottsville School owned by Uniroyal. Mr. Bowie said the Building Committee and staff had been negotiating with Uniroyal-Goodrich to purchase all the land situated on the east side of the levee and adjacent to the Old Scottsville School, consisting of 5.312 acres by recent survey. The existing School building encroaches on this property by December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) eighteen feet. This land needs to be added to the existing school tract of 3.38 acres owned by the County. The County agreed originally on January 13, 1988, to convey all of the existing building not being used by the Parks and Recreation Department to the Jordan Development Corporation. In addition, adequate land was to be included to allow for development of 34 low income elderly housing units. The Building Committee requests that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the deed of purchase. The funds in the amount of $10,000 are available within current appropriations to the Parks and Recreation Department in the Capital Improvements Program budget. Mr. Bowie offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to authorize the Chair- man to sign the deed of purchase for all of the land situated on the east side of the levee and adjacent to Old Scottsville School consisting of 5.312 acres. Mr. Bain asked how the amount of acreage needed was determined. Mr. Bowie said the acreage includes the land up to the levee because Uniroyal did not want to sell just a twenty foot strip of land. The Department of Parks and Recreation can use the balance for recreation activities. There was 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. Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt Resolution of Intent to rezone a portion of land adjacent to Old Scottsville School. Mr. Bowie said at the request of the Building Committee, the Board of Supervisors entered into an agreement in January, 1988, with the Jordan Devel- opment Corporation to covey that portion of the Old Scottsville School not being used by the Parks and Recreation Department consisting of approximately 31,000 square feet plus adequate land for pa~king, setbacks and access. Approximately three acres were rezoned to R-I0 by the County with the intent tc rezone additional land to be acquired from Uniroyal-Goodrich to develop low- cost rental units for the elderly. He said ~he Building Committee recommends that approximately two acres be rezoned fromi:R-10 to R-15 and approximately one-half acre from Village Residential to R-l.5. That would create approxi- mately a two and one-half acre lot around the school building which would be transferred to Jordan Development Corporation, with the gym, parking lot, and ballfields being retained by the County. Mr. Bain asked if this transaction woul~i affect the contract the County already has with Jordan Development Corporati'on. Mr. Agnor said it would not. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was a proffer limiting the use in any way. Mr. Horne said it would be limited to only 34: housing units. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adopt the Resolution of intent 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 County of Albemarle by agreement dated January, 1988, with the Jordan Development Corporation agreed to convey that portion of the Old Scottsville School not being used by the Parks and Recreation Department, along with just enough land to convert approx- imately 31,000 square feet of the structure into 34 Low Income Elderly Housing Units; and ~ WHEREAS, the County discovered the .pchool Building encroached on Uniroyal-Goodrich approximately 18 feet;~and 78 December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) WHEREAS, the County intends to purchase 5.312 acres of land from Uniroyal-Goodrich immediately to be added to the tract currently owned by the County; and WHEREAS, the County has already rezoned 3.88 acres to R-10 recognizing that there would need to be additional land rezoned whenever the additional land was acquired from Uniroyal-Goodrich; and WHEREAS, the Jordan Development Corporation must have proper zoning to proceed with finalizing their funding of the proposed Elderly Housing Project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to rezone two acres from R-10 to R-15 and one-half acre from VR to R-15 to allow Jordan Development Corporation to meet zoning regulations and to continue with their funding arrangements of the Proposed Elderly Housing Project at the Old Scottsville School site; 'and FURTHER requests the Albemarle County Planning Commission to hold public hearing on said intent to rezone, and does request that the Planning Commission send its recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date. ~ Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: An ordinance %o amend the County Code to reduce the age of vaccination of dogs and cats against rabies to four months. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 29~and December 6, 1988.) : Mr. Agnor said the Director of Finance had requested: an amendment to Sections 4-38(a) and (b) of the County Code to comply with the State Code, which reduces the age at which dogs and cats must be vaccinated from six month: to four months. There was no one present to speak at the public hearling. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstroml, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 4. Animals and Fowl Article III. Rabies Control Code of Albemarle County BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 4. Animals and Fowl; Article'iIII. Rabies Control; Sections 4-38(a) and (b) are hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 4-38. Vaccination of dogs and cats required. (a) No dog or cat four months of age or olde: shall be permitted within the county, unless such dog or cat Shall have been vaccinated or immunized against rabies within a period of thirty-six months with a rabies vaccine approved by the state dgpartment of health. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep or harbor any dog or cat over four months old within the county, unless such dog or cat shall have been vaccinated or inoculated against rabies within a period of thirty-six months with a r~bies vaccine approved by the state department of health, i December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 79 Agenda Item No. 14. Set public hearing date to emend County Code to consolidate fire protection codes. Mr. Agnor said fire protection requirements currently exist in the County Code, County Zoning Ordinance and Land Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed amendment is an attempt to consolidate all fire protection requirements within the County Code. The proposal has been developed by the Departments of Engineering, Inspections, Planning and Community Development and the Albemarle County Service Authority. It has also been reviewed by the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association. Mr. Bain asked what portion of the proposed amendment is a change from what currently exists. He said he would like to have the changes highlighted in terms of requirements. Mr. Home said the amendments are a combination of changes in requirements and service. Mr. Bain asked if the development commuhity has had a chance to review these amendments. He felt that builders should have a chance to look at the changes and discuss them with staff. Mr. Home said they had not. