1988-06-153 3 ~4
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on June 15, 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. Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way.
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive;
Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Morne, Director of Planning and Community Devel-
opment.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
7:30 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 Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
Items 4.1 and 4.2 on the consent agenda and to accept the remaining items as
information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Item 4.1. Revised Resolution taking roads in Section 1 of Rivanwood
Subdivision into the State Secondary Road System. The County Engineer had
forwarded a letter stating that the Board adopted a resolution on May 12,
1982, requesting that these roads be taken into the system. The resolution
must be revised to include a plat reference for a relocated drainage easement
on Lot 14. The following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways ahd Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following roads in Section llin Rivanwood
Subdivision:
Rivanwood Drive
Beginning at station 9+93, of Rivanwood Drive, a point common to
the edge of pavement of State Route 676 and the centerline of
Rivanwood Drive; thence with Rivanwood Drive in.a northeasterly
direction 1,114.64 feet to station 21+07.64, a cul-de-sac and
the end of Rivanwood Drive.
Harrison Drive
Beginning at station 9+90 of Harrison Drive, a point common to
the edge of pavement of station 15+98.99 of Rivanwood Drive and
the centerline of Harrison Drive; thence with Harrison Drive in
a southeasterly direction 705.05, a cul-de-sac and the end of
Harrison Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 Coot unobstructed
right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions
as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court
of Albemarle County in Deed Book 669, page 437 and D~ed Book 979,
page 590. ~
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
335
Item 4.2. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney, and Regional Jail for the month of June, 1988 were
approved as presented.
Item 4.3. Statement: Highway Department Primary Hearing on June 16,
1988, was received as information. Mr. Robert Tucker, Deputy County Execu-
tive, is to appear at the Highway hearing and request funds to study alignment
improvements to Route 20 South and to Route 240 betWeen Route 810 and U.S.
Route 250 West.
Item 4.4. Notice of willingness to hold a public hearing concerning the
proposed replacement of the existing substandard bridge over Buck Mountain
Creek, Route 601, in Albemarle County, from the Department of Transportation,
dated June 9, 1988, was received as information.'
Item 4.5. County Executive's FinancialReport for April, 1988, was
received as information.
Item 4.6 Planning Commission Minutes for May 24 and May 31, 1988, were
received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Appointment: Albemarle County School Board.
Mr. Way said on June 8, 1988, the Board held a public hearing on the
vacancy for an appointee for the at-large member of the Albemarle County
School Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to reappoint Mr.
Charles S. Martin as the At-large representative on the School Board for a
full four year term which will expire on June30, 1992. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Not Docketed: Mr. Bowie said after interviewing candidates, he would
recommend five appointees to the Task Force on Children and Youth. The
appointees are from a variety of backgrounds~ i.e., Project Discovery, a
substitute teacher, a businessman, child care and day care.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to appoint
the following persons to the Task Force on Children and Youth: Frances Witt,
Thomas Eshelman, Joyce Allan, Debra Abbott, and Catherine Bodkin. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Way asked if a representative from t~e Board is supposed to serve on
the Task Force. Mr. Tucker said one of the r~presentatives was to be a
representative from the Charlottesville Social Development Commission or an
elected or appointed official of the City. Since the County does not have a
Social Commission, the representative would b~ an elected or appointed person.
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-88-30. Michael B.~ McCauley. To allow single-wide
mobile home to be located on 6.569 acre parcel, zoned RA. Property located on
south side of Route 627, approximately one-tenth mile west of Route 20 South.
Tax Map 112, Parcel 19B1, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1988.)
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission accepted the applicant's request
for withdrawal without prejudice. The Board does not need to take any action.
336
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-88-28. Tracy L. & Sandra G. Via. To allow
double-wide mobile home on 5.5 acres parcel, zoned RA. Property located
one-tenth mile on private drive off north side of Route 827, approximately
one-half mile northwest of intersection of Route 691 and Route 827. Tax Map
54, Parcel 40 (part of). White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
Character of the Area:
Route 827 has clustered housing from Route 691 nearly to the end of
State maintenance. Beyond the end of State maintenance there are few
residences. The property is a mix of open and wooded land. The
mobile home is to be located as shown on the attached plat. Ever-
greens provide effective screening to the east. Deciduous trees
provide effective screening in all other directions. North and west
of the property the land continues to rise up sharply and those
properties above the site will be able to see the mobile home regard-
less of screening efforts. There are six mobile homes within a one
mile radius of this property.
Staff Con~nent:
One letter of objection has been received from a nearby property
owner stating a general opposition.
The applicant intends to reside in the mobile home and not use it as
a rental unit.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
Albemarle County Building Official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements
for district in which it is located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
Provfsion of potable water supply and sewerage facility to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval
by the local office of the Virginia Department df Health, if
applicable under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping!~and/or screening
to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning
Administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good
condition and replaced if it should die. ~
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 7, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject ~ko the conditions in
the staff report.
Mr. Bowie asked if screening planted on the applicant~'s land would block
the view. Mr. Horne responded potentially. The applicant's property is
fairly heavily wooded already and depending on the location of the home site,
the mobile home could certainly be out of view.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tracy Via, the applicant, said he had
no further comments to add and would answer any questions Board members may
have.
There being no further comments from the public, the Public hearing was
closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve
SP-88-28 subject to the following conditions: i
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
337
Albemarle County Building Official approval;
Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
district in which it is to be located;
Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile
home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy;
Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facility to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable
under current regulations;
Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to
be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administra-
tor. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and
replaced if it should die.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-88-33. Free Union Country School. To amend
SP-84-19, condition #4 which limits enrollment to 35 students. Zoned RA.
Property located on west side of Route 601, One-fourth mile south of its
intersection with Route 665. Tax Map 29, Parcel 15D. White Hall District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 2 and June 9, 1988.)
Mr. Horne presented the following staff report:
Staff Comm]ent:
The Free Union Country School was approved by the Board of Supervi-
sors in 1984 (SP-84-19). The Planning staff subsequently approved
the site plan administratively. The existing facility is of a scale
and design consistent with the village atmosphere. Staff is unaware
of any problems or complaints about the existing school and can
identify no additional concerns arising from this amendment. Staff
recommends approval subject to amended Condition 4:
Be
Planning staff approval of site plan in accordance with recom-
mendations of the Site Plan Review Committee;
If licensure is not required by thelState Welfare Department,
this approval shall be construed to'include waiver of Section
5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. Ail other requirements of
Section 5.1.6 shall be met; ~
Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated, and
is non-transferable;
Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendations
of the Site Plan Review Committee, ~rovided that enrollment
shall, in no case, exceed ~h~rty-~e-~B$) forty-ei~ht (48)
students;
Compliance with the Virginia DepartMent of Welfare's Minimum
Standards for Licensed Child Care C~nters.
Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, 9t its meeting on June 7, 1988,
unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the conditions in
the staff report.
Mr. Horne said the applicant can address whether there are any additional
structures necessary for this change in enrollment. It is the staff's under-
standing that there are some new structures bging built, but they are not tied
directly to the enrollment increase. ~1
Mr. Bain asked at what point the facilit~ is not "of a scale and design
consistent with the village atmosphere". Mr. ~orne said it is difficult to
define the point at which the facility will gQ beyond a scale the staff feels
is appropriate for this location. The reference to village is probably
misleading in that this is not a designated g~owth village. He would like to
338
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
point out that the structures associated with this school do not even fall
under the Runoff Control Ordinance which indicates the low level of coverage
and structural improvements that are necessary for this kind of site. The
staff does look at the structural size when it goes beyond what would normally
be seen on a parcel located in a rural area. Mr. Bain asked if hypothetically
the applicant could purchase a six acre parcel across the road and then
increase enrollment to 75 students. Mr. Home replied "yes". There are no
standards for this kind of rural area private school and it is a matter of
legislative discretion by the Board of Supervisors to decide when it feels the
service being provided is inconsistent with the service needed in a rural
area.
Mr. Way commented that the difference here is that this school is located
in the watershed. Mr. Bain said he agrees. One reason for not allowing a
public school in this area is to be consistent in treatment of the reservoir.
He is concerned about setting a precedent.
Mr. Horne said the staff looks at whether the service provided tends to
attract additional growth in an area. An important factor to consider is that
school facilities are a major magnet for where people want to live in this
county.
