1985-03-13March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
March 13, 1985, at 9:00 A.M. in Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:12 a.m.), and Messrs.
Gerald E. Fisher, J.-T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 9:17 a.m.), C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Peter
T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; County Planner, James R. Donnelly; and Deputy County Executive, Robert W.
Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to approve items 4.1 and 4.2, and accept the remaining items as information. Roll w~
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. ~Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Item 4.1.a. Street Sign Request: Brookwood Subdivision. Request had been received
from Mr. Michael T. Boggs of Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc., developer for Brookwood
Subdivision, Section Three, requesting street name signs. The following resolution was
adopted by the foregoing vote:
WHEREAS, request has been received for street signs to identify the
following roads:
Jamestown Court (State Route 1221) and Brookwood Road (State Route
1222) at the southeast corner of their intersection,
Brookwood Road (State Route 1222) and Claudis Court (State Route 1220)
at the southwest corner of their intersection, and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be and the same
is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street
signs.
Item 4.1.b. Street Sign Request: Lynnwood Lane. Request was received from Mrs.
Frances D. Carter, a resident of Lynnwood Lane Subdivision requesting a street name sign.
The following resolution was adopted by the foregoing vote:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the
following road:
Lynnwood Lane (State Route 1026) and Lambs Road (State Route 657) at
the northeast corner of their intersection, and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the Office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain the
above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.2. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney and Jail for the State Compensation Board for the Month of February 1985, were
approved as presented.
Item 4.3. The County Executive's Financial Report for the Month of January, 1985 was
received in accordance with Code Section 15.1-602.
Item 4.4. Memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., dated March 6, 1985, entitled
"Groundwater Protection Measures - Underground Fuel Storage Tanks" was received:
"At your meeting on February 13, 1985, you deferred action regarding the
further regulation of underground fuel storage tanks until additional
140
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
information could be obtained from other localities regarding their
experience in regulating these tanks. While Soliciting this information we
learned that the Federal government has promulgated regulations affecting
fuel tanks which should appear in the Federal Register soon. We have
requested, and still are awaiting a copy of these regulations. The State is
aware of these new regulations but has not decided whether the State Water
Control Board or Health Department will administer these regulations. Staff
recommends that the Board defer any action on this matter indefinitely.
Once we obtain a copy of the Federal regulations and learn how the State
intends to administer them, we will be better prepared to make a recom-
mendation at that time."
Item 4.5.a. Letter was received from the Highway Department dated February 27, 1985,
noting acceptance of Lonicera Way into the State System of Secondary Highways:
"As requested in your resolution dated September 12, 1984, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective February 27, 1985.
ADDITION
LENGTH
NORTH PINE SUBDIVISION
Lonicera Way - From Route 606 to 0.39 mile
north Route 606
0.39 Mi."
Item 4.5.b. Letter was received from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation, in reference to Route 29 South, as follows:
"February 25, 1985
Changes in Primary System Route 29 Project:
6029-002-111, RW-201, Albemarle County
Changes in the Primary System made necessary by relocation and construction
on Route 29 in Albemarle County were confirmed by the Highway and Trans-
portation Commission on February 21, 1985, as shown on the attached sketch,
described as follows:
SECTION ABANDONED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-148 OF THE 1950 CODE OF
VIRGINIA.
Section 1 - Old location of Route 29, west of the
new location, from the new location at
Station 845+50 northeasterly 0.28 mile
to the new location at Station 860+00.
0.28 Mile"
Mr. Fisher asked if this improvement had been made some time ago. Mr. Roosevelt said
the Highway Department had received a request from an adjacent landowner to buy a section of
the land bypassed by the reconstruction on Route 29 South. Before the land can be sold, it
must be abandoned to public use. Evidently, this section was just discontinued from
maintenance at some time in the past.
Item 4.5.c. ~ Notice was received from Harold C. King, Highway Commissioner, noting that
the Highway and Transportation Commission is holding a series of preallocation hearings
around the State during March and April. The comments received at these hearings will enable
the Commission to make the best judgments for the allocation of construction funds and for
updating the Six-Year Improvement Program covering the Interstate, Primary, and Urban
Systems. Mr. Bowie suggested the Board send a delegation to the hearing in Culpeper on
April 15.
Item 4.6. A copy of the Fiscal 1984 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was received as information.
Item 4.7. A copy of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority's Annual Report for January -
December, 1984, was received as information.
Item 4.8. Notice dated March 3, 1985 was received from the C&P Telephone Company
enclosing a copy of an Order of Publication of Proposed Investigation mn the Virginia State
Corporation Commission Case No. PUC 850008. This matter involved the investigation of
Customer Provided Pay Telephones.
Agenda Item No. 5a. Highway Matters: Request from City Council that the Board join in
requesting that replacement of "Free" Bridge on Route 250 East be established as a separate
highway project.
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
The following resolution dated February 19, 1985, was received from City Council:
A RESOLUTION
REQUESTING THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
AND TRANSPORTATION TO INITIATE A
SEPARATE HIGHWAY PROJECT FOR REPLACEMENT
OF THE "FREE" BRIDGE
WHEREAS, the bridge carrying U.S. Route 250 East across the Rivanna
River (locally known as "Free" Bridge) is in deteriorating condition, is
inadequate for current traffic loads, and should be replaced as soon as
possible; and
WHEREAS, approximately half of this bridge is inside the corporate
limits of the City and the other half is in Albemarle County; now, there-
fore, be it
RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia that:
1. The Council hereby requests the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation (VDH&T) to establish the replacement of the "Free" Bridge as
a separate highway project, to be funded, designed and constructed by VDH&T
on an expedited basis.
2. The City hereby agrees to pay its share of the costs of
engineering, acquisition of right-of-way, and construction of the portion of
such project within the City limits, under the cost formula of 95% from
VDH&T and 5% from the City.