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any method of appeal other than through the County Fire Official. He felt there should be a process of appeal included. The Board suggested the following revisions be made in the proposed ordinance and brought back to the Board on January 11, 1989, at which time a public hearing date may be set. Any change from current code provisions behighlighted for ease in reading. Private developers have a chance to review these suggestions. Section 9-29.5 "Other" be retitled for clarity. Section 9-28 "Definitions", the word "approved" should be made clearer and there should be more than one source of appeal. Section 9-29.5 "Other" the first sentence should clarify that private central wells do not require fire hydrants. Section 9-27 "Purpose and ScoPe" should say these codes do not supersede zoning requirements. Agenda Item No. 15. Set public hearing date to amend County Code to regulate hours of solicitors. Mr. Agnor said the Cox~onwealth's Attorney had requested that the regula- tion of solicitors in Chapter 17 of the County Code be amended. Currently this chapter provides no restriction or limitation on the hours of door-to- door solicitation. This has become a problem~for enforcement by the Police Department and is of concern to County residents. Mr. Agnor said staff is recommending that the Board adopt a resolutioh of intent for a January 11, 1989, public hearing to set appropriate hours~for solicitors. Mrs. Cooke said if she had her way, she Would ban all solicitations twenty-four hours a day, including telephone ~olicitations. She said the results of opening the door to a stranger is an increasing problem in secluded subdivisions. Mr. Lindstrom said, given the safety problem of solicitation, he can see why the recommendation is from sunrise to sun,et. However, he would prefer to set specific hours. The Board requested an opinion from the Oounty Attorney as to whether it would be legal to set specific hours for solicitors, to be presented at its January 11, 1989, meeting. Agenda Item No. 16. Request to place bench on the Courthouse Lawn. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Leigh B. Middledi~ch, Jr. had requested that a bench in honor of Mr. C. Venable Minor be placed on the Courthouse lawn at no 80 December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) cost to the County. He said staff would support this request on the condition that a landscape architect make a long range site plan on the entire courtyard around the County Office Building and Courthouse on Court Square before any further requests are acted on by the Board. Mr. Bain said he agrees with the staff recommendation. He said he would like to see some input from the local bar association's court facilities committee. Mr. Bowie said he did not think a landscape architect is needed. The Board's Beautification Committee could work on this as well. Mr. Agnor said another group interested in anything done at this location is the Nation- al Historical Society. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to form a committee composed of persons from the local Bar Association, Albemarle County Historical Society, and the Board's Beautification Committee to prepare a report on long-range planning for the County's Court Square buildings, includ- ing the grounds. The request today, along with future requests, are to be referred to this committee and a recommendation then made to 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 Board recessed at 10:30 A.M. and reconvened at i10:40 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion: Land Use Values. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, gave a comparison of the Albemarle County Land Use Values used for tax years 1987 and 1988 to those recommended by the State Land Evaluation Advisory Councili(SLEAC) for tax years 1989 and 1990. He noted that agricultural land showed a decrease in all soil types while forestry showed a substantial increase. Horticulture showed minor increases except in the least productive categories. Mr. Breeden said prior to 1988, SLEAC used a risk factor of one and one-half percent in determining the recommended forestry values. However, due to Virginia's history of few forest fires and very little destruction from insects, SLEAC decided not to include the risk factor in i~uture values. Based on the request of the Board, the Virginia Department of F~restry was con- tacted, and they did provide values including the risk faCtor. Forestry values in Albemarle County would increase 47 percent without the risk factor for tax year 1989. Mr. Breeden said he recommends that A~bemarle County continue to use the forestry values with the risk factor ~hich would still result in an increase of 29 percent. He said there was a major shift in the tax burden frdm agriculture to forestry with no significant changes in horticulture. A15emarle County will experience an overall decrease in Land Use Values for 1989 in the amount of $0.4 million. Based on the current $0.72 tax rate this equates to a $32,000 loss in tax revenues. The new rates are effective for January 1, 1989, and will be reflected on the notices of reassessment to be ma~led in late December, 1988. Mr. Bowie asked why horticulture went up, considering the last two or three years were difficult for orchardists. Mr. Breeden ~aid the indication he has is that the increase in horticulture reflects rising prices due to inflation. The analysis of horticulture covers a twenty-~ar span of information, while agriculture and forestry are analyzed O~er a five-year period. That makes it more difficult to pinpoint exactly 5~hat caused the increase in horticulture. Mr. Lindstrom said the advantage of being in the landi use program is increased substantially as the fair market value goes up d~amatically. Landowners would be better off with the new appraisals compared to the actual fair market value than they were a few years ago. Mr. Li~strom asked what was the actual amount shown in the 1988-1989 budget. Mr. iBreeden said it was close to $2.5 million. Mr. Perkins said the Piedmont Envi!ronmental Council studies show that rural landowners pay $1.00 in taxes and ~nly get $0.35 in services. December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 81 Mr. Breeden said there is an additional area that the Board may hear about from the public. Effective in 1989, each individual parcel in a subdi- vision would have to be considered alone to qualify under land use. Prior to 1989, any parcel rezoned to a more intensive use or an existing lot less than minimum acreage requirements could be considered with another parcel and would qualify under land use. For example, five adjoining two-acre lots would qualify as a ten-acre tract. He said about 300 letters have been sent out notifying property owners of this situation. Mr. Lindstrom said a few years ago he felt the County should develop its own evaluation system. He said he knew at that time that staff definitely did not want to do that, even though they could under the law. Mr. Breeden said the values are recommended on a state-wide basis. They are prepared by professionals. If the County develops their own, they would presumably come up with the same numbers because they would be using the same data. He said the County has a better legal standing using the State's numbers. Mr. Lindstrom said if the numbers get too out of proportion, he would be willing to tackle developing an evaluation system. He said the last jump in numbers did not seem to be justified by local experience with agriculture. He said it seems to him that using actual experience in ~Albemarle County would be better than using state-wide figures. Mr. Bowie said that is why he questioned the increase in the horticulture rates. If they had gone down, he would have ifelt these figures were more reliable, knowing the crops were poor in the last couple of years. Mr. Breeden said he did not mean to infer that the same values are used state- wide. The information they use is tied to a iregion, but the recommendations are made separately for each locality in the ~land use program. The values do vary from locality to locality across the State. He said the County did inquire of the adjoining localities what theiir values were in forestry. Greene, Madison, and Fluvanna Counties all showed the same type of increase in the forestry values. ~ Mr. Perkins said he questions the need fbr even separating the forestry values from horticulture values. He said thai potential is there for making more money on horticultural lands, but there ~has to be a greater investment in order to make that money. Therefore, there is also the potential for a greater loss. Mr. Breeden said this is the d,~vision the State has used since the 1970's. Mr. Bain said he concurs with Mri!. Perkins' concern and would like to see staff review this idea. Mr. Lindstrom!