Mrs. Cooke said she recalls that when this petition came before the Board
previously, the Board specifically limited enrollment to 35 students so as not
to attract additional growth to the area. By limiting th~ enrollment, the
facility would not potentially grow further, nor would th~ applicant come back
to request that enrollment be increased. She recalls tha~ an enrollment of 35
students was the absolutely maximum that the Board felt s~ould be approved for
that location.
The public hearing was opened.
Mr. David Ashcom, the applicant, said it was his understanding that the
35 students was an arbitrary number. An increase above the 48 request is
really not economically feasible for the school. This (48 students) makes
them a "healthy school" in the area. The history of the ~chool in the last
four years speaks for itself. The school has not attracted any new develop-
ment per se to that area.
Mr. Bowie asked what size student body the present f~cility could
accom-
modate without new additions. Mr. Ashcom said he does noH know, but once a
school gets above 50 students there are too many regulat~o, ns that at this time
the Free Union School could not even consider.
Mr. Perkins asked the square footage of the current f~acility. Mr. Les
Perlstein said presently there are 2000 square feet and tk~re are plans to
build another 600 square foot classroom. The maximum class size is 15 students
The school has a five year plan with no intention of ever increasing beyond
this requested size. Mr. Perkins asked the grades currently taught in the
school. Mr. Perlstein responded preschool, kindergarten and first grade
combined, and grades two through five. Mr. Bain asked the number of students
enrolled this current year. Mr. Perlstein responded 35. Mr. Bain asked the
original number of students at the school. Mr. Perlstein responded 23 students
The demand at the present time is more for preschool spacei~
There being no further comments from the public, the publmc hearing was
closed.
Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the application~
Mr. Bain said he has the same concerns expressed earl~ier. Originally
enrollment was for ten to eighteen students and that has ndw escalated to 35
students. He has real problems with increasing enrollment~on the present
site. If a similar request came before the Board, he feels, the Board would
have to allow it and to allow further expansion of the schdol in this district
is going to create problems for the County. The Board cannot be consistent
with past actions and allow further expansion of this scho61 facility.
Mr. Perkins said he has no particular concerns about increasing enroll-
ment, particularly considering that the increase is for preschool children.
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
339
He does not feel the school has been a magnate for growth. He thinks the
things the school has done are fantastic and he wishes the County schools
could operate on the kind of budget this school operates on with a per pupil
basis. He has no problems with the application.
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Bain. She has concerns about the
expansion since that was a concern expressed by this Board when the applica-
tion was approved previously. She thinks that continued expansion sets up a
precedent and ultimately will cause problems.
Mr. Perkins said he thinks the school is a real service to the people in
the community and there is a need for preschool care. If the care was not at
this school then it would probably be at one 'of the churches. He does not
think an increase of 13 students is of such a great magnitude and is something
that future Boards will have to look at if there are other requests. He
thinks the problem begins only if there are continued requests for private
schools.
Mr. Bain said he agrees with Mr. Perkins that the school is not physi-
cally a problem, but the problem is what the Board is saying county-wide for
that area. There have been no statements that an increased enrollment at 48
students will be the limit. He feels that if the applicants have the support,
they will go beyond the 48 students. It is that inducement or encouragement
that gives him concern particularly with where this facility is located.
Mr. Way said the staff report commented that "the existing facility is of
a scale and design consistent with the village atmosphere" and he is assuming
that the staff is also saying the expansion by 13 students still fits into
that category. Mr. Horne said that is correct. There is little physical
change to the school that the staff ~hinks would change its physical character
beyond what was reasonably consistent with the original application plan.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve
SP-88-33 subject to the following conditions ~as recommended by the Planning
Commission:
1. Planning staff approval of site plan in accordance with recommenda-
tions of the Site Plan Review Committee;
2. If licensure is not required by the~!~State Welfare Department, this
approval shall be construed'to include waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of
the Zoning Ordinance. All other requirements of Section 5.1.6 shall
be met;
3. Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated and is
non-transferable;
4. Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendations of
the Site Plan Review Committee, provided that enrollment shall, in
no case, exceed forty-eight (48) students;
5. Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Stan-
dards for Licensed Child Care Centers.
There being no further discussion, roll ~as called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bowie, Perkins and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain and Mrs. Cooke.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 9. Requests from proper~y owners in Rosalyn Ridge
Subdivision to connect to the public water system.
Mr. Horne noted that the owners of 11 lo~s in Rosalyn Ridge Subdivision
have requested that the Albemarle County Service Authority project areas be
amended to allow them connection to public water. A similar request was made
in February, but was subsequently withdrawn. Mince the staff report was
written the property has begun to be develope~, but he is uncertain as to how
many areas are completely finished. The following staff report was written at
that time and still applies, but now to the entire Roslyn Ridge Subdivision:
340
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
"This Department has briefly reviewed the request by Dennis
Rooker for the extension of public water to Lot 9 in the Rosalyn
Ridge Subdivision. Rosalyn Ridge Subdivision is a recently
subdivided area west of Hydraulic Road near Neighborhood One.
This area is designated for rural development in the Comprehen-
sive Plan and is currently zoned RA, Rural Areas. It also lies
within the watershed of the South Rivanna River Reservoir. Mr.
Rooker has not stated that there has been any quantity or
quality problems with water on this property. In fact the
property is currently undeveloped. Extension of water or sewer
facilities to this property would be inconsistent with Goal 11
of the Comprehensive Plan and would be inconsistent with past
actions by the Board to limit utility extensions into areas
outside the designated growth areas. In staff's opinion, it
would set a very broad based precedent for extension of utili-
ties into the rural areas which would be inconsistent with the
overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan and th& rural area
zoning district. Staff recommends denial of th~ request."
Mr. Horne then read the objectives and Goal 11 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Way asked the total number of lots in Rosalyn Ridge. Mr. Home
replied 15 lots.
At this time, Mr. Way asked for comments from the public.
Mr. Dennis Rooker, owner of Lot 9, said this request!~is important to the
lot owners in Rosalyn Ridge. Connection to the public water system would
allow the residents to (1) have better fire protection, (~i) have lower insur-
ance rates, (3) have safer and more predictable water, and (4) avoid drawing
down the County's water table. He disagrees with Mr. Horne in that this
request is inconsistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 11 of
the Comprehensive Plan refers to providing services, not ~nying services, and
providing those services in a cost-effective manner. A w~ter main runs along
Hydraulic Road and is adjacent to Rosalyn Ridge. It is h~rd to imagine a more
cost-effective situation than providing water to a subdivision that is adja-
cent to a waterline, especially when the people want the ~ervice and are
willing to pay to provide it to their properties. This iS not a case of
public utilities being provided to spur development. TheSsubdivision was
created as a matter of right and the issue is not whether ~osalyn Ridge will
be developed as a residential subdivision. Goall2 of th~Comprehensive Plan
speaks to the objective of the County being to meet the n~eds of County
residents. The residents of Rosalyn Ridge think this request is consistent
with past actions by the Board. In 1980 the Board amende~'the service areas
of the Service Authority to include the Lambs Road Baptis~iChurch, located in
the vicinity of Rosalyn Ridge, which is not in a designated growth area. In
1984 the Board amended the service area to include Inglec~s Subdivision,
located off Barracks Road. Inglecress consists of 43 lots!~ is outside of the
designated growth area, and is similar to Rosalyn Ridge iS~i'that a water main
ran along the property. Public water was extended to ~nglgcress based on the
fact that it made good common sense. There is no evidence~that% the watershed
is damaged by providing public water. Rosalyn Ridge is directly adjacent to a
growth area in the County. Although one is notneeded, he, thinks there are
precedents to follow to grant this request. As in every s~tuation, the Board
should follow good common sense. ~'~
Mr. Frank Kessler said he is the owner of all remaining undeveloped lots
of Rosalyn Ridge. If the Board grants this request, he wiil do whatever is
necessary to grant easements or pay the cost for those lot: he owns. He
agrees with the statements made by Mr. Rooker. This is an instance where
cox~on sense should be applied. Rosalyn Ridge cannot be e=:panded any further.
Mr. Ivo Romenesko, contract purchaser of Lot 11, said he shares the same
views expressed by the previous two speakers. His primary~concern is with
fire flow. He also does not think that extension of this ervice will expand
the amount of developability of the subdivision. This wou d be a good source
of water and would not require drilling of wells all over ~he sites.