3. The City further agrees that if this project is established, and
thereafter the City elects not to continue with the project to completion,
the City will repay VDH&T 100% of the costs incurred by VDH&T for the City
portion of the project up to the time the City notifies VDH&T of its desire
to terminate the project.
4. The Council requests the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
to adopt a resolution similarly requesting VDH&T action with regard to
replacement of the County portion of the bridge.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Planning Staff had any recommendation as to what priority
ranking such a project would receive at this time. Mr. Donnetly said they did not, although
he assumed it would receive a high priority. Mr. Fisher said he is not sure what the City's
request implies in regard to other highway projects. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the City is
expecting the Board's cooperation on this request, as the County is expecting the City's
cooperation on other road matters. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the County will learn in a
couple of weeks how much support it will receive from the City, and he will not support this
request until that fact is known.
Mr. Bowie said he has spoken to Mr. Roosevelt about Free Bridge. He has noticed that it
"wobbles", and he wonders how often bridges are inspected. (Mr. Henley arrived at 9:17 a.m.)
Mr. Roosevelt said there has been a comprehensive bridge inspection program in effect for
fifteen years. Bridges are inspected at least every two years, but because Free Bridge is
not an HS20 design, the highest loading design on modern bridges, it is inspected every year.
There are no known problems and it "bounces" because the beams that hold the deck are
continuous beams.
Mr. Fisher asked if there are any long-range plans for replacement of F~ee Bridge, or
for construction of a second bridge at this location. Mr. Roosevelt said no. The Highway
Department does have a maintenance project scheduled for this bridge beginning on April 1.
The deteriorated sidewalks and curbs will be repaired. It will take about five weeks, will
close down one lane and cut out left turns.
Mr. Tucker said the last time the Board went to Culpeper, it was primarily to discuss
Route 29 North improvements, but this improvement was also mentioned. Mr. Fisher asked that
the staff provide some more information on this request by April 10.
Agenda Item No. 5c. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter
from Mr. Gene Krumnacher in regards to Route 678 and Route 676 from Ivy to Garth Road. Mr.
Krumnacher indicates that he feels it is one of the worst roads in the County. Mr. Fisher
asked if there is any kind of a schedule for maintenance of these roads. Mr. Roosevelt said
he was not sure, but would check the highway schedule.
Mrs. Cooke said she had received some comments from the Woodbrook PTO and their concern
for the school buses as they enter and exit Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said he wrote the
PTO a letter. Posting Route 29 as a school zone is against the law since the school is not
actually located on 29. Also, there is no recommendation that a school crossing zone be
placed on 29. The Highway Department's Traffic Engineer is studying some type of posting for
the road, and he hopes that some solution will be arrived at that will make everybody happy.
Mr. Lindstrom asked when the asphalt will be put on the Georgetown Road Walkway.
Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said it should be done within a couple of weeks.
Mr.
142
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5b. Public Hearing: CPA-84-7. Amendment to Comprehensive Plan re:
Route 742 (Avon Street) Connector to 1-64 (deferred from January 16, 1985).
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, presented the following new information:
Last November we studied five options for roads to connect the Avon Street
industrial area with Fifth Street and/or Route 20. When making that study
we were aware that the alignments we were studying were not exactly the
alignment shown in the Comprehensive Plan. That did not bother us particu-
larly because we felt that: 1) the Comprehensive Plan was not intended to
show exact road alignments, and 2) after walking along the banks of Biscuit
Run and looking straight up at a 130 foot high mountain with rock outcrop-
ping everywhere, I felt that the alignment shown in the plan was not the
best.
We have since made a study of the Comprehensive Plan alignment between Fifth
Street and Avon Street. The profile (attached-and on file) shows a vertical
cut of 70 feet adjacent to Biscuit Run which seems excessive to us. Our
cost estimate for this option is $4.2 million which is $1.4 million greater
than option 2 in our study.
Of the six options we have studied the Comprehensive Plan alignment is the
most costly and presents the most severe engineering and environmental
problems. As stated in our December 6, 1984 report, we feel that options 5
and 1 are the preferred plans.
Mr. Fisher asked if the staff's recommendation is to have both Options 1 and 5. Mr.
Elrod said both would satisfy what the Comprehensive Plan shows, but No. 5 would be the
easiest route to work out. Mr. Lindstrom noted that a residential section on Fifth Street
would be bisected by this route. He asked if that section predated the Comprehensive Plan
adoption. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Bowie asked which alternative has the least impact on
existing development. Mr. Elrod said No. 5 has the least impact.
Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive Plan alignment is estimated to cost $1.4 million more
than only the section from Avon Street to Fifth Street under Option 1. He asked what the the
cost for the section from Route 20 to Avon Street. Mr. Elrod said that is estimated at $2
million. Mr. Fisher said the two routes are then comparable in cost. Mr. Elrod said yes,
and take about the same amount of property.
Mr. Roosevelt said he was told that the public hearing on this amendment had been
deferred in order to get Highway Department comments, so he would like to make those now. He
requested comments from his central office, but does not have those in writing, so was not
able to discuss anything with County staff before today. The Highway Department staff has
not been able to review the traffic generation figures yet, but estimates that if any one of
the options has a traffic count of 5,500 or greater, all of the options shown have both
vertical and horizontal alignment problems. He had previously indicated when reviewing the
Hillcrest petition, that if the road is to carry truck traffic, the grades should be no
greater then eight percent, and be designed for 35 m.p.h, speeds, with a radius of no less
than 410 feet. All five options have horizontal or vertical alignment problems, or both.
Although this could be corrected, it would-increase the depth of fills, and probably have an
effect on streambeds, flood plains, etc. As a general comment, there does not appear to be
any good connecting route no matter which option is chosen, including the one shown in the
Comprehensive Plan at this time. The road through Hillcrest seems to be the best of a bunch
of bad alternatives. Also, it does not appear that any of the routes would qualify for
secondary funds (secondary funds can only be used if the construction will reduce the
construction need on some other route), so would have to be funded from other than Highway
funds.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any chance to get an interchange on 1-64 at Avon Street.