~· said the purpose of this analysis is to reflect the actual value of tl~ lands that are in farming and forestry use. Mr. Agnor said as a follow-up to concerns the Board had expressed a year ago, several farmers had met with SLEAC in Richmond reviewing their figures. Mr. Agnor said he had understood that the numbers SLEAC is using now as a result of those meetings are acceptable to th9 local agricultural community. This report was received as information iby the Board. Agenda Item No. 18. Report on Race Rela sector. Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personn, Relations and Employment in the Private Secto~ community concerned about the idea of race re minorities in the Charlottesville/Albemarle a Charlottesville City Council and County Execu Department Heads, Principals and area busines ~ions/Employment in the private il, said a report entitled, "Race "', generated by people in the .ations and the employment of · ea had been distributed to the :ive, and to the School Board, :es. She said the County was not a part of the study. However, the County had~been asked to respond to what it is doing to address these same types of problems. Dr. Hastings reviewed for the Board what the County is doing in the area of race relations and employ- ment as follows: ~ 1. Develop a Community Wide Affirmativ~ Action Program. The County has a goal to have a revised ~affirmative action plan in place by January, 1989. The draft ~lan has been developed and staff is in the process of receivin~ input from employees before proceeding with a formal rec ~o~mendation to the Board. 82 December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) Make Information on How to Recruit Minorities Easily Available. For several years the school division has channeled recruitment efforts toward the recruitment of qualified minority teachers and administrators. Recently, this effort was expanded to recruitment in local government. Recruitment and interviewing training has been developed by the Personnel Coordinator and offered extensively to all administrators. Reach Out to Minorities. A new employment opportunities hot line has been established which provides 24-hour-a-day informa- tion to area citizens regarding County vacancies. Information about this service was disseminated to all community agencies and local churches. All county vacancies are posted and a weekly bulletin is widely distributed in the community. Employers Should Develop Training Workshops, Courses or Semi- nars, on Interpersonal Skills for their Employees. Through the staff development program, interpersonal skills training has been offered to both classified and administrative employees. A new series, "Valuing Diversity" will be offered in November and December with the objective of heightening !awareness of cultural differences in the work place. Discus!sions have been held with minority employees about their work i~ the County and about how to attract and retain minorities in C'~unty employ- ment. ~i Mr. Lindstrom asked Dr. Hastings to explain further £he "Valuing Diversity" training. Dr. Hastings said some of the management techniques currently used may not be appropriate for various people because of cultural differences. The goal of this training is to identify ar~as of sensitivity in various cultures. She gave as an example the fact that a~!.ipart~cular minority employee was extremely embarrassed at public recognition because that was not done in his culture. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this report has resulted in any change in hiring standards. Dr. Hastings said the same standards apply across the board. The effort is to increase the pool of minority applicants. M='. Lindstrom said one thing that leads to the lack of qualified applicants is t~e fact that students who have problems learning have been promoted to the nextii!grade, rather than dealing with those problems. Dr. Hastings said that has ~robably been normal in the past. In the last few years, various factors have.'~been identified through research to identify "at risk" students. Programs~~ geared to those students to give them individualized attention and build ~ sense of worth and belonging are being started. ~'i Mr. Way said those who had worked for two years compiling this informa- tion are very anxious to ensure that the report is implemented. He said the County is not in a position to tell the private sector how7 they should imple- ment affirmative actions programs. However, unless the lo!cal governments become someway actively involved, this effort may just drop. Mr. Way said the last recommendation in this report from the private secto~i has not been addressed in the summary of things the County has done. ~at is the forming of an affirmative action committee which would be County W~de and include City representatives. Mr. Way said he and Dr. Hastings would ~ meeting again on Friday with this group. The time has come when the CountMi will have to address this issue. Dr. Hastings said the County and the City could certainly participate in a community-wide committee. However, a third representati'~e from the private sector would have to be hired as someone who would have a~ employers. Mr. Bowie said it sounds like something on whi Commerce should take the lead. He said he has no problem committee. Mr. Way said the findings of this task force h attention of the community that there are and continue to of minority employment. This type of problem affects the the private sector. Mr. Bain said he felt that government should be on the committee. own affirmative action plan. ~hority over private ~h the Chamber of ~ith having a joint ~ve brought to the ~e problems in terms ~ounty as well as representatives Beyond that, the County can o~ly comment on its December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 83 Mr. Way said he would like to hear more about the recommendation that mentions including an affirmative action pledge on city business license applications. He would like for the County to look at the ramifications of initiating that as part of its affirmative action plan. Mr. Perkins said he has no problem with forming this committee, but he feels that most larger corporations have affirmative action plans of their own. In this community, the efforts may need to be directed to "Mom and Pop" businesses, and he wonders how much affect there would be on these small businesses. Mrs. Cooke said the larger companies have the funds to have training programs of their own. Smaller businesses have to rely on training on the job or hiring already trained employees. She said that is the problem she has experienced. The time and the finances needed to train an applicant with no basic skills would prohibit small business operators from being able to sign such a pledge as Mr. Way had mentioned. Mr. Lindstrom said the problem ultimately has to be solved through public education. Schools must ensure that students learn the basics of language and math before letting them pass. He said his 5experience in teaching shows that students get all the way to graduate school without these basic skills, and then it is too late. Private employers are ~ot going to do this for the reasons Mrs. Cooke just gave. Mr. Way said he and Dr. Hastings would take these thoughts back to their next meeting on this subject. Mr. Way asked that the Board take up Agenda Item No. 21 at this time. Agenda Item No. 21. Presentation by Nimrod Clark. Mr. Rod Clark said he represents The Concerned Citizens of Albemarle, which now number 4,786. He said they feel that the Board has the authority to order a referendum. This group has signed a~petition asking the Board to allow a referendum regarding the establishment of a County Police Department. He said they are prepared to take the next s~ep of legal action, but do not feel that should be necessary. Legal action~would require the concerned citizens to put on a financial drive to preserve their rights. He said they respectfully request that the Board give them an answer to their request for a referendum at a future Board meeting. He sa{d they have agreed not to go forward until the Board responds to their req~uest. Mr. James Morris, a member of The Concerned Citizens of Albemarle, submitted an alternative proposal from a minority of that group. He suggested that the Board of Supervisors establish a Public Safety Board responsible for the oversight and review of the sheriff, pol~ice, fire and rescue departments. The County Executive's office and several cibizens should also be a part of that board whose primary concern would be to ensure strong cooperation between the four departments and to optimize the serv&ce to county residents. He suggested that the elected sheriff be the chairman. He further suggested that the Board of Supervisors request that the local representatives to the State legislature introduce legislation providing ~hat any county may change its law enforcement by referendum, if a petition wit~' ten percent of the registered voters is presented to the Circuit Court and ~the referendum is then approved by two-thirds of the voters voting in the following election. Mr. Morris said he wanted to avoid the expense and uncertainty that would result if The Concerned Citizens of Albemarl~!and the Board of Supervisors allowed the courts to decide this issue. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said the idea of an advisoyy board is a good one. He said he is not sure who should be on it, but at le~ast the Sheriff, the Police Chief, someone from the Commonwealth's Attorney's office, someone from the County Executive's office, and a few citizensl should be on the committee. He said he recognizes as a pragmatic matter thati~law enforcement is something that was not voted on by the citizens of the County until the Police Department was created. He said he has not changed his feelings about his vigorous support of a Police Department, but he does not have a problem with an increased role for the public in terms of ~dvising the County Executive and the Police Department on its operations. He said he also thinks it would probably improve the Police Department. He thinks it is a good idea, whether 84 December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) it avoids a court battle or not. He said he would like to see the Board follow through on the idea, perhaps at the January meeting. He would like to see enhanced cooperation between the Sheriff and the Police Department, and he thinks it is a positive step the Board should take. Mr. Bowie said he would like some feed-back from staff on the three points Mr. Morris had covered. They were the possible litigation, creating an advisory board, and possible new legislation. He said he tends to support the concept of a Public Safety Board because it could be very beneficial for citizens of the County. Mr. Bain said he concurs with the co~ents of Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bowie. He sees the concept as important because of input~from the public so that a lack of communication can be overcome. He said the public would not have to rely on the news media for what goes on in the County. The lines of communication would be open with more citizen involvement, and it could be a good thing. He said he would like further information from staff on how the committee should be structured. Regarding the legislation, he thinks there could be an improvement over what was passed last year bylithe General Assembly. Mrs. Cooke said the communication from Mr. Morris is ~a breath of fresh air and something constructive. She said she concurs with the remarks of the other Board members, and she would like to see a report from the staff on this suggestion. Mr. Way said he could agree with the Board members basically. However, as Mr. Lindstrom said, any kind of a committee would have :to be in an advisory capacity. He said he would be cautious about having any group who, in any way, could undermine or curtail the authority of the law enforcement depart- ments. Mr. Perkins said he thinks there is room for pooling !of resources and having more cooperation. Mr. Way said the matter should be placed on the agenda for January, with discussion and input from staff regarding the three pointsl Mr. Bowie outlined. Mr. Bowie said he wanted the County Attorney's specific r~commendation on the litigation. The consensus of the Board was to request that staff ~and the County Attorney provide information at the January 11, 1989, Boated meeting in response to the suggestions addressed by Mr. Morris. Agenda Item No. 19a. Appropriation: School Division? - Job Training Grant. To be included on a future agenda when someone from the School Division could be present. Agenda Item No. 19b. Appropriation: Rivanna Park - ~rant. Mr. Agnor said the City and County have secured two grants for the construction of the Rivanna Park totaling $402,279. One iS State Recreational Access Funds in the amount of $252,279, and the other is from The Virginia Outdoors Fund in the amount of $150,000. It will also be necessary for the County to advance an amount equal to one-half the total gr~nt funding, which is $201,139.50. The City will be paying the bills as work!iis completed, and the County will reimburse the City for half of the costs. ~ Mr. Lindstrom offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie~ to approve the appropriation by adopting the following resolution: December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 85 FISCAL YEAR FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: 88/89 CAPITAL State Grants for Rivanna Park Construction EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1900071002709000 DESCRIPTION Rivanna Park-Construction TOTAL AMOUNT $201~ 139.50 $201,139.50 REVENUE 2900024000240750 2900024000240760 DESCRIPTION Recreation Access Fund Virginia Outdoor Fund TOTAL AMOUNT $126,139.50 75~000.00 $201,139.50 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. 20a. Appointment: Personnel Advisory Committee. Mr. Agnor said that in response to the Board's direction that a committee of private business employers be formed to serve as an advisory committee on personnel matters such as salary and benefits, Dr. Hastings had formed such a committee, and now requests that two Board members be appointed to serve on this committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain to appoint Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Perkins as members of the Personnel Advisory Committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by thB following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 20b. Other Appointments. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Frank Johnstone's term as a representative to the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program would expire in January, and the Board would need to make an appointment for a representative. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to reappoint Chief Frank Johnstone to the James River Alcohol Safety Action Program to a term which will 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. Agenda Item No. 2la. Southside Health Clinic - Request Reduction in fee. Mr. Agnor said Ms. Cary Moon, on behalfiof the Central Virginia Medical Clinic Association, which leases the Southside Health Clinic from the County, had requested that the County reduce its rental fee from $500 to $100 because of cut backs in Federal funding to this facility. The $500 had been used by the County in the past to make minor repairs.. He said staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to sign an amendment to the existing contract. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to authorize the Chairman to sign an amendment to the existing contract to reduce the rental fee for the Southside Health Clinic b~ilding from $500 to $100. 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. December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Way said he felt the Board should have a brief discussion about the request received last week for a legislative liaison befOre meeting with legislative representatives after lunch. Mr. Agnor said the staffof the Planning District Commission would provide legislative liaison on a commuting basis 'to Richmond during the legislative session of the General Assembly for the localities that wished to participate. Cost of participation Would be based on either an equal basis or a population basis. As a result of discussions last week, the Board wanted to see what other localities would be doing before making a decision. Mr. Agnor said the City of Charlottesville has a meeting scheduled for this coming week on the matter. Nelson County turned it down. Greene County has approved the request. Louisa County has not had a meeting yet, but he felt it was probable they would approve the plan. Mr. Agnor said he has no knowledge of the results in Fluvanna County. He said allof these localities agreed they wanted to have a legislative liaison on a one year's trial basis to determine how successful it would be. They also wanted to have any associated cost charged on a population basis. Mr. Bain said any funds allocated would last only through the General Assembly session, but he would like to consider going on ~beyond that. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. ~Bain to authorize the staff to arrange with the Planning District Commission th~ position of Legis- lative Liaison to work in conjunction with other localities for the 1989 Session of the General Assembly on a trial basis. Mr. Agnor said there is one other element he wanted ~he Board to be aware of on this matter. There is an automated computer program offered by Legislative Services to localities. He said the County has the capability of connecting to it at no cost. He said this computer program gives updated information every day. He said Mrs. Nancy O'Brien of the !~Planning District Commission had expressed an interest in having access to that each day. Mr. Bowie said the problem is being aware of actions that may'~.~not be on the printout. There was no further discussion. Roll was called andI the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom !'and Way. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perkins explained that he voted against this motibn because he feels the liaison effort should be the responsibility of the de%egates. He said the County should be able to trust its legislators. Mr. LindS~rom said the legislation that was passed last year is justification for?having a "watch dog" for the County. ~ Agenda Item No. 22. Recess for lunch and reconvene in Rooms 5/6. At 12:10 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowie to adjourn into Executive Session for discussion of person~nel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorde~ vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. At 1:35 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Agenda Item No. 23. Meet with Local Legislators to d scuss legislative matters for the 1989 session of the General Assembly. Present were Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr. and Delegates Mitchell Van Yahres and George F. Allen. Also present was the Chairman of the Albemarle County School Board, Charles Tolbert, and Superintendent of Schools, N. Andrew Overstreet. December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 87 Mr. Lindstrom said the perennial problem is equality of cities and counties, especially in the area of equal borrowing/taxing authority. He said a county has as many problems if not more than a city, and really needs to have the same taxing powers and borrowing options. Mr. Bowie said that along with that, the State continually gives mandates and continually refuses to fund them or give the counties any way to fund them. The combination of these two throughout the State could strangle some counties. Mr. Allen said he feels that if the General Assembly is going to mandate, it should pay its fair share. If they're not willing to do that, then you wonder if the mandate is all that important. Mr. Bain asked the representatives if they thought the General Assembly would enact Development Impact Fees this year to give counties some assis- tance. Mr. Van Yahres said that in travelling throughout the State, he has heard some sympathy for the problem and the method of using Impact Fees as a poten- tial way of developing revenues in high growth areas. He said that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area is definitely considered a high growth area even though it is outside of the Northern Virginia arc. Senator Michie said he thought the General Assembly would be less inclined to go along with Impact Fees covering additional educational costs, but more inclined to cover increased costs of roads, fire protection and police protection. Mr. Allen felt that Impact Fees were not an equitable or desirable way to raise revenues if they increase the cost of housing. He felt the County would be pricing many homeowners out of the market~l He said road user fees would be the appropriate way to raise revenues for roads. He said regional gasoline taxes, license plate tags, registration fees, or something that was related to road usage might be appropriate. Mr. Allen said he did not think there would be any monumental legislative changes. Perhaps something like tax serviceildistricts might be established with a user fee approach. That might have more support from the public and be a more equitable application of taxation in ~elation to services. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any of the representatives had any plans, or anticipated any legislation being introduced, that would affect this locality. He said the Board was astounded by the introduction of legislation last year regarding the Sheriff. This year they would like to be asked questions ahead of time. Mr. Allen said he had. no knowledge nor intended to get into the issue regarding the Sheriff again this year. He said the issue might arise, but he had no intention of sponsoring or co-Sponsoring any legislation. Mr. Perkins said he felt the Board shouI~ be kept informed of any legis- lation that would affect the County. Mrs. C60ke asked what the policy is regarding informing the Board once the delegates get to the General Assembly and have knowledge of bills or information that would directly affect the County. Mr. Allen said there was no specific policy one way or the other. Mr. Van Yahres said it is difficult sometimes to know how something will affect an area. He said the Virginia Association of CoUnties and the County should determine as these bills are introduced how they will affect the local govern- ment. Sometimes the bills sound innocuous, but may have dramatic impacts. He suggested that the County have someone on its~staff track bills. Mr. Way asked that anytime a delegate comes across something that they feel would have an affect on the County, to p~ease let the Board know. Things can happen so quickly in the General Assembly~ that even someone there track- ing bills could miss something. Mr. Allen said he tries to earmark anything that comes across with the term, "County Executive form of government", iThe delegate from Prince William 88 December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) County, which also has this form of government, generally is kind enough to come over and let him know when these types of things arise. Mr. Van Yahres said he would be introducing legislation regarding tree preservation and tree planting that would affect the County. He did not think there would be any fiscal impact, however. It would be local legislation and not state mandated. Also, education legislation regarding teacher certifica- tion would not have a fiscal impact. The pre-school program for four-year-old children being introduced would not have a fiscal impact on localities any time soon. Mr. Allen said he had introduced a constitutional amendment several years that exclude all drug dealer assets going to the Literary Fund. He asked for a study and for the State Crime Cox~ission to look into the possibility of returning some funds to enhance law enforcement in Virginia. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the legislators thought would be the major issues before the General Assembly this year. Mr. Michie said there would be a revision of the biennial budget. Beyond that he could not think of any major issues. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the road funding mechanism worked. Mr. Michie said he did not think there would be any effort to have a revision of the road funding formula at this time. There would be a concerted effort from the southwest and south to take about eight percent of all construction money to improve Route 58. Mr. Van Yahres said there would also be efforts to get some local methods of financing transportation, especially in Northern Virginia. Mr. Tolbert said he understood there was likely to be some legislation for funding to add to the Standards Of Quality in the second year of the biennium. If that legislation is proposed, he hopes the!:'~elegates would support it. He said the School Board is also concerned about certain mandates the State has, with elementary guidance counselors~being ~ne concern. The school board would appreciate it if that could be delayed~for at least another year. The requirement that certain pupil/staff ratios ben, attained does not really affect this County, but they are mandating summer remedial programs with which the School Board does have a problem. While the County is giving a summer program with credit for the courses taken, the remedial program mandate requires courses to be offered in the summer time to address skill deficits, but does not allow credit for that program. All of the County's summer courses are geared to content material and giving credit ~arned. It becomes a problem when courses are mandated, but students do not ta~e them because no credit is given. ~- Regarding the proposal of legislation for a program ;for four year old children in public schools, Mr. Tolbert said he had no obj'.ection if it could be justified educationally. Mr. Van Yahres said he couldl.assure Mr. Tolbert it was not justified educationally, but that preschool four year old child development was a prerequisite for addressing the drop-ou~, problem. The funding for this program will probably be addressed through a different department within the Human Services Department and not through the State Education Department. · Mr. Tolbert said if that program is to be carried ou~ in the school system as it currently exists, in addition to operational ifunds necessary, there is in Albemarle County a major capital cost because ithe elementary schools are full now. If the state mandated such a progr~.~m and tried to help fund it, then they would need to help fund the capital si~e of that problem also. Mr. Tolbert said another point is the difficulty in u~derstanding the state funding formula for aid to education. The state tells the School Board how much money it will receive. The problem is that therei is no way of checking whether they have calculated the formula correctly, or whether they have indeed paid for the programs they mandated. Mr. Tolbert said if there is any introduction of legislation leading to elected school boards, most of the Albemarle County School,~ Board members would be opposed to such legislation. They are convinced that school boards would be very different if those board members were elected instead of being December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 89 appointed. Whether they would be better or worse is debatable, but they would be very different. The kinds of people now on school boards are not generally people who would run for election. Mr. Way said the Board of Supervisors adopted, unanimously, a resolution on that issue this year. Mr. Michie said his position on that for twenty years has been that over a period of time, localities are better served by an appointed school board. Mr. Allen said he would co-sponsor legislation again this year to allow local option election of School boards. If certain coun- ties want to elect their school boards, they should have that right. Virginia is the only state in the union which does not have some formof elected school board. Whether Virginia schools are better or worse than other states, is not clear. He had no personal preference as to how members are selected. He thinks people in the various jurisdictions ought to be able to choose one way or the other. Mr. Tolbert asked if Mr. Allen was proposing that elected school boards be given revenue raising authority. Mr. Allen said that would take a consti- tutional amendment. Mr. Van Yahres said he was opposed to a bill that would allow elected school boards. He did not think education should be politi- cized, and felt that is what would happen. Mr. Allen mentioned that he felt proceeds of the lottery fund should be used for capital expenditures, state buildings, etc. He would support at least a portion of those funds going back to'jurisdictions for local school buildings but not for other government buildings. Mr. Allen said he likes the concept of the people seeing what buildings they are getting from the lottery. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board of Supervisors is popularly elected, is more frequently closer to the people than any other elected officials in this country, and deals weekly with all these problems. Anytime someone is willing to turn over a certain amount of money but says it can only be spent a certain way, then that person does not know much about the Board's business. When the General Assembly starts putting limitations ~n what local government can do, Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see some!explanations from people who support that kind of legislation as to exactly why they do. He said the Board was elected just like the representatives, and there should not be the notion that the Board could not be trusted and could not handle the authority to deal with problems. ~ Mr. Van Yahres said there was a basic p{oblem of trust/mistrust in Richmond. Much of it stems from the fact that the vast majority of represen- tatives have not had experience in local government, and to a certain extent do not understand what the problems are, and~Have a mistrust of turning these problems over to local government. ~ (The Board recessed at 2:40 P.M. and reConvened at 3:00 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 24. Discussion: Revenue Allocations and Role of Audit Committee. Mr. Agnor said as a result of discussio~ at the las.t Board meeting, he had been asked to transmit that information in writing. He then presented the following report entitled "Allocation of FY 8i9-90 Local Revenues", dated December 9, 1988: "Anticipated increasing operational expenses with approximate costs are: General Government: 1. Salary scale adjustment - surv~ reveals our scale, which has not been ad' currently five percent below competition changes next July by the State and other!localities, our scale may need adjusting seven and one-half percen~ to ten percent. A five percent increase will cost $360,000, seven and one-half percent will be $540,000, and ten percent would be $720,000. ~y completed last month usted for two years, is and, depending upon 9O December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 2. Health Insurance has just been bid, and the low bid of four bidders is a 34 percent increase in costs, which is $154,000, divided between employees and employer (the County). Currently the County,pays 85 percent of the employee premium, with employees paying 15 percent on their premium and 100 percent of their family premiums. 3. Capital asset accounting, if it were to proceed, would have an installation cost of $75,000 to $100,000, and a continuing operational cost that would probably not be significant. 4. Fire and Rescue administration is on the horizon, and may have to wait. To start it could cost $50,000 to $60,000, and would result in additional future costs. 5. A Public Works function of capital construction adminis- tration, possibly solid waste management, and mechanical system management in buildings, is rapidly approaching. Start up costs would be in a $50,000 range. School Division: 1. The State will continue its mandated 7.3 percent average teacher salary increase. It will cost $1.67 million and will generate $0.5 million in State revenues, leaving a net local cost of 2. Classified salaries are in a position sim}lar to General Government salaries, only worse, since the School BOard did not adopt the pay range revisions recon~nended for this fiscal year. The ~-School Board plans to adopt the revisions in January~ and when completed, the scales will need five percent increase to catch up, and may need seven and one-half percent to ten percent to stay abreast of other public employers. A five percent a~justment would cost $400,000, a seven and one-half percent would be $600,000, and ten percent would cost $800,000. 3. Health Insurance is identical to General Government and would cost $400,000, divided in same manner between employees and the County. 