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
341
Mrs. Debbi Goodman, owner of Lot 8, said she is in full agreement with
all of the previous speakers and hope that the Board will grant the request.
There being no further comments, the Board continued discussions. Mrs.
Cooke said the Board must decide whether to take this request to public
hearing and then offered motion to set a public hearing on July 13 on a
request from property owners in Rosalyn Ridge Subdivision to connect to the
public water system.
Mr. St. John said this request may require a change in the Comprehensive
Plan. The Board cannot allow public utilities in an area unless the area is
designated in the Comprehensive Plan, therefore, the Plan may have to be
amended in order to legally amend the service area. Mr. Home said that has
not been the Board's pattern in the past. The Board has amended the Plan
periodically. For the past three years the only amendments considered by the
Board have been those for emergency situations where water supply has been a
problem. Mr. St. John said an amendment was discussed in all of the cases,
but it was decided that the situation was borderline and determined that
action was not contrary to the Plan. Mrs. CoOke asked if an amendment was
made to the Plan for Inglecress. Mr. St. John replied no, but the Code
requires that it be done. Mr. Tucker suggested that the motion include a
request for staff to look at the question of amending the Comprehensive Plan
and if that is necessary to advertise for that amendment as well as the
amendment to the service area. Mrs. Cooke so included that in her motion.
Mr. Perkins then seconded the motion, i.
Mr. Bowie said before the public hearing on this request he would like to
review the minutes on Inglecress.
Mr. St. John said he does not think the Board should overlook the Compre-
hensive Plan review because it could come baclk to "haunt" them later.
Mr. Bain said this request gives him some concern and he also agrees with
Mr. St. John. The efforts that this Board went to when it established the
service boundaries for the County was not something done at the drop of a hat.
The boundary is there and has been set. He believes that regardless of the
number of lots this request is for, if approved, every owner of land along
that roadway strip will come before the Board~ and request the same action.
Mr. Bowie asked about the large open tradts (Lots 8, 9 and 35A). Mr.
Home responded that those tracts are in the ~vy Creek Natural Area. Mr.
Perkins asked if that area has any more devel6pment rights. Mr. Home replied
no.
Mr. Bain said he feels that by extendingi'water to that tract there is the
potential problem of almost having to rezone some of the property. Extension
of utilities could encourage further development of those properties and would
just be "opening the door" for more requests. Mr. St. John said that is the
classic argument, setting a precedent. In his opinion there is no way to say
whether or not this action would set a precedent, but the issue would be what
a precedent would do to, or for, the County's land use program. He has never
felt that the extension of water to an area requires any rezoning by the
Board. Rezoning considerations involve more ~han just the question of how
water was extended to the property. He does not believe that extending water
to these tracts of land and then another tract with a similar situation will
militate rezoning of those properties. He can see this action as being a
precedent for extending water, but not a requirement to increase density.
Mr. Way said in the past when the Board ~as granted an extension of water
service to an area, it was done out of a practical matter and not to encourage
growth. Mr. St. John commented that sewer en~ourages growth a lot more than
water.
Mr. Home said if the argument is that t~ere is no public cost and the
persons involved will pay the costs, then theistaff's position is that this is
an extremely broad-based precedent. There ars areas all over this county
along water mains where this argument could bS used. In his mind there will
be no distinction for other subdivisions. Andther point concerning develop-
ability of an RA subdivision is that the staff requires Health Department
approval of the lots at the time of subdivisiOn review. The Health Department
342
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
approval is for septic system areas and it's relationship to well areas and
maintaining a minimum separation. A developer could potentially set the lots
up to make them look like there is adequate space for a drainfield on the lot
and then just decide to request an extension of public water. In his opinion,
the controlling point on the number of lots in a RA subdivision is the dis-
tance between septic systems and wells. If the Board takes away that needed
separation, more lots would be achievable. Rosalyn Ridge. was analyzed as a
rural areas subdivision and so zoned and subdivided, and the people bought the
lots with that understanding there never being any indication that public
utilities would be provided. It is within the Board's discretion as to
whether to set a public hearing on this request, but he does not want to mini-
mize what the Planning staff sees as a precedent if this request is approved.
He thinks it would be a broad-based precedent which is inconsistent with
current planning. Mr. St. John said he agrees with Mr. HOme.
Mr. Perkins said itl is not as if there are waterline~ running all over
the County that are tied together. Mr. Home said there are extensive water-
lines in the rural areas of the county. There are thousands of acres adjacent
to water mains in the county. These water mains are not.reserved to small
boundaries along urban areas.
Mr. Perkins asked what happens if the wells in Rosalyn Ridge go dry. Mr.
Home said there has been no demonstration that there areproblems with the
wells and if the wells were to go dry that is an entirely'idifferent situation
to consider. ~.
Mr. Horne said with regard to the issue raised concerning fire flow, ISO
regulations are based on building separations and maintenance of 100 feet of
separation between structures which is deemed adequate fi~e protection. That
is consistent with past recommendations of the fire official in a number of
areas. The development is low density with relatively la~ge lots.
Mr. Rooker again addressed the Board and said he has minutes of the
meeting when the Board approved the inclusion of Inglecre~s in the service
area for water. He thinks this is a direct precedent for Rosalyn Ridge.
Mrs. Cooke said she feels the only decision before the Board today is
whether to take this request to public hearing and if it is taken to public
hearing, the Board should be provided with a copy of the minutes on Ingle-
cress, i,
Mr. Bowie said he will support the motion because a ~umber of questions
have been raised that he would like answers to. He also Mould like to see the
minutes of the Board's discussion on Inglecress. He also ~hinks that Mr.
Rooker has shown a want and has not demonstrated a need fo.~ this service.
Mr. Way said his feelings are similar to those expressed by Mr. Bowie.
He has some real reservations, but does not feel he has en6ugh information to
actually vote on the issue. He will support the motion toiltake the request to
public hearing, but he does not want his vote to be construed as support at
the public hearing. :~
There being no further discussion, roll was called an~ the motion carried
by the following recorded vote: ~
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: Mr. Bain. i
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda
Item No. 10. Presentation: Blue Ridge Home B~ilders
Housing
Program. The Board received from the Blue Ridge Home Builders Legislative
Affairs Committee a report dated June 10, 1988, based on the premise that
owner-occupied housing should be within the financial reach of all working
citizens, and that housing the poor is a community problem-that must be
addressed by all those that live and work in this area and is not one that is
created by the home building trade, nor is it one that can-be solved by a
single political subdivision. The following outline details the contents
included in the report:
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
343
"II. Purpose
A. Produce more low income housing
B. Use private enterprise for efficiencies
C. Program is market responsive
D. Mix subsidized housing into existing neighborhoods
E. Use existing resources
F. Low start-up cost
G. Production of 10 houses per political jurisdiction
III.
Overview of program
A. Money contributed by political jurisdiction
B. Administration by CHIP & AHIP
C. Trust Fund for Housing Investment (TFHI) purchases property
patiently
D. Private builders, sub-contractors and developers build & sell
houses
E. Benefits to the various parties:
The builder
The government
The community
IV.
Creation of Trust Fund for HousingInvestment ~TFHI, "Tuffy")
A. Separate City and County fund
B. Reasons for an independent fund
C. Contributions by political jurisdiction
Administration by CHIP and AHIP
A. A percentage of the funds would finance administration
B. Create the most beneficial environment possible for private
construction of homes
C. Enforcement of low income status
VI. A pilot program with the Charlottesville Albemarle Technical
Education Center
VII.
Recommendations
A. Designate areas for iow income.~housing
B. Make available public property that could be used or traded for
low income housing
C. Commit seed money
D. Formulate a long term strategy on low income housing
Mr. Blake Hurt, Chairman, Legislative Affairs Committee for the Blue
Ridge Home Builders, said they felt it was time the experts in the field start
focusing on the problem of housing. The Committee focused on the difficult
problem of low income housing and if the programs currently in operation work.