Mr. Roosevelt said a very detailed study would have to be made first and the Highway
Department has indicated that it will make a study to see if an interchange is feasible (not
necessary) at this location, but feels the study should be paid for by someone other than the
Highway Department. If it were found that an interchange was feasible at this location, it
would have to be built from other than Highway funds since the Highway Department does not
feel such an interchange is necessary.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for a summary of constraints on such an interchange. Mr. Roosevelt
said he estimates the cost of a diamond interchange to be $2.5 million. There are some
buildings in the southwest quadrant, including the Regional Jail and National Guard Armory,
which might be affected by such a project. Mr. Lindstrom said he assumes the estimated cost
does not include purchase of any rights-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct. This
all comes back to one basic question. What affect would an interchange at this location have
on the ability of 1-64 to carry traffic as an interstate highway. 1-64 was not built with
the idea of carrying local traffic, but for the purpose of getting people from one state to
another. Charlottesville is already adequately served by interchanges at Fifth Street and
Route 20 South.
At this time, the public hearing .was reopened. Mr. Floyd Artrip, owner of the ASTEC
Center, said that at the last meeting, he presented a petition signed by about twelve
businesses, the Jail, and the Armory asking for some kind of access to 1-64. He thinks that
the interstate system was set up for national defense, and the National Guard Armory does not
have access to the interstate. Mr. Fisher said the only way the enormous expenditures and
taxes could be justified was to claim the roads were being built for defense.
Mr. Artrip said the Board recently took the position that industries using processed
water need to have access to public water and sewer. There is a large amount of undeveloped
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
land in this area that could be connected to those public utilities~ but one thing that an
industrial park needs is good interstate access. If Hillcrest is built, trucks may be
allowed to go through that development, but it does not seem to be a good alternative.
Mr. Dell Croyts, administrative office of Unogen, said they are moving to the ASTEC
Center on Avon Street. They urge the Board to give this matter a high priority. This area
contains the only substantial amount of industrially zoned land in the County that is ready
for use at this time. It is an attractive industrial area, other than having difficult
access.
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher summarized his feelings that even though the existing route shown in the
Comprehensive Plan seems the most direct route a planner could draw, it is obvious that the
engineers find the terrain difficult enough to say that any public road would be expensive
and difficult to do. Also, Mr. Roosevelt has said that a connector from Route 20 to Avon
Street through the area designated as Hillcrest is probably the best. Mr. Roosevelt said he
was not talking about the road shown in the Comprehensive Plan, but the alignment he has seen
which runs through Hillcrest. This alignment could get the grade and curvature, and sight
distance needed without any extraordinary damage to adjacent properties. Most of the
alternatives have sections where the grade is in excess of eight or ten percent, which would
make the fills forty feet high running along and crossing creeks.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County Engineer had looked at the idea of an interchange on
1-64. Mr. Elrod said that was the first thing that was investigated. He agrees that with
the Jail Building, the National Guard Armory, and other commercial buildings in the area,
plus the fact that some of the adjoining land was a landfill, there are all kinds of problems
and it would be difficult to get a connection angle. A diamond interchange could cost $2.5
million with another $500,000 for land acquisition, and $100,000 for engineering and design
work. It would likely cost more than the connector roads from Route 20 to Avon and from Avon
to Fifth Street.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any point~p~.urs~ingthe question of an interchange at
that location. Mr. Roosevelt said it will take some time to get the answers, but if the
Board has the time, there is nothing to lose by having the study made. The time question
comes back to the Hillcrest development where the developer wants to put a road through that
property. He questions whether when the Hillcrest development was reviewed initially if it
was reviewed against what the Comprehensive Plan shows for the area, or what the Comprehen-
sive Plan showed before the CATS Study was developed. Mr. Roosevelt said the Federal Highway
Administration would make the final decision on whether an interchange could go at this
location.
Mr. Fisher said this request comes to the Board because the person who owns the land
through which the road shown in the Comprehensive Plan runs does not like that proposal, and
asks that it be changed. Mr. Fisher said since the Highway Department is saying that this
may be better than any other location studied, he does not think the expectation that a
connector road could be placed in that location should be given up.
+ Mr. Tucker said the original Hillcrest PUD plan was presented to the Board in 1974.
was just recently reactivated. The Planning Commission did not think a connector road
between Route 20 and Avon Street carrying a lot of industrial traffic should go through a
residential area, so requested the staff to look at other alternatives.
It
Mr. Fisher said if the Hillcrest development were approved without the road, and then
the road had to be upgraded through an existing development, it would cause more serious
problems. Mr. Henley said there does not seem to be any money to build this connector road,
and he does not think the County can afford to build anything. Mr. Fisher said if Hillcrest
is built now, the road will have to conform to the existing, general alignment in the
Comprehensive Plan. If the Comprehensive Plan is changed, then the County is committed to
finding another way to build that road.
Mr. Way said he agrees that it would be advantageous to have a connector road, but if
the primary reason is to provide access to the interstate,~why have the option of going both
ways. Mr. Henley said he thinks the connector road should provide reasonable access to an
industrial park. Mr. Lindstrom said none of the roads being discussed would qualify for an
allocation of secondary funds. Mr. Roosevelt said that is correct. If a qualifying industry
located on Avon Street, that business might qualify for Industrial Access Funds.
Mr. Way said he feels there will be problems with a connection at Fifth Street by
disturbing development that is already in place.
Mr. Fisher said a lot of work has been done on this subject, and although he realizes
there are some disagreements between the County's Engineering staff and the Highway Depart-
ment, he has heard nothing to convince him to change the Comprehensive Plan at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not want to delete the road through Hillcrest, but he feels
the County has a need to focus on providing actual access to Avon Street, and not just
putting that access on a map. Mr. Lindstrom also said he is reluctant to support Option No.