4. State Mandated GuidanCe Counselors in the ~lementary schools would cost approximately $250,000 to $300,000 with the State providing less than half the costs. Using $275,000 ~s an average, and estimating State revenues at 45 percent, net local costs could be $150,000. 5. Enrollment increases between 300 and.400 s%udents are expected. That translates to the equivalent of one ~alf an elemen- tary school. The increase will be spread through the system, and the staffing levels in the middle and high schools wi~ll be examined to reduce the impact, but with State funds currentlyi~veraging less than half of the school operational costs, there is ho doubt there will be an impact on local funds to pay for this groWth. of costs of this impact are not yet available. ~ese potential costs in s,,--,mry are: 1. Salary scale - General Government 2. Health insurance-General Government 3. Capital asset accounting 4. Fire/rescue administration 5. Public works 6. Teacher. salary mandate 7. School-classified salary scale 8. Health insurance - School Division 9. Guidance Counselors 10. Enrollment increase Total Minimum $ 360,000 77,000 75,000 50,000 50,000 1,170,000 400,000 200,000 150,000 unknown $2,532,000 Estimates Maximum $ 720,000 154,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 1,170,000 800,000 400,000 150,000 unknown $3,604,000 December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) Proposed allocation of revenues: 1. City Revenue Sharing 2. Debt Service 3. Capital Budget Sub-Total Obligations and Commitments 4. Five percent increase in local revenues for operations 5. Operations reserve 6. Capital reserve (offsetting meals tax) Total + $ 320,000 + 30,000 + 850~000 $1,200,000 2,100,000 100,000 1~400,000 $4,800,000 Revenue Sharing and Debt Service Operations Allocation and Reserve Capital Allocation and Reserve Total $ 350,000 2,200,000 2~250,000 $4,800,000 Conclusion: A five percent increased allocation of local revenues translates to a 3.4 percent increase in the operating budget. With inflation approximating four percent (which does not directly-affect all costs but is a statistical factor) plus an expanding community, added to mandates and economic factors, it is obvious that every department and agency has to reach into current operations for reductions to offset expanding costs. The School Division has to start the offsetting process with $960,000 in carry over funds that was a one-time resource in this year's budget and is not available again in FY 89-90. State revenues will help, b:Ut will not begin to provide sufficient revenues to meet mandates and expansion. Reductions in current operating expenses will be essential. At the same time, funds for capital needs are also essential to offset planned meals tax revenues. It is recommended that once allocations are complete, that departments/divisions/agencies be advised that the $100,000 operational reserve is not available, but is intended for unantici- pated expenses after July, 1989, and that the $1.4 million capital reserve is not available for operations?!~ It will only fund what has already been committed in the 89-90 planfied Capital Budget, and its use will not be determined until the Capital Budget review in May." Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any other money anticipated to be re- ceived that has not been estimated. Mr. Agnor said the figures in this report reflect local revenues. There may be some State money available, which Mr. Overstreet could probably address. Mr. Overs~reet said the projection last year was that there would be about $800,000 ad~ditional money from the State this year. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is fair'~to consider this additional money as adequate to help meet the needs set out in this report. Mr. Agnor said it would. ][ Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any way ~f estimating the net cost of the projected enrollment increase. Mr. Overstree~. said he had been working on that in terms of the teacher salaries for 300?~extra] students, supplies, and transportation. He sa~d it would be a m~n~muM~, of $650,000, and possibly closer to $800,000, assuming the current rati~ of students to teachers. Mr. Lindstrom asked how this figure was developed~ Mr. Tolbert said increasing the current expense for teachers' salaries by ::ithree percent would mean $750,000. Roughly, :~-thirdsof that is fund~'d by the local government, or about $500,000. Add on to that the cost of s~pplies and transportation increased at three percent, and that is how tt~e minimum of $650,000 is devel- oped. : Mr. Bowie said the fact that this year's budget is $62 million is being overlooked and has not been mentioned. This memo proposing the allocation of $4.8 million absolutely ignores that. He sai~ possibly some of the $500,000 increase for 300 students could be found in e~enses last year that are not needed this year. There has been no attempt ~o study whether there are teachers teaching small classes who could be n~oved to more critical areas. He 92 December 14, 1988 :(Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) said once the money is allocated, it is gone. That is why the budget has risen about $20 million in the last three years. Mr. Bowie said he did not think that allocating all this money with an operating reserve of only $100,000 is the way to budget. Mr. Lindstrom said there are two perspectives here. There are fiscal conservatives and fiscal liberals. The conservatives would say that Mr. Agno] does his projections and then makes his expenses work out equal, which is whal Mr. Bowie just said. The liberals would say Mr. Agnor gets his estimates of what he needs, finds out what his projections are, and he cuts the needs until they meet the projections. The fact is that nobody knows which, if either, it right. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes that what has been done is an honest effort to estimate the revenues and the needs, and then match those up. The general issue is that the Board never knows exactly what the needs are, and there is always room to allege that the budget will continue to expand. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the County implement in one or two departments for FY 90-91 a "Zero Based" budget. Starting from "scratch", the department would have to justify, without regard for~what happened the year before or what is anticipated in revenues, what it Would really cost to operate that department. He said that is the final answer to the perennial question the Board has to face regarding what is needed. If a budget is draw in that fashion, then allocations can be made without guessing about these funds. Mr. Bowie said that was suggested last year, but!~there wasn't much support for the idea. He said it can be done with a little time and effort and staff assistance. Starting with a zero base means y~u have no allocation A format is submitted showing the needs, and it is eithe~ funded or not. Mr. Bain said he has no problem going to zero based!'budgeting in several departments. Looking at the audit committee's recommendation and that of Mr. Agnor, and not knowing what legislation will be coming f~om the General Assembly or. if the Department of Education will change i%is funding formula, h, would recommend using the $2.1 million for operations. 