Mr. Hurt then summarized the report of which ~he contents are included in the
above referenced outline. ~
Mr. Way said at its last meeting, the Board of Supervisors received a
presentation concerning a housing project in Nelson County and previously
received a report done by students at the Sch6'ol of Architecture, University
of Virginia, on low income housing. Both of those reports contained a number
of suggestions. At present, the staff is loo~!ing at possible ways for
Albemarle County to do something similar to t~e Nelson County project and to
also analyze the report prepared by the UniverSity. He would ask that this
proposal presented tonight be analyzed with the other two studies. He thinks
that this proposal is innovative and shows some real initiative and concerns
by the private sector. He believes that the qounty is at the point where it
wants to do more for low income housing. ~i
Mr. Tucker said the Planning staff has b~en working with Mr. Hurt on this
proposal and is familiar with the report. Thsi staff does intend to include
this in its review and will bring back suggestions and recommendations to the
Board on how to proceed. ~
Mr. Bain said he thinks the report is excellent and is a step in the
right direction with the private sector takingi the initiative. He also
appreciates the time and effort that has gone ~nto the report.
344
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
Mr. Bowie said he also supports the report.-
Mr. Tucker said the staff intends to report back to the Board with a
recommendation at the July 13 meeting.
At 9:03 P.M., the Chairman called a recess and called the meeting back to
order at 9:12 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution: To allow Nelson County to service the
Schuyler Sanitary District.
Mr. St. John said he is attorney for the Nelson County Service Authority
and is speaking in that capacity and not as the attorney for Albemarle County.
For the record, there is no conflict.
Mr. St. John then summarized the following memorandum dated June 10,
1988, from Mr. Agnor:
"Nelson County has formed a Service Authority that merged their
sanitary districts into a single operation, and purchased the Winter-
green water and sewer system. Their financing plan for the issuance
of bonds to accomplish their objectives includes a mandatory connec-
tion policy to the Authority's system.
A sanitary district formed in 1976 serving the Schuyler area overlaps
into Albemarle County, and currently serves eight customers. In
order to apply the rules and regulations of the NelsOn County Service
Authority in another jurisdiction, the governing body of the juris-
diction must concur. Nelson County has requested adoption of the
attached resolution to obtain that concurrence.
Staff has examined the matter, and recognizes the exfstence of the
utility system within Albemarle County, connected to the Schuyler
system, and the inability of Albemarle County or its ~Service Auth-
ority to serve that area with similar services. Staff also recog-
nizes the application of mandatory connection policies in other rural
utility systems to assure their financial soundness or feasibility,
and does not believe this request to be unreasonable.~ Staff there-
fore recommends adoption of the resolution.
The County AttOrney is acquainted with this matter a~d can respond to
questions, if needed."
Mr. Tucker said the staff has looked at this request ~nd sees no way that
the Albemarle County Service Authority will ever be able t!o provide water to
this area, and staff has reviewed the resolution and recon~hends its adoption.
Mr. Perkins asked if this mandatory connection policy!.applies to the
areas serviced in Albemarle County by Nelson County. Mr. St. John replied
yes.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr'~ Bain, to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE THAT:
WHEREAS the Nelson County Service Authority is a~duly estab-
lished water and sewer authority created by the goverqing body of
Nelson County pursuant to Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia
1950, as amended, (The Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act); and
WHEREAS the Nelson County Service Authority presently provides
or will provide public water and sewer service to that certain area
of Albemarle County shown on the map attached hereto;iland
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
345
WHEREAS the area shown on the attached map is not within the
service area of any other water and sewer authority or public service
corporation supplying water and sewer; and
WHEREAS Virginia Code Section 15.1-1250(J) authorizes a water
and sewer authority to acquire and operate a water and/or sewer
system "within, without, or partly within and partly without" the
political subdivision by act of whose governing body the authority
was created, subject to the requirements of Virginia Code Section
15.1-456; and
WHEREAS the facilities and services provided by the Nelson
County Service Authority within the area of Albemarle County shown on
the attached map are deemed to be in accord with the Comprehensive
Plan of Albemarle County as required by Virginia Code Section
15.1-456 and are essential to the health, safety and welfare of the
public within that area; and
WHEREAS the rules and regulations of the Nelson County Service
Authority require mandatory connections under the terms of, and
subject to the exceptions and provisions of, Virginia Code Section
15.1-1261; and
WHEREAS pursuant to that Code section the Nelson County Service
Authority has requested the concurrence !of this Board in the applica-
tion of its rules and regulations including the requirement of
mandatory connections within the area shown on the attached map;
NOW THEREFORE, this Board does hereby concur in the application
of the rules and regulations of the Nelson County Service Authority,
including the requirement for mandatory connections subject to the
provisions of Virginia Code Section 15.171261, within the area of
Albemarle County shown on the attached map.
1
Nothing in this resolution shall bei~deemed to authorize or
empower the Nelson County Service AuthorSty to extend or operate
water or sewer facilities within any portion of Albeau~rle County
outside the area shown on the attached m~p without the specific
approval of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County.
This resolution shall take effect uplon adoption.
Roll was called and the motion carried bY the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 12. Sheriff requests appropriation for Vehicle.
Mr. Jones presented the following memorandum dated June 10, 1988:
"Attached is a letter from Sheriff Hawkins requesting a revision in
his budget for next year in order that he may order a full-size
patrol cruiser in lieu of the mid-size vehicle approved in the
budget. In order to approve the request,~ an additional appropriation
of $2227 should be made by you. This wo~ld add 2.2¢ per mile to the
operating cost to amortize the differenc~ in price based on 100,000
miles.
Staff is of the opinion that mid-size cars are adequate and can be
made safe. The City of Charlottesville Police Department has three
in service with cages installed with the back door handles removed to
provide safety for the driver. The County has used mid-size cars for
a decade for non-patrol assignments in th~ Sheriff's Department and
in the Police Department. Currently, the~e are 56 cars in the Police
fleet of which 14 are mid-sized cars. Th~se mid-sized vehicles are
used frequently to transport prisoners byithe investigators. The
346
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13)
Police Department and the Sheriff's Department are provided handcuffs,
leg irons, and belts to secure prisoners when necessary.
Staff will conduct a study of operating costs comparing operating
costs of mid-size cars with full-size cars inclusive of the Sheriff,
Police Department, general government and pool car fleet. Until this
study is complete, staff recommends the purchase of mid-size vehicles
as budgeted, and:
1)
Buy cages for those officer's requesting them which cost approxi-
mately $200 each.
2)
Order the mini-van immediately and have it equipped with a cage
for use in multiple prisoner transports.
The following memorandum dated June 9, 1988, addressed to Mr. Ray Jones,
was received from Sheriff T. W. Hawkins:
"I am requesting an adjustment in my budget to allow for the purchase
of a full size automobile in lieu of the approval for the purchase of
a K-Car or small vehicle. I originally requested funds for a full
size vehicle but the request was denied. I would like to reinstate
the initial request for the following reasons: ~
First, the small vehicles are not sufficient for use as prisoner
transport vehicles. If a cage is installed in the vehicles, the
front seat must be in a forward position which does not allow enough
room for the driver to operate the vehicle safely. The vehicles
continue to present a problem with mechanical failures as they are
insufficient to endure the 100,000 miles that we are~required to
drive before replacement.
The purchase of a van in the upcoming fiscal year will help alleviate
problems with multiple prisoner transports but we will still need the
individual officers to continue to transport a large~ivolume of
prisoners in their patrol units. Therefore, it is i~perative that we
begin to replace the vehicles on a gradual basis with. the purchase of
the full size vehicles as soon as possible. I
We had an escape of two dangerous prisoners this pas~ week that
emphasized the need for some action on this request.~ I would be
happy to discuss the details of the escape with the ~oard or you upon
request. This escape could have been avoided had the proper vehicle
and equipment been in place. ~
Mr. Calvin Jones, the County Purchaser, has located two full size
vehicles at a car dealership in Richmond that can be Purchased at
last years contract prices of $11,927.03. In addition these vehicles
are solid brown which is now mandated by state law f~r Sheriff's
vehicles. This is about $2,000 more than the approve'd allocation of
$9,700 for the purchase of a replacement vehicle. Sii~nce the vehicles
are driven approximately five years, this is an additional expense of
$400.00 per year for the life of. the vehicle. I will~i be happy to
appear before the Board to answer any questions about this request.
I feel the safety of my officers is at stake and, th~.~efore, it is
very important that this problem be addressed as soon as possible."