1 because it affects not just a couple of houses, but an established residential neighbor-
hood. He would like to have County staff do more work on the feasibility of asking for an
interchange on 1-64. If such an interchange could be built, he feels it would be the best
alternative for the locality.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended deleting the connection shown in the
Comprehensive Plan between Avon Street and Fifth Street, and studied Options No. 1 and 5
further. The Commission did not recommend deleting the Hillcrest option. The Commission was
focusing on whether there should be some additional industrial access even though the
Hillcrest road would probably be utilized until some other access were built. It is hard to
.1.44 ;
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
visualize why.there would need to be two connections between Avon Street and Route 20.
· the Board wants to look at another connection to Fifth Street, both No. 1 and No. 2 go
through lands that are presently zoned industrial but No. 1 also goes through Oak Hill
Subdivision. '
If
Mr. Bowie said he is not prepared to vote for deletion of the Comprehensive Plan option
at this time. One of the primary things is to get what is needed. Having a nice plan that
cannot be financed within the next twenty years is no help either. A way needs to be found
to get industrial traffic to Avon Street in the near future.
Mr. Fisher said all of the options have complications. Mr. Elrod said his staff did not
consider the link through Hillcrest. If it is to be a residential development, he would
hesitate to direct industrial traffic throught it, and if Avon Street is to be an industrial
area, why have residential development along it anyway? Mr. Fisher said most of the zoning
is for light industrial which is supposed to be reasonably compatible with residential
development. If development does occur, and the County does not reserve the space for
connecting roads now, the situation will be worse. He is reluctant to move a line there is
some justification for just because one property owner wants to build in the area.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Planning Commission was concerned about the residential neighbor-
hood, and the compatibility of an industrial access road running through that neighborhood.
Mr. Lindstrom said no one knows exactly how the alignment in the Comprehensive Plan was
arrived at, but he does not think the western section is feasible at all. There are better
options, and it seems that Option 5 is more acceptable from a planning standpoint in terms of
not routing industrial traffic through a residential area. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be
willing to defer action on this amendment today because he does not feel a decision is an
emergency even though it may be urgent. He feels there might be further study of University
and City constraints with respect to No. 5. He then offered motion to defer action on this
amendment while the staff explores further the possibilities of Option No. 5 in terms of
access to Route 20, and to find out whatever it can about an interchange without asking for a
formal study. Mr. Lindstrom said as to the eastern route, clearly the route in the Compre-
hensive Plan is not the best option, and he is inclined to study Option No. 2 further. He
asked if there were any reason other than the dollar amount why No. 1 was chosen over No. 2.
Ms. Katherine Imhoff said it was more desirable beCause it has less of an impact on the
stream. The cost was estimated on the amount of stream channeling that would be needed. Mr.
Elrod said he did not think it would require a lot more channeling than proposed in the other
options. Mr. Lindstrom suggested the staff bring back its report when it feels comfortable
with a recommendation. The motion was then seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was called, and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher said he appreciated Mr. Elrod's work on these alternatives.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing - Ordinance to Amend and Reenact sections of the
County Code relating to parking in certain areas (adds Airport to list). (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on February 26 and March 5, 1985.)
(Mr. Way left the~meeting at 10:45 a.m.) The public hearing was opened. With no one
present to speak for or against this amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN
ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (1976) AS
AMENDED, RELATING TO PARKING REGULATIONS
AT THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Article II of Chapter 12 of the Code of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (1976), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
ARTICLE II.
Parking Regulations Within Boundaries of the
University of Virginia, Piedmont Virginia
Community College and Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport.
Section 12-10 Prohibited acts.
It shall be unlawful for any motor vehicle or any other
vehicle operated by any person on the roads, streets,
alleys, grounds and other areas within the boundaries of
the University of Virginia, Piedmont Virginia Community
College and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport to:
Section 12-11 Erection of signs.
(c) The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority is
hereby authorized and directed to cause such signs to be
erected and such markings to be made upon the roads,
curbs, sidewalks and grounds within the boundaries or
grounds of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport as it
may deem necessary and proper to carry out the provi-
sions of this article.
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
, 145
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Way.
(Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 10:47 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Mill Ridge Final Plat. (Subdivision Plat of Lots 1-5,
"Mill Ridge", Whitehall Magisterial District, dated February 12, 1985, drawn by G. V. "Kirk"
Hughes, C.L.S., Keswick, Virginia, marked received by the Planning Division, February 14,
1985.)
This matter had been set on the Board's agenda through receipt of the following letter
of appeal:
"February 21, 1985
Mr. James R. Donnelly
Director
Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re:
Mill Ridge Final Plat
Appeal of Planning Commission Action
Dear Mr. Donnelly:
On February 19, 1985, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved the
referenced plat subject to a number of conditions as noted in your depart-
ment's letter to me as dated February 20, 1985. This correspondence serves
as my formal appeal under the provisions of Section 18-4 of the County's
Subdivision Ordinance with respect to the 'condition of approval' as noted
below:
'Left turn lane to be installed subject to Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation approval of plans and specifications.'
In presenting this appeal and our request that this matter be referred to
the Board of Supervisors for their earliest possible consideration, I am
concerned about the Commission's action for the following reasons:
In the process of coordinating the final and preliminary plat reviews
with your office and VDH&T, we are assured that any type of accel-
and/or decel- lane for this five lot development could not be supported
by an traffic engineering precepts.
The Highway Department, in their comments to your office, stated that
there was no need for any turn lanes given the size of the subdivision
and the impossibility of further subdivision.
The Planning Commissioner who sought this condition did so in a
prejudicial manner in that he stated that the section of Garth Road
near this project should not have any additional entrances at all.
There is no support for this capricious statement from (a) Highway
Department findings, (b) your Staff's or the County Engineer's Office,
and/or (c) the technical evaluations of this office. Apparently, there
was some emotionalism introduced by the Commissioner on this point, but
my understanding of your subdivision ordinance indicates that the
Commission is to base its decision on the technical findings of the
case. In no way was this done in this particular situation.