5e said he would not vote to say the $1.4 million for capital reserve would n~t be touched, becaus, at this point the needs are not known. He suggested holding the $1.4 million in abeyance until further needs are known. He said the Si~hool Board has been given a clear message by the Board and have taken it to ~eart. He thinks their budget will be realistic, and they will have a har~itime finding any cutbacks considering the projected enrollment increases, i Mr. Way said he generally agrees, whether the fi $2.1 million or the Audit Committee's recommendation of $1.7 million is u~ed. He said his problem in all of this discussion is how much of the all6cation should go to general government and how much to the capital budget. T~he question is, can the County fund capital needs as well as growth needs wi~ this budget? According to Mr. Agnor's memo, the answer is "no". If th~ $3.6 million is funded, capital needs will have to be cut and some other ~ay to fund those needs will have to be found. He said he is reluctant to ~ive guidance on budget needs in advance, knowing that means there will automatically have to be another way to fund capital needs. Therefore, he thinks the Board should be more conservative in its budget guidance. That does n6t mean that the capital reserve will not have to be spent; but starting t~e budget process using the highest figures does not solve the problem. Heisaid he would rathe start with the four percent figure than the five percent ~igure, realizing that both of them may be inaccurate. He would like to se~ what would be necessary to fund both the capital needs and the operatin~ expenses. If that is impossible, then at least he would know that the effor~ had been made. Mr. Agnor said the format the School Division would ge using would show last year's expenditures, this year's current estimate, next year's request, and an explanation of the programs involved with a priority for the additiona funding or deletion of funding. The Audit Committee report had recommended prioritizing needs. He said this is the same format adopted last year by thi Board. Mr. Perkins said he still has problems with assuming ithere is $4.8 millian available. He said he did not have a problem wit~ the amount going toward capital improvements, but this is assuming the sam~ tax rate which wil still be a 14 percent increase for property owners in this' County. He said h, would stick with the $1.7 million for operating expenses ~commended by the December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) Audit Committee. If all of the money is allocated in advance, that means more increases in the budget every year. There has to come a time when the Board gets a firm control on handling costs. Mr. Agnor said his concept for reserving the $1.4 million for capital needs was to prevent it from being a target for unmet needs in every depart- ment. The idea was to emphasize that the capital budget has as many needs as the operating budget. Mr. Lindstrom said he absolutely wants to set aside the money for the capital budget. If that level of funding isinot committed, it will be impos- sible to complete the projects in the budget~ There are more capital needs coming up. He said the report from the Long~Range Planning committee is still to come, and there will probably be a huge demand for revenue. He said he does not care whether the figure is $1.7 or ~2.1 million for operating expenses. He does care that $2.6 million be~set aside for revenue sharing, debt service, and the capital budget. He sa~d it should not be set aside in the event there is a need in the rest of thelbudget. He said he would not vote willingly to change that allocation for capital needs. Mr. Bowie said he completely supports setting aside the capital money for capital programs and not allowing whoever puts up the best argument to get it. He does feel the difference in the $1.7 million and $2.1 million figures would require departments to look for savings and decide what is most important, realizing that the budget is $62 million already. Mr. Bain said the $1.7 million does not take into account any growth except for inflation. Mr. Lindstrom said $1~7 million is simply a target figure for this planning budget. He said he~would not commit as to how he would vote on a final budget, but that figure is as good as any because they are all simply estimates. Mr. Bowie then made a motion to accept the Audit Committee's report (given at the December 7 meeting). Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not support that motion. Mr. Perkins said the Audit Committee's report is simply a recommendation based on how the money was spent last year. Mr. Lindstrom said as he recalls~ the audit report said $1.7 million would be allocated to operations and~the balance would be held in reserve for capital and/or other things. He'said he does not agree with that. Mr. Bowie said he would amend his motion to set aside $2.25 million for the capital improvements plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he would rather vote on the allocation of $1.7 million for operations as a planning figure, $2.25 million for capital reserve, $320,000 for revenue sharing, and $30,000 for debt service. Mr. Bowie said he felt the School ~ivision could find the difference in their $62 million. Mr. Bowie then amended his motion to set aside $3.1 million as a reserve, with $2.25 million of that reserved for the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor asked if the revenue sharing and the debt service both would come outof the $1.7 million operating expense. Mr. Bowie said that was his motion. He said he is sure that somewhere in the $62 million budget, $350,000 could be cut back. Mr. Agnor said that is almost an i~possibility. The $1.7 million translates to about a 2.5 percent increase reflecting expanding operating needs as well as inflation. To find an additional $350,000 in the operations side does not make sense. Mr. Bowie said hisi~point is that the only reason there is a $62 million budget is because everything is allocated. He said all the expenses from last year are added to the expenses projected, and that is the new budget guidance. Mr. Agnor said the City has used zero based budget- ing for the past six years, and their budget increase is dramatically higher than the County's. Mr. Perkins seconded the amended motion. AYES: NAYS: Roll was called and the motion failed byl. the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowie, Mr. Perkins, and Mr. Way. Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, and Mr. Lindstro~. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to use the overcollection of revenues in 1988-89 as follows: $2.25 million to December 14, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) the Capital Improvements Program; $1.7 million to Operations; $320,000 to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Revenue Sharing Agreement; and $30,000 to Debt Service. Mr. Lindstrom said what that means is the $500,000 left is available to be allocated by this Board during its work sessions. Mr. Bain said he would not support committing to these allocations this early in the budget process. Mr. Bowie said he would support the motion because it is the essence of the thoughts of the audit committee. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: Mr. Bain. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bowie to implement Zero Based budgeting for FY 90-91 in the Departments of Parks and Recreation, Inspections, and Planning and Community Development. Mr. Perkins said he would support the motion, but he.would not hold his breathe on any great budget changes resulting from this. He said it is possible to work without a budget and spend all your money, and work with a budget and spend all your money. 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. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Perkins asked the status of the second opinion for the Crozet School Project. Mr. Agnor said the architects could be ready by Monday, December 19, 1988, with their report. A meeting was set for 11:00 A.M%, on Monday, Decem- ber 19 to hear that report. Mr. Agnor said staff has learned that there is no s~andard system in Virginia for the division of functional responsibilities !between the police department and the sheriff's office in the budgetary process. He said staff has asked the State Division of Criminal Services to participate in the development of functional duties in these departments fo~statewide informa- tion. Mr. Agnor said there is a bicycle racing event for t~e Eastern United States in connection with the Tour de France which occurs in Europe every year. It is planned to come through Virginia from Front Royal, down Skyline Drive to Charlottesville and Albemarle, into Richmond and<jNorfolk, and back north again. He said there would be more information forthcoming as the time gets closer. He said no financial support by the County is required, but he has attended a meeting regarding logistical support by police. Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn. At 4:25 P.M., motion Was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to adjourn to Monday, December 19, 1988, at 11:00 A.M. in Room 7 to hear the second opinion on the Cr~zet School project. There was 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.