Mr. Ray Jones said to correct a statement in the memorandum, the, City of
Charlottesville initially had ten mid-size cars in its patrol division. Last
week the City had three mid-size cars, but today it has no~e. The three
mid-size cars were given to administrative staff for other=i duties. Mr. Jones
said he also checked into this fiscal years' operating costs within the Police
Department and examined the records on 21 vehicles, 1~6 .~I
of ~hich were large
patrol cars and five K-cars used in the detective division,t He examined
maintenance and operation costs, exclusive of insurance. Ce average cost of
the five K-cars (mid-size and Aries) for the first ten months of the year was
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
347
5.1 cents per mile. The average cost of the 16 full-size police cars was 8.66
cents per mile. The staff remains of the opinion that where the mid-size car
can be used, it should remain in use.
Sheriff Hawkins said his first action after becoming Sheriff in January
was to assess the automobiles and equipment in the Department. He was quite
appalled by the lack of equipment and decided to address much of that issue
during the budget cycle and at sometime in the future. The request for the
large size automobile is for replacement of a vehicle which is nearing 100,000
miles (Car 5 in the budget appropriation). He handed out a letter (copy on
file) dated June 14, 1988, from Chief J. deKoven Bowen, Chief of Police, City
of Charlottesville, in reference to the mid-size automobile.
Sheriff Hawkins said the three K-cars in his department are all way over
budget mechanically. When these cars reach in excess of 50,000 miles their
costs increase. One the cars is almost $1,000 over budget as of last month.
The second K-car is about $600 to $700 over budget as is the third automobile.
The Sheriff's Department does basically the same type of work as the Patrol
Division in the Police Department and it is unfair to compare their work to
the same type of use of other general government vehicles. General Government
employees never haul prisoners. In fact the Sheriff's Department transports
more prisoners than the Police Department.
The escape that occurred last week is one that could have been prevented
had the vehicle been a secure vehicle. The prisoners escaped as a result of
pickpocketing a key from a police officer, from another agency, in the Court-
room. The prisoners undid their handcuffs and jumped out of the automobile.
Having three prisoners in his custody, the driver could not stop the automo-
bile and chase the two escapees on foot. The purchase of the van, with a cage
and equipment, which has already been tentatively approved, would eliminate
the possibility of this type of escape happening again. The van is to be used
for multiple prisoner transports to all parts~of the state. The van will also
be assigned whichever officer is on call.
In reference to the K-car, he invites anyone to take a look at the car
with a cage installed in it and he seriously doubts if any of the Board
members could fit into the backseat of the automobile with the cage. The only
K-car he has with a cage is a home-made type ~age purchased at the request of
one of the officers. The cage is not very secure and a good swift kick could
take it right off the seat. The cages he is requesting cost $200 and have a
steel back that goes behind the seat to protect the driver. His main concern
is the safety of his officers.
Sheriff Hawkins said his intent is to gradually replace his fleet of
vehicles. Currently his department is the only one in Central Virginia that
uses these small automobiles.
In reference to Mr. Agnor's letter dated~June 10, he does not agree with
the entire memorandum. The City has removed all of these type cars from
patrol duty. The entire fleet has been repla~ed with large automobiles. The
City has three vans and rarely transports prisoners in cars. The County
Police Department's mid-size cars are used primarily by administrative staff.
These cars are not used by investigators to t~ansport prisoners. An investi-
gator transports no more than one to three prisoners during a 30 day period.
Sheriff Hawkins said the State passed a taw to be effective July 1, 1988,
that requires all Sheriff's Department vehicles to be painted brown. The
Department has three years to comply with that law. The two vehicles on hold
at a dealership in Richmond are brown and do comply with that standard. It
will be difficult to find a small brown car without special ordering or
repainting the vehicle.
Mr. Perkins asked what is considered a full-size automobile. Sheriff
Hawkins replied a Ford LTD. Mr. Jones said in addition the Plymouth Fury,
Dodge Diplomat, Ford Crown Victoria and the Chevrolet Caprice meet the speci-
fications.
Mr. Bain asked the status of the study of operating costs comparing
mid-size cars with full-size cars. Mr. Jones ~aid the staff intends to
348
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
present the study to the Board during the next budget cycle. Mr. Bain said
until some decisions are made county-wide, he is inclined to go along with the
County Executive's recommendation.
Mr. Bowie said, in reference to a statement made by Sheriff Hawkins,
while the prisoners were able to get out of the car, the escape was caused by
a security breach, not necessarily by the type of car. The maintenance of the
cars is something the staff will look at county-wide. The fact that two cars
are available now should not influence the Board's decision. He does not care
about the color of the car and does not think it is a factor. The factor is
the safety of the officers. He fails to see how the County is protecting all
of the deputies by purchasing one car. It seems to him the protection of the
deputies is to put the cages in the car and if there is two inches less room
in the back of the car it is not the officer that is uncomfortable, but the
prisoner. He thinks he will support the County Executive's recommendation for
now, but he would like to see before the next budget cycle if there is a need
for larger cars and if they are cost-effective.
Mr. Way said the Sheriff coF~ented that it was not possible to transport
adults in the smaller car with a cage. If that is the situation, there is no
point in putting cages in the smaller cars. Mr. Bain said it has been done.
Mr. Jones said the County has never purchased a small K-car cage so he cannot
address the issue, but two of the major vendors in the UnSted States said they
make cages for these cars. _
Mr. Perkins said another factor is the safety of the'ivehicle itself. The
passenger or the driver is much safer in a large car as compared to a mid-size
car. He thinks that the little extra cost is worthwhile.! Mr. Bain said he
thinks that is something that needs to be worked out coun%y-wide. The study
is for all county owned vehicles, not just one department.~
Mr. Bain then offered motion to purchase cages which ~Cost approximately
$200 each for those officer's in the Sheriff's Department ~equesting same for
cars the Department now operates.
Sheriff Hawkins said he would be glad to put a cage in one of the automo-
biles and could guarantee that nobody on staff can fit in ~the back seat of the
automobile without sitting crossways. This deeply concerns him. He is not
going to put his officers in that kind of discomfort, nor !does it make any
sense to him to do so. He plans to purchase one of the cars at some time
although he does not know how he will raise the funds to ~ it. It is appall-
ing that he is the only Sheriff in Central Virginia, in on~ of the wealthiest
counties, and cannot afford to provide a full-size automokile for the safety
of his officers. He is trying to be as easy on the budgeti'.as possible and
just because these cars have been used for a long time doe~ not make them
right. His main goal is to have all of his officers with ~ safe and secure
vehicle which he does not feel is too much to ask for.
Mr. Bain said he does not think the piecemeal approach will help the
situation. He would like to have the studY back by the end of September.
problem should be addressed at that time throughout the Connty.
The
Mr. Bowie said he thinks there should be some special~attention again to
those cars which are in the Sheriff's Department as opposed to cars in General
Government. In the interest of providing immediate safety to the officers for
transporting prisoners, he is prepared to support the motion. One car next
year is not going to protect more than one deputy.
Mr. Bain then restated his motion. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. As
part of the motion Mr. Bain urged completion of the study Cn county owned
vehicles no later than the end of September, paying specia~ attention to the
needs of the Sheriff's Department.
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr~i Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
349
Since persons were present for Agenda Item 14a, Mr. Way suggesting do
that item first and them returning to Item No. 13.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Adoption of FY '88-89 Appropriation Ordinance.
Mr. Jones said adoption of the appropriation ordinance is the final
step in the budget process. After waiting several weeks, the staff finally
received the revisions from the School Division to accomplish the reduc-
tions in requests that were made by this Board. Mr. Jones then summarized
various sections of the Appropriation Ordinance. In summary a recapitula-
tion of the budget is as follows:
General Fund -
School Fund -
Other School Funds -
Fiscal Agent Funds -
$19,431,087
$42,034,367
$ 5,469,902
Total $67,003,089.
Mr. Jones then summarized a memorandum and spread sheets received from
the County Executive, dated June 14, 1988, on the list of reductions made
and the changes the School Board made to the staff recommendations. The
staff recommends adoption of the Appropriation Ordinance.
Mr. Bowie said he does not have any questions nor does he want any
particular public comment except that he is a little disappointed in where
the School Division is making the "so-called" cuts. The County now has a
different pay scale for General Government personnel and School personnel
again. He is just disappointed in where
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Bowie about where the cuts occurred.
She is not sure that was not an intentional move and she takes exception to
it. Mr. Bowie said he agrees in that it was ~an intentional move.
Mr. Way said he is sure that the members of the School Board have
experienced considerable pain in recommendin~ithese cuts. He does not
necessarily agree with all of the cuts that have been made, but that is
their responsibility and they probably did the best that their conscience
allowed them to do.