Our office specifically requested that the Highway Department have Jeff
Echols in attendance at the hearing inasmuch as his input had been
solicited by the Commission at the Preliminary Plat hearing. Your
Staff, feeling that there were no problems with the road design
elements of our Final Plat, told Mr. Echols that it was not necessary
for him to attend the February 19 meeting. By virtue of his absence,
there was no public sector technical support to offset the unfounded
opinion of the Planning Commissioner regarding the turn lane condition.
From my understanding of the type of turn lane which was requested by
the Commission, it is my professional opinion as a traffic planner and
engineer that such a lane would create a hazard in and of itself and in
no way alleviate the traffic movement concerns of which the Commission
mentioned in reasoning their action.
I trust that our office will have the opportunity at your earliest possible
convenience to meet with you, Ms. Joseph and Mr. Echols to discuss this
appeal and related matters. I look forward to hearing from you in this
regard.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED) Frank D. Cox, Jr., PE AICP"
146
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
At this time, Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development, gave
the staff's report:
"Proposal: To create five lots with an average size of 3.15 acres from a
15.78 acre parcel (the residue of Waverly).
Acreaqe: Total acreage 15.78 acres
Zoning:
RA, Rural Areas
Location: Located on parcel 37(A) on tax map 42, on the south side of State
Route 614 just north of its intersection with State Route 678 in the White
Hall Magisterial District.
Character of the Area: The proposed subdivision consists of rolling hills
covered with a hardwood forest. The surrounding area's land use is
residential and farming.
Summary and Recommendations: When this item was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on January 8, 1985, the question concerning the entrance design
was raised. The Planning Commission asked staff to consult with the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation because they (the
Planning Commission) felt that a turn lane may be necessary to serve this
subdivision to maintain safety along Route 614. After discussion with staff
concerning the entry, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
concluded that there is no need for any turn lanes to serve this subdivi-
sion. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation felt that the
size of the subdivision and the impossibility of further development served
by the proposed state road make it unnecessary to require or recommend the
entry to be any different than what has been indicated on the plat.
The Planning Commission also requested the County Engineer to examine the
stormwater runoff, his comments concerning this are as follows: 'This
project will cause a slight increase in the rate of stormwater runoff,
however, we do not feel that it will cause erosion or flooding problems
downstream.'
Because the Virginia Department 'of Highways and Transportation has deter-
mined the entrance acceptable, the Health Department has approved the lots
and the County Engineer has recommended approval, staff recommends approval
subject to the following:
The final plat will not be signed until the following condi-
tions have been met:
a)
County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
computations.
b) Issuance of erosion control permit.
c) County Engineer approval of the actual final plat.
d)
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans and drainage computations.
e)
County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement for
lots three and four.
History: The Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat for Mill
Ridge on January 8, 1985. They did not grant staff administrative approval
of the final plat at this time because they wanted the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation to examine the entrance and determine the
need for a turn lane to serve the subdivision.
Topography of Area: Gently rolling.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal:
day.
Non-tolerable, 1,232 vehicle trips per
Watershed Impoundment: This parcel is within the Watershed Management area
so development of the site should utilize best management practices designed
to conserve soil and minimize runoff from site.
Soils: Soils in this area consist of Culpeper fine sandy loam on the ridges
and Hazel loam on the steeper slopes. The ridge soils are well-drained with
hard rock at 48 inches. The steep slopes are well-drained, however they are
very shallow with hard rock at ten to twenty inches.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Rural Area III.
School Impact: Projected enrollment of two or three students will cause no
adverse impact.
Type Utilities: Public water and sewer are not available.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: The proposed entrance
location has adequate sight distance. There is an old fence line that runs
along part of this property frontage that will need to be removed along with
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
147
the vegetation to insure that sight distance is not obstructed. The
Department recommends that 25' of right-of-way from the centerline of the
road be dedicated along the frontage of this property, if not already done.
If this is to be a State road, the Department will need to review and
approve road plans and drainage computations.
Health Department: Lots have received Health Department approval."
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 19,
1985 unanimously approved the above-noted plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
Se
County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
computations.
b. Issuance of erosion control permit.
c. County Engineer approval of the actual final plat.
de
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval
of road plans and drainage computations.
ee
County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement for
lots three and four.
Mr. Donnelly noted that on February 19, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the Mill
Ridge plat with the conditons recommended by the staff, but added a condition (f) reading:
"Left turn lane to be installed subject to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of plans and specifications."
Mr. Donnelly then noted that the following letter dated March 11, 1985, had been
received:
"March 11, 1985
Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman and
Members of Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County, Virginia
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901-4596
Re:
Mill Ridge Subdivision
Appeal of Planning Commission Conditions
Placed on Final Plat Approval
Dear Mr. Fisher and Members of the Board:
On January 8, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the Preliminary Plat
for the subject 5-lot subdivision. At that time, the Planning Commission
asked the Planning Staff and the VDH&T to re-evaluate the need for turn-lane
requirements in conjunction with the proposed development. Neither the
Planning Staff nor the VDH&T had recommended any turning lanes into this
proposed subdivision.
On February 19, 1985, the Planning Commission approved the Final Plat for
Mill Ridge, adding as a condition of approval, that a left-hand turn lane be
constructed. This condition was imposed in spite of the fact that neither
the Planning Staff nor the VDH&T had found any reason to support the need
for the turning lane.
In presenting this appeal to the Board on behalf of the property owner, we
respectfully request that the Board overrule the turning lane condition of
the final plat approval imposed by the Planning Commission. This firm,
based on traffic engineering evaluations and subsequent meetings with the
Planning Staff and the VDH&T, offers the following reasons in support of
this request:
The two traffic engineering conditions which warrant turn-lanes have
not been met in this situation:
(a) Site distances exceed minimum standards, and
(b)
Turning movements into the proposed subdivision will be minimal
(four - five vehicles per peak hour).
The existing and proposed physical roadway conditions on this section
of road do not create a condition warranting the suggested turn lane.
The five-lot subdivision cannot be enlarged; thus there is no potential
for a future traffic condition which would warrant the turn-lane.
The Commission's turn-lane suggestion creates a potentially less safe
condition due to weaving movements which would be introduced by a
148
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
geometric reconfiguration of this section of the road, decreasing the
sight distance and creating possible conflicts with the Garth Road/
Route 678 intersection to the east.
This condition created an excessive and economically prohibitive
requirement given the contemporary design parameters of VDH&T. In all
likelihood, the cost of this additional lane would not permit the
development of the five-lot tract.
Based on our most recent meeting (March 11, 1985) neither the Planning
Staff nor the VDH&T support this condition imposed by the Commission.
Your thoughtful consideration in this matter is deeply appreciated as we
seek relief from the action of the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
(SIGNED) Frank D. Cox, Jr., PE AICP"
Mr. Fisher asked why the Planning Commission had added condition (f). Mr. Donnelly said
that several members of the Planning Commission were familiar with Route 614 and felt it
would be safer with the condition added. Neither the Planning Staff nor the Highway
Department felt it was necessary because of the limited amount of traffic using this exist.
Ms. Susan Riddle was present for the applicant. She said a five-lot subdivision would
generally add 35 v.t.p.d. They plan to construct a 90 degree intersection with Route 614 and
a 50 foot turning radi~on Route 614. The sight distance at the intersection exceeds minimum
requirements. As designed, this subdivision will not create a hazardous condition on Route
614, and she requested that Condition (f) be deleted.
Mr. Bowie asked if a left turn at this point will create a conflict with Route 678 as
well. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway'Department sees no reason to have either a right or a
left turn lane. Mr. Henley said he has heard no comments on this petition from anyone and is
willing to recommend approval. Mr. Fisher said the staff and Highway Department concur that
there is no need for a turn lane, and no unusual circumstances have been mentioned which
would occasion the need for the turn lane. Mrs. Cooke said she was at the Planning Commis-
sion meeting and it was done at the instance of Mr. Cogan who is familiar with the area, and
she did not really understand the reason for the recommendation.
At this point, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the
Mill Ridge Final Plat with conditions l(a) through l(e) as recommended by the Planning
Commission. Those conditions read as follows:
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met.:
a®
County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and
computations.
b. Issuance of erosion control permit.
c. County Engineer approval of the actual final plat.
d. Virginia Department. of Highways & Transportation approval
of road plans and drainage computations.
County Attorney approval of'road maintenance agreement for
lots three and four.
Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. St. John noted that the County has built a record of supporting the Highway
Department's recommendations. The courts haVe sustained the County in tWo or three cases
where the Highway Department on its own did not have the power to impose a condition on an
existing entrance. If the Board where to start picking and choosing which~of the Highway
Department recommendations it would follow, he feels the County would lose strength in court.
At 11:00 a.m., Mr. Fisher called for a recess. The Board reconvened at 11:09 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 8.
al/Forestal District.
Procedure for RequeSting Withdrawal of Property from an Agricultur-
Mr. Donnelly read the following staff report and proposed procedure:
"The Board of Supervisors, adopted on June 29, 1983 an ordinance creating
the Hatton and Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The
purpose of establishing such districts as stated in the Code of Virginia is
to conserve and protect and to encourage the development and improvement of
agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other
agricultural and forestal products. In furthering the goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the establishment and maintenance of
agricultural and forestal districts enables the agricultural segment of the
March 13', 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
local economy to remain in business by giving farmers a measure of pro-
tection from rural development. The establishment of such districts assures
that farmland within the districts will be taxed as farmland and not on the
basis of potential for development.
Presently there is no procedure developed for the.withdrawal of land from an
established district nor is there any criteria for good and reasonable cause
for withdrawal.
In response to the Board's request, staff has developed the following
criteria and procedures for withdrawal from an AF District.
WITHDRAWAL CRITERIA
The State Code provides that any landowner may file written notice of
termination with the Board of Supervisors. After a hearing before the Board
of Supervisors, they may allow the landowner to withdraw his property from
the district 'for good and reasonable cause shown.'
In order to establish 'good and reasonable cause shown', any request by a
landowner to withdraw his property from a district must meet one of the
following two criteria:
Withdrawal is for the intent of changing the property's present land
use and must meet all of the following:
The proposed new land use will not have a significant adverse
effect upon farming and/or forestry operations in the remaining~
balance of the district, or in any other nearby district.
be
The proposed new land use is in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Ce
The proposed new land use is consistent with the public interest
of the County (i.e. promotes the health, safety or general welfare
of the public) and not solely to serve the proprietary interest of
the landowner requesting withdrawal.
de
The proposed land use was not anticipated by the landowner at the
time he placed his property in the district, and there has been a
change in conditions or circumstance since that time.
Withdrawal is sought by an heir at law or devisee of an owner of land
lying within a district and as stated in the State Code such land may
be withdrawn from the district immediately upon inheritance.
WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURE
Owner of property requesting withdrawal submits application with fee of
fifty dollars ($50.00) to the Department of Planning and Community
Development.
Planning Department refers application to the Agricultural District
Advisory Committee for review of withdrawal criteria and recommendation
to the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission notifies property owners within the district,
advertises and holds public hearing and forwards application with
findings and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.
4. Board of Supervisors notifies property owners within the district,
advertises and holds public hearing and makes final determination.
5. The applicant, if denied favorable action by the Board of Supervisors
shall have an immediate right of appeal to the Circuit Court wherein
the applicant's land is located."
When Mr. Donnelly had finished the staff report, it was noted that the Board of
Supervisors had received an earlier copy of this policy, and not that just read. Motion was
then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer this discussion until April 10
so the Board members could study the wording just read. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Proposed Policy to be Used When Supplemental Materials are
Submitted on Zoning Requests After the Agenda has been Published.