Mr. Perkins said he sees no other course of action to take other than
to approve the Ordinance as presented with th~ cuts recommended by the
School Board. He then offered motion to adop~ the Annual Appropriation
Ordinance of the County of Albemarle for the Fear ending June 30, 1989.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None. ii
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. ~
(The ordinance as adopted is set out below:)
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1989
AN ORDINANCE making appropriations of sums of imoney for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1989; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and
provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment;
and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and
all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinande to the extent of such
inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County SuPervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
350
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 17)
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1989:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS
the sum of fifty nine thousand six hundred dollars and no cents ($59,600)
is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Refunds and Abatements
$ 59,600
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of three million one hundred thirteen thousand seventy-four
dollars and no cents ($3,113,074) is appropriated from the General Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
1. Board of Supervisors $ 296,795
2. County Executive 338,801
3. Elections 103,569
4. Finance 1,380,863
5. Information Services 607,257
6. Legal Services 166,286
7. Personnel 219,503
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT the
sum of one million two hundred ninety-nine thousand six hundred thirty-nine
dollars and no cents ($1,299,639) is appropriated from the General Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
g.
10.
11.
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
VPI-SU Extension Service
Community Action Agency (MACAA)
Housing
Planning and Community Development
Planning District Commission (TJPDC)
Route 29 Bus Service
Soil and Water Conservation
Watershed Management
Zoning
Grants (Miscellaneous)
219,981
72,459
26,805
128,196
531,005
29,841
16,519
12,754
37,427
218,332
6,320
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN SERVICES the sum of
two million eight hundred eighty-six thousand thirty six hundred dollars
and no cents ($2,886,036) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Central Virginia Child Development Association $ 6,650
2. Region Ten Community Services 128,550
3. District Home 28,500
4. Health Department 438,610
5. Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) 60,184
6. Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT) 29,856
7. Legal Aid Society 8,739
8. Madison House 3,432
9. Outreach Counseling 18,000
10. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) 6,155
11. Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP) 5,000
12. Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) 26,087
13. Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) 4,570
14. United Way Scholarship Program 16,835
15. Virginia Public Assistance 1,168,480
16. Public Assistance Payments 627,813
17. Food Stamp Program 221,870
18. Employment Service Program 48,734
19. Fuel Assistance Program 37,971
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
351
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of the Function of JUDICIAL the sum of one
million one hundred two thousand three hundred twenty-two dollars and no
cents ($1,102,322) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. Circuit Court
2. Clerk of Circuit Court
3. Commonwealth's Attorney
4. General District Court
5. Juvenile Court
6. Magistrate
7. Sheriff
43,832
369,488
270,619
12,520
31,160
3,920
370,783
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of the Function of PARKS, RECREATION AND
CULTURE, the sum of one million six hundred ninety one thousand two hundred
seventy-eight dollars and no cents ($1,691,278) is appropriated from the
General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Library
2. Parks & Recreation
3. Piedmont Council of the Arts
4. Rivanna Park
5. Virginia Discovery Museum
6. Visitors' Bureau
830,591
726,021
5,000
86,283
5,000
38,383
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC SAFETY the sum of
four million two hundred forty-one thousand six hundred thirty nine dollars
and no cents ($4,241,639) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Ambulance, Rescue Squads $ 58,470
2. Animal Control 75,908
3. Community Attention Home 29,855
4. Correction and Detention (Jail) 49,482
5. Emergency Medical Communications Equipment 240
6. Emergency Medical Services Council 5,821
7. Fire Department 445,571
8. Forest Fire Extinction Service 13,595
9. Inspections 541,189
10. Joint Dispatch Center (911) 224,086
11. Juvenile Detention Home 20,060
12. Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) 22,980
12. Police Department 2,426.962
13. SPCA Contract 6,000
14. Volunteer Fire Departments 321,420
Paragraph Eight
For the current expenses of the Function of Public Works the sum of
one million six hundred sixty-nine thousand four hundred seventy two
dollars and no cents ($1,669,472) is appropriated from the General Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
1. Engineering $ 333,262
2. Refuse (Landfills) 551,260
3. Staff Services 777,950
4. CAC3 Grant 7,000
Paragraph Nine
For the current expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of
one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the
General Fund and transferred to:
1. Capital Improvements Fund $ 1,000,000
352
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
Paragraph Ten
For the current expenses of the Annual Payment to the City of
Charlottesville, pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City
and the County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1989, in the
amount of two million three hundred sixty-eight thousand twenty seven
dollars and no cents ($2,368,027) is appropriated from the General Fund
as follows:
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement
$ 2,368,027
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 19,431,087
To be provided as follows: Prior Year's Fund Balance
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 960,306
14,681,766
3,716,015
73,000
$ 19~431~087
SECTION II- REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1989:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the REGULAR SCHOOL FUND the sum of for-
ty-two million thirty-four thousand three hundred sixty-seven dollars and
no cents ($42,034,367) is appropriated from the School Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Administration $ 757,727
2. Instruction-Regular Day School 26,295,805
3. Attendance and Health Services 338,966
4. Pupil Transportation 3,010,752
5. Operation-School Plant 4,346,279
6. Fixed Charges 7,274,388
7. Adult Education 10,450
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 42,034~367
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd)
Revenue from Local Sources (Personnel Dept. Recov.)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Miscellaneous Revenue
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 25,081,076
93,493
16,180,811
678,987
$ 42~034~367
SECTION III - Other School Funds
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1989:
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
353
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM the
sum of one million three hundred ninety-four thousand eight hundred forty
five dollars and no cents ($1,394,845) is appropriated from the Cafeteria
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $ 1,394,845
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 1,394,845
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 988,845
38,000
368,000
$ 1,394,845
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS, the sum
of two hundred eighteen thousand five hundred dollars and no cents
($218,500) is appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. Textbooks $ 218,500
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTALS appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 218,500
To be provided as follOws:
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd)
Revenue from Fees
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
46,000
172,500
218,500
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND
the sum of ten thousand dollars and no cents ($10,000) is appropriated from
the Mclntire Trust Fund as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools
$ 10,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 10,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
10,000
10,000
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of
two million forty-three thousand six hundred sixty-six dollars and no cents
($2,043,666) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund as follows:
1. Debt Service Payments
$ 2,043,666
354
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd)
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 2,043,666
2,043,666
2,043~666
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of PREP PROGRAM the sum of six hundred
eighty-one thousand three hundred thirty-one dollars ($681,331) is appro-
priated from the PREP Program Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. E.D. Program $ 303,781
2. C.B.I.P. Severe 377,550
SUMMARY
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
681,331
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees $
Total PREP PROGRAM FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989 $
681,331
681~331
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of FEDERAL PROGRAMS the sum of six hundred
one thousand two hundred five dollars and no cents ($601,205) is appropri-
ated from the Federal Programs Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Organizational Research $ 5,937
2. Chapter I 474,354
3. Chapter II 63,423
4. Migrant Education 34,991
5. Drug Education Grant 22,500
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 601,205
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989 $
601,205
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of COMMUNITY EDUCATION the snm of two hundred
sixty-three thousand six hundred thirty six dollars and no'cents ($263,636)
is appropriated from the Community Education Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Community Education
$ 263,636
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 263,636
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Tuition and Fees
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989 $
263,636
263,636
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
355
Paragraph Eight
For the current expenses of FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT the sum of one
hundred forty-three thousand one hundred forty dollars and no cents
($143,140) is appropriated from the Facilities Refurbishment Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Facilities Refurbishment
$ 143,140
SUMMARY
Total FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
143~140
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans from Gen Fd)
Total FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT FUND resources
Available for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1989
143,140
143,140
Paragraph Nine
For the current expenses of SUMMER SCHOOL the sum of one hundred
thirteen thousand five hundred seventy-nine dollars and no cents ($113,579)
is appropriated from the Sun, her School Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Summer School $ 113,579
SUMMARY
Total SUMMER SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 113,579
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from local Sources (Transfer from General Fund
Total SUMMER SCHOOL FUND resources 'available
For Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1989 $
83,200
11,000
19,379
113,579
SECTION IV - FISCAL AGENT FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and'the same hereby are appro-
priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1989:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of THE VISITORS CENTER FUND
the sum of sixty seven thousand seven hundred thirty-three dollars and no
cents ($67,733) is appropriated from the Vis~tors Center Fund to be appor-
tioned as follows:
1. Principal $ 13,753
2. Interest 53,980
SUMMARY
Total VISITORS CENTER FUND appropriation for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1989
$ 67~733
To be provided as follows:
From The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation
$ 67,733
Total VISITORS CENTER FUND resources available for
the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1989
$ 67,733
356
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 23)
Total appropriations mentioned in
Sections I through IV in this Ordinance for the
Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1989:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
General Fund
School Fund
Other School Funds
Fiscal Agent Funds
$ 19,431,087
42,034,367
5,469,902
67~733
GRAND TOTAL
$ 67~003~089
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby autho-
rized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time
as moneys become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the
appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period
covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION V
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, con-
ditions, and provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said
terms and those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro-
priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria
Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, the Debt Service
Fund, Prep Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Community Education Fund,
Facilities Refurbishment Fund, Summer School Fund, Visitors Center Fund,
are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--
the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount
named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues
collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations
are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations ih full. Other-
wise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payablA in such propor-
tion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respeetive funds is
to the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said
fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. i'!]