The following proposed policy was submitted for Board review and comment:-
Information, data or materials being submitted to the Board of Supervisors
for their consideration or action will be distributed to the Board of
Supervisors prior to the meeting date at which time such consideration or
action is scheduled to occur, provided that the information, etc., is
received by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors forty-eight hours prior to
the time Board agenda packets are mailed to individual Board members.
150
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Information, etc., not received by the Clerk of the Board within such time
period must be presented to the Board directly by the person(s)/applicant(s)
requesting Board consideration.
Mr. Fisher said if materials are presented after the agenda packet is ready for mailing
he does not think the staff should be involved at all. He also does not want to have a lot
of material "dumped" on him at a Board meeting, so he would suggest that if it is an
emergency, the applicant be required to have the materials hand-delivered to the Board
members at least twenty-four hours before the meeting.
Mr. Lindstrom said he agrees with the staff's proposal. If the applicant does present
"new" information at the Board meeting, that would be justifiable reason for the Board to
defer action.
Mr. Bowie said he finds a problem in trying to formalize some procedure for these
occurrences. Now an applicant can just walk in and hand out pages of materials, and these
materials are accepted. For that reason, he does support a change in policy. If the new
materials change what is in the Board's packets, that is a problem, and that type of material
should be hand-delivered to the Board members~ and he does not feel it is the staff's
responsibility to get it to the Board members.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think there can be a clear-cut definition of what will,
or will not be accepted, and thinks it must be handled on a case-by-case basis. To write a
policy which says an applicant cannot bring in materials on the night of the Board meeting
which~alters in some way what has been previously presented, is difficult. He personally can
live with the situation as it presently stands, since this type of thing happens infrequent-
ly. If there is an impression on the part of the applicant that the staff has the responsi-
bility to disseminate, digest, analyze, and report on what comes in at the eleventh hour,
that should be clarified.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there is any printed form that the applicant gets when the process
first starts that tells him what is required, and an expected timetable. Mr. Tucker said no.
The applicant does receive a letter after the Planning Commission hearing giving the hearing
date before the Board. Mrs. Cooke suggested that a statement be put in that letter that if
the applicant brings new materials to that meeting, he runs the risk of have the petition
deferred. Whether it is a formal policy or not, applicants should be put on notice that this
can occur. Mr. Tucker said the staff has always told applicants that they run this risk when
bringing in materials at the last minute. The reason for formalizing the policy to for-
ty-eight hours was to give staff time to review any new materials. Mrs. Cooke said she
thinks that little phrases on applications can go a long way toward correcting small
problems.
Mr. Fisher suggested that Mrs. Cooke work with staff on suggested language, and the
Board discuss this at another meeting. Mrs. Cooke said she would be glad to do this.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11:27 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10a. Appropriation: Parks and Recreation.
The following memorandum brought this item before the Board:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation
Request for Transfer of Funds: Capital Budget
February 21, 1985
For several years in our Capital Improvements Budget we have had funds
appropriated to replace the comfort station at Chris Greene Lake with a more
adequate structure. For a variety of reasons, the project has been
postponed from year to year.
The project was recently placed out on bid with the low bid of $27,450.00
being well in excess of the $18,351.51 that we have available. We are now
faced with the decision of trying to find funds to do the project now or to
again postpone the project and request the additional funding in our '85-86
Capital Request.
The total additional funding needed is $9,098.49. We have several completed
Capital projects with unencumbered balances totaling $5,605.12 which could
be used as a possible source for additional funding. The remaining
$3,493.37 could come from one of two sources. The first and most preferable
being from the $31,000 that was appropriated for the Hardware Rapids Park.
The second source would be our current operating budget as a priority over
some other work that we have planned. As you may know, the Hardware Rapids
Park was dropped from the CIP after a public hearing this past January;
however, the funds were to remain available until our Engineering Department
completed a study on the cost of providing guardrails at the site. The
transfer of this amount would still leave adequate funding for installing
guardrails if the Board decides to do so.
Also, in going over our Capital codes we found one that shows a $582.08
deficit. I would like to request a transfer to clear up this-overrun.
Therefore, I would like to request that the Board of Supervisors approve the
following transfer of funds:
March 13, 1985
(Regular Day Meeting)
FROM:
1-9000-05602-975602
1-9000-05603-975603
1-9000-05608-975608
1-9000-05613-975613
1-9000-71000-702003
1-9000-71000-702007
Totier Creek Road
Mint Springs Road
MintSprings Maintenance
Ivy Creek Paving
Jack Jouett Tennis Courts
Hardware Rapids
$ 2,079.00
1,500.00
117.92
1,907.60
.60
3~493.37
$ 9,098.49
TO:
1-/9000-05604-975604 Chris Greene Comfort Station $ 9,098.49
FROM:
1-9000-05608-975608 Mint Springs Maintenance Facility $ 582.08
TO:
1-/9000-06400-976400 Ivy Creek Natural Area $ 582.08
These transfers, if approved, will clear out all of the above
Capital codes with the exception of Hardware Rapids and allow us to
have our new handicapped accessible restroom facility open for this
coming season. I would appreciate it if this request could be
forwarded to the Board as soon as possible.
Also attached was memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden dated February 27, 1985,
addressed to Mr. Agnor, in which it is stated: "All of the projects being transferred from,
with the exception of the Hardware Rapids project, have been completed and the transfer will
close out remaining balances in these projects, therefore, I would recommend approval of the
request."
Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Way to approve the transfer of funds within the
Capital Improvement Fund, as set' out in Mr. Mullaney's memorandum above. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10b. Appropriation: Emergency Services. This item was brought before
the Board by a memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden dated February 27, 1985, addressed to
Mr. Agnor, as set out below:
"The County's share of this operation is billed to the County by the City of
Charlottesville and for the last several years their billing has always
lagged behind the actual period covered so that the last quarter or half of
our share for a fiscal year was not paid until the following fiscal year.