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control ~f the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of t~e fund budget as
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said
agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by, the School Board
or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards
make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an ~ppropriation or
make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent
of the Director of Finance being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the Gendral fund of the
County treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (130th) day of
June, 1989, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby d~clared to be
lapsed into the County treasury and shall be used for the ~ayment of the
appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordir~anee for the
next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1989. I-Io~ever, nothin~ in this para-
graph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fur~d, Capital
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
357
Improvements Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust
Fund, Debt Service Fund, Prep Program Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Com-
munity Education Fund, Facilities Refurbishment Fund, Summer School Fund,
or Visitors Center Fund, but any balance available in these funds shall be
used in financing the proposed expenditures of these funds for the fiscal
year beginning July 1, 1989.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contrac-
tual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau,
agency, or individual under the direct contrql of the Board of Supervisors
except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no
requisition for contractual services--such as communications, travel,
freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required;
and provided further that no requisition foricontractual services involving
the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required,
but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting depart-
ment, bureau, agency, or individual and the Purchasing Agent, who shall be
responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifi-
cation furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individu-
al.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awlarded through appropriate
action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to thepurchasing procedures pre-
scribed in the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall not be considered
obligations of the County~ and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriati6ns made in this ordinance by
any or all County departments, bureaus, or aggncies under the control of
the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense
on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal
automobiles in the discharge of their officia
same rate as that established by the State of
and shall be subject to change from time to t
Paragraph Six
~ duties shall be paid at the
Virginia for its employees
.me to maintain like rates.
Ail travel expense accounts shall be sue itted on forms and according
to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Seven
Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the pro-
visions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on iJuly first, nineteen hundred
and eighty-eight.
Agenda Item No. 14. Pay/Classification Rlan revisions.
Mr. Tucker presented the following memorandum dated June 9, 1988, from
the County Executive: ?
"Earlier this year you approved the Pay and Classification Plan for
the majority of the personnel in General ~overnment, subject to the
Personnel Department's further review and recommendation of certain
positions. The Personnel Department has ~ompleted the review of
358
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
those positions recommended by the Consultants (Public Administration
Services PAS) as well as issues and concerns raised by County staff
subsequent to the consultant's recommendations.
The Personnel Department's review and recommendations are as follows:
Inspector Positions PAS recommended we conduct a detailed
review of all inspection related positions. This was done by
each individual completing a detailed position appraisal from
which revised job descriptions were developed. These were
reviewed by applicable department directors and factored to
determine a recox~ended pay range. Range adjustments were
necessary to develop a balanced pay range relationship both
within and between departments, particularly the residential and
commercial inspection positions.
Recommendation - The recommendations in enclosure (1) reflect these
job changes and are further supported from market surveys. Revised
job descriptions have been completed.
Permit Clerk - The new position description developed by PAS was
reviewed. Minor additions were made with no change in PAS'
recommended pay range. Permit Clerks proposed a change in the
position title to Inspection Documentationist. ~
Recommendation - Approve name change. Revised position description
has been completed.
Administrative Assistant in Housing - The current assistant's
position was inadvertently missed during the PA~' detailed study
of clerical positions. A new position description was developed
and factored.
Recommendation Approve the new title of Housing Ass!istant at a pay
range of 19. The new position description has been d~veloped.
4. Account Clerk III (Food Stamp Issuance Clerk) - Due to the
significant changes in Food Stamp Issuance procedures and state
reporting requirements, a detailed job questionnaire was conducted.
Subsequent comparison to the current Account Clerk III position
description identified changes warranting a unique position
description for the Food Stamp Issuance Clerk. 'A market survey
of this position indicates few other counties have as many tasks
and responsibilities combined in this one positibn. Based on
factoring and market survey data, a range increase from 11 to 13
is warranted. PAS recommended a range 12 for AcCount Clerk III.
Recommendation Pay range 13. Revised position description has been
completed. ~
(Mr. Bowie asked if a classification is being changed~because of what one
person does or if the job has changed. Mr. Tucker said this person is prima-
rily being addressed here and. the job description for this~person is changing.
Mr. Bowie said he thinks personnel performance is being co~fused with job
description.) ii
~ .
5. Information Resource Planner - This is a new pos~t~on title
within the Department of Planning and Community Development. A
position description was developed and factored.
Recommendation - Pay range 19. Position description has been com-
pleted.
Programmer and Operations Analyst - Both of these positions were
recommended for downgrading by PAS, progranm~er f=om 14 to 13 and
Operations Analyst from 14 to 12. PAS' recommendations were
based on both factoring of the position and external market
survey data. While both elements are still valid, a more
thorough review of the market data for only the Qity of Charlottes-
ville and the University of Virginia indicates o~r entry level
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
359
programmer position is significantly below the area market rate
which is at a range of 19. In addition, while many locales have
an entry level programmer position they end up hiring people at
a higher rate because they can't get qualified people at the
lower rate.
Recommendation - In view of the negative impact of the market data,
it is recommended that both positions be retained at their current
pay ranges and not be downgraded.
Administrative Secretary - This issue was addressed at the March
meeting of the Pay/Classification Review Committee where it was
proposed that people serving as secretaries to department heads
and principals be classified as Administrative Secretaries vs.
Secretaries and that there be two categories. The Administrative
Secretary with supervisory responsibilities would be in range
15, those without supervisory responsibilities would be in range
14.
Recommendation - Implement the two separate positions.
Other Pay/Classification Issues Raised But No Changes Recommended:
Position(s)
Fire Prevention Officer
Administrative Secretary I
Senior Eligibility Worker
Eligibility Worker
Police Officer
Business License Examiner
County Assessor
Real Estate Clerks
Tax Clerk
Account Clerk
Accounting Technician/
Tax Technician
Director of Finance
Deputy Director of Finance
Deputy Clerk
Deputy Zoning Administrator
Supt of Parks and Recreation
Communications Officer
Issue
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too High
Review
Review
Too Low relative to
Personnel Specialist
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Reviews/Issues Yet Unresolved - Two positions in Staff Services
Department need to be reviewed further, but should await the
finalizing of the organizational structure of that department.
A more detailed review of several p~sitions in the Finance
Department are awaiting the results of Mr. Breeden's review.
The Eligibility Worker position in the Social Services Depart-
ment will be reviewed further with Ms. Morris.
Staff recommends your approval of the above recommendations in order
that they may become effective on July 1, 1988."
Mr. Perkins said he has a problem with h~ring consultants to come in and
do these types of studies because you know wh~t the recommendations are going
to be except in minor cases, for the whole study, everybody is going to get
more money. It looks to him like the county can do its own studies without
having to hire someone to come in and tell iti.what to do.
Mr. Bain said his concern is hiring people to do the job right and if the
county is getting the people to do the job at!ithe level they are being paid.
If the county can hire an equally capable per~on to do a job for less, then it
should do so.
Mr. Perkins said it seems that there is ~his stigma that an organization
must get someone from out of town to tell it~h~ at it has.
360
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 27)
Mr. Tucker said the staff has attempted to provide this analysis on an
annual basis. The basic approach has been to have an outside consultant
review the plan every three years. The staff does its own survey on an annual
basis and it is good to get some outside expertise from time to time. Compared
to the University and City, Albemarle hires considerably fewer consultants.