The City has apparently refined their billing process and is billing us on a
more current basis which will cause a problem with the current year
appropriation. Detailed below are the appropriations and actual payments to
the City for the last several years which show this situation.
FISCAL YEA~ APPROPRIATION EXPENDITURE BALANCE
82/83 $ 5,918 $ 1,877 $ 4,041
83/84 6,280 4,837 1,443
84./85 7,365 6,980 385
As you can see, in 82/83 the City only billed us for 1/3 of our share of the
operation and the balance ($4,041) reverted to the General Fund balance. In
83/84, we paid the balance of the 82./83 cost plus 1/2 of the actual 83/84
cost, and the balance ($1,443) reverted to-the fund balance. In 84/85, we
have paid the balance of 83/84 ($3,297) plus 1/2 of the 84/85 cost ($3,683),
leaving only a balance of $385 in the current budget.
We have just received the bill for the third quarter share of this fiscal
year in the amount of $1,841.25, and I am sure we will be receiving the
fourth quarter bill for a like amount within the fiscal year which would
result in an overexpenditure in this account of $3,297.50.
In order to avoid this problem, I am requesting an additional appropriation
for Emergency Sarvices in the amount of $3,300.00.
(Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:30 a.m.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $3,300 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and coded to 1-1000-35050-565300, Emergency Services; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation is effective this date.
152
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10c. Appropriation: Utility Expenses - Burley Middle School.
Memorandum was received from Mr. David C. Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for
Finance and Administration, School Board, in which he states that the City of Charlottesville
has recently detailed for him the problem of non-billed gas service at Burley Middle School.
Of the total $52,087 due, $36,698 is the result of prior fiscal years operations. The School
Board at its meeting on February 11, 1985, voted to request that the Board of Supervisors
appropriate this amount as a supplemental appropriation since a decreased expenditure for gas
service in FY 83-84 contributed to the favorable School Fund surplus for that year, and it is
hoped that those funds may now be used to offset this extraordinary expense. The School
system will cover the current period expense from its present operating budget, and will
request sufficient funds in the 1985/86 budget to cover this type of expense.
(Mr. St. John left the meeting at 11.32 a.m.)
Mr. Bowie noted that the County Executive's Financial Report received earlier in the
meeting shows the School Fund balance at $1.8 million at the end of January. He sees no
reason to appropriation any additional moneys until the Board sees the final financial
statement for the year. He would rather authorize the School Board to pay these bills by
transferring moneys from one line to another within the School budget. Mr. Fisher asked if
this is suggested instead of increasing the total school appropriation. Mr. Bowie said he
feels the theory is to use "what you have got."
Mr. Way said that seems to be a reasonable way to handle this request, although it does
appear to be a legitimate expense. Mr. Bowie said he felt the School Board should be told to
pay it out of the current year's appropriation, and the Board not appropriate any more money
at this time. Mr. Way said he would second that thought if it were a motion.
Mr. Papenfuse was present. He said that ten percent had'been retained from all cost
centers for a reserve of over $175,000. Since that was done, it has been found that there is
a need to pay approximately $50,000 for accrued liability on unused vacation leave, and
approximately one-quarter of a million dollars is needed for additional teaching positions.
The reserve will not be large enough to pay these-expenses and the utility bill. Also, the
School Board carries an accrued balance to pay the teacher's paychecks during the summer.
Any funds transferred at this time will certainly h-ave to come from instructional funds, and
that decision must be made now.
Mr. Fisher said he does not want to look at one individual extraordinary expense by
itself. He would rather look at the items running over expenditure estimates, and items
which are running under expenditure estimates, and decide what can be taken care of by
transfers. Mr. Papenfuse said as long as the Board has that understanding. He will be
coming back to the Board in the near future with some new sources of revenue, but there are
plans for some of those funds.
Mr. Fisher said that everyone has extraordinary expenses at some time, but they are not
taken care of by increasing the total of the budget. Mr. Papenfuse said it is possible to
recover by just stopping spending, and if that is what the Board wants, it will have to be in
instructional funds. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see a list of the items that are
running under budgeted amounts to see if-the funds can't be taken from some of those areas.
That is his concept.
Mr. Bowie also said that the Schools have a large amount of money sitting in the bank.
Every time something like this happens, the first thing that is mentioned is to cut instruc-
tion, to stop teaching the kids. All he wants is for Mr. Papenfuse to manage the funds he
has, and in June if there are unanticipated obligations, to come back at that time. If the
money is available now, pay the bill. Mr. Papenfuse said he did not mean to indicate that
the schools would stop teaching the kids, but the money has to be transferred from some
account or requisitions will not be issued by the Purchasing Department. Mr. Fisher said he
did not realize the controls are down to that fine of a level. If an increase is needed in
one line item, and a decrease in another, let the Board know. He suggested that Mr.
Papenfuse find an account that still has money in it. Mr. Bowie suggested that it be in some
category other than instruction. Mr. Way said it is not his intention that Mr. Papenfuse
reduce a program, or cut into a salary.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to know about these things as they happen, but would
prefer to take care of the problem at the end of the year when the cumulative effect can be
seen all at one time.
Mr. Fisher said there is a motion on the floor not to increase the total appropriation
for the Schools at this time. He asked that roll be called, and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10d. Appropriation - Victim Witness Program.
A memorandum dated February 12, 1985, from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, stated: "An applica-
tion for a grant to partially fund-the Victim Witness Assistance Program was approved by the
Department of Criminal Justice Services, and funds in the amount of $4,500 have been
received. In order to make these funds available for expenditure, an appropriation is
needed.
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
153
Mr. Agnor said that some of the funds will be used to provide Ms. Easter with a pager so
that she can be reached when she is out of the office. Data processing equipment will be
used to store statistics on the system now used in the Police Department. The remaining
operating expenses of this department will be shifted to the grant in order to diminish the
need for local funds over the period of the grant.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $4,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
Grant Fund for the Victim Witness Program, and coded as follows:
1-1225