Mr. Bowie said in the past three years, considerabe things have been done
to the Personnel Department, i.e., upgrading staff, etc. One of the things
that was discussed by the Committee was that it would not hire these outside
consultants anymore considering the size of the present staff in the Personnel
Department.
Mr. Way asked if the request concerning the position~of the Board's
Deputy Clerk has been dealt with. Mr. Tucker said that was one of the areas
reviewed, but no change was recommended. Mr. Bob Brandenburger, Benefits
Coordinator, said the committee did not feel that the salary was the signifi-
cant issue, and that possibly the issue was hiring practices and recruitment.
The Personnel Department is trying to do some other things to help the process
along. Mr. Bain asked what is being done to help the process. Mr. Branden-
burger said as far as recruiting aspects, he cannot address that. The problem
in the past has been trying to find qualified candidates. The Personnel
Department will do whatever it can to increase advertising efforts to find
applicants for the particular position. In any of these types of studies
there is a tradeoff to recruiting, the inability to hire people and getting
qualified people. If the staff finds that it is having di~fficulties in
drawing qualified people for a position, an alternative is~ to look at it as
a pay problem.
Mr. Bowie said the issue he raised concerning the Deputy Clerk position,
and which he has not heard addressed, is that he does not believe the descrip-
tion that lead to the evaluation correctly reflected duties and skills of the
position. If the county is having trouble getting certain skills, then the
skills in that job description are not correct. He still has some concerns.
Mr. Tucker said Mr. Brandenburger studied each one of thes~ positions, fac-
tored them, and compared them to market data and from the:iinformation he had,
this particular job did not dictate a change in the current pay range. If
something is wrong with the job description that could altler the factoring.
Mr. Bowie said that is the point he thought he brought up lin the Committee.
Mr. Brandenburger said he would go back and look at the d~Scription and do a
basic review of the whole job description.
Mr. Bowie said he thought it had been resolved that the salary of the
police officer was too low. Mr. Tucker said that is correct, this memorandum
recommends no changes from what was recommended by the st~y.
Mr. Bain said he has some real problems with #7 on thD list, the differ-
ence in the responsibilities for secretaries. He does not, believe some of the
responsibilities are supervisory. Some of the secretariesihave no direct
supervisory responsibility because that is not in the job descriptions.
Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, ~o approve these
final recommendations in the Pay Classification Plan as presented to the Board
in a memo dated June 9, 1988, from the County Executive, the changes to be
effective July 1, 1988. Mr. Bowie said, as a courtesy, th~ staff should send
the recommendations of the Pay and Classification Plan to %he School Board for
concurrence.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and MrS. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. ,!.
Mr. Perkins asked the status of the pay study project!with persons from
private enterprise. Mr. Brandenburger said staff is trying to work through
the Charlottesville Personnel Association, primarily, with~senior members of
several human resources departments in the private sector ~s well as trying to
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 28)
361
cultivate an exchange of pay and classification type data. This is the next
step in requesting and sharing information. Most of the persons contacted
seem receptive to the idea.
Agenda Item No. 13. Supplementary Appropriation for FY '87-88 Budget.
Mr. Tucker presented the following memo dated June 9, 1988, from the
County Executive:
"In our third quarter financial report we indicated we would continue
monitoring those cost centers that could exceed their current year's
appropriation. The following accounts will necessitate a year end
transfer of funds which staff recox~ends be made from the Board's
contingency fund (1000 11010 999999) rather than a separate appropri-
ation:
COST CENTER/ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association (32020)
Explanation: Accident insurance premium came
in over budget.
Ambulance/Rescue Service (32030)
Explanation: Excess "one for life" funds
received which were distributed equally to
three rescue squads.
$ 1,512.05
6,851.50
Department of Inspections (34000)
Explanation: Employee extended illness,
major auto repair expenses.
Soil and Water Conservation (82030)!
Explanation: Dental Insurance and ~copy
service which were underbudgeted.
4,500.00
225.00
Watershed Management (82040)
Explanation: Underbudgeted for telephone,
postage and dental insurance.
Piedmont Virginia Community College (91032)
Explanation: Payment to Board members plus
FICA costs which was underbudgeted.
370.00
550.00
$ 14,008.55"
Mr. Tucker said the staff would recommend the Board's approval of the
requested transfers.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the
transfer of funds as presented in the amount of $14,008.55 from the Board's
Contingency as set out below. There being no discussion, roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Fiscal Year: 87/88
Fund: General
Purpose of Appropriation: Adjustments in Departmental budgets
resulting from administrative reviews.
362
Expenditure
Cost Center/Category
1100032030565002
1100032030565102
1100032030565202
1100032020561400
1100034000540800
1100034000100100
1100082030200700
1100082030540104
1100082040200700
1100082040520100
1100082040520300
1100091032562400
1100011010999999
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
Description
Char/Alb Res. Sq.-EMS
Western Alb. Res. Sq.-EMS
Scottsville Res. Sq.-EMS
J C Firefighters Assoc.-Ins
Inspections-Veh/Equip. Expense
Inspections-Compensation
Soil & Water-Dental Insurance
Soil & Water-Copy Expense
Watershed Mgt-Dental Ins
Watershed Mgt-Postage
Watershed Mgt-Telephone
PVCC-Compensation/Board
BOS-Contingency
Total
Amount
$ 2,283.84
2,283.83
2,283.83
1,512.05
2,500.00
2,000.00
100.00
125.00
50.00
100.00
220.00
550.00
(14,008.55
$ 0.00
Agenda Item No. 15. Approval of Minutes: May i1, 1988.
Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of May 11, 1988, pages 16 to end, and
found them to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, 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, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not Listed on the~Agenda from the
Public and Board Members.
Mr. Tucker said approximately six months ago the staff came before the
Board requesting that it approve an easement on the Rivanna Park that Virginia
Power had requested for underground utilities. This weeklVirginia Power sent
the staff information on an additional underground utility~easement. He
requests that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the utility easement
that would permit Virginia Power to proceed. The City of Charlottesville has
already taken action to sign the same agreement.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to authorize the
Chairman to execute a right-of-way agreement - corporate underground easement
for Virginia Power for the Rivanna Park (Plat No. 81880121). Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mrl. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Tucker said the staff had been requested by the Governor's office to
submit names of possible candidates for the Governor to appoint to the Scenic
River Advisory Boards for the Rivanna River and the Moormans River. The
General Assembly just recently approved legislation to designate the two
rivers scenic rivers in Albemarle County. The staff is submitting the follow-
ing names: Rivanna River Scenic River Advisory Board - Peggy VanYahres, Tom
Blue and Daniel Jordan; the Moormans River - Betsy DalglieSh, Bruce Gordaon,
Perrin Quarles, Mrs. James B. Murray, Sr., and Sherry Butt~ick. These names
are but a few of the many that the Governor's office may r~ceive.
Mr. Bowie said in relation to the Capital Improvements Plan the figures
presented for student population in all of the handouts do not justify the
extent of new building proposed in the CIP. He would like to know by the 29th
if the figures are accurate and relate to growth. If ther~ is space available
in the schools now, he cannot understand the need for morelSchools. Even at
a ratio of 22:1 the County does not have any really significant problems other
June 15, 1988 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
363
than a temporary problem in the fourth year. He would like to know the
correct estimated school population through 1992. He thinks there are some
solutions other than just building new schools.
Mr. Tucker said that information will be difficult to obtain. The
problem the staff has is that these school enrollment projections are not
developed by the Planning staff and with not much input by the Planning staff.
Mr. Way asked where the projections are developed. Mr. Tucker responded that
they come from the School system itself. Mr. Perkins co~ented that if the
population projections are correct there is Jo way the school needs can be
right. If the schools are needed there must be more population coming.
Mr. Bowie said the peak year is 1991-92 with a projected 5,020 elementary
students. The present schools, if nothing is done beyond that, at 22:1
provide for 4,816 students, and, at 25:1 provide for 5,440 students.
Mr. St. John said he needs the Board's authority to defend the County
staff and Board members against a suit brought by Stan Batten.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to authorize
the County Attorney to defend the County Staff and Board Members against a
suit brought by Stan Batten. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None~
Mr. Lindstrom.
At 10:53 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Main, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to
adjourn into Executive Session for discussion of personnel matters. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
The Board reconvened into open session at 10:55 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn to June 29, 1988, for a Joint Meeting with
the School Board.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to adjourn to
June 29, 1988, at 4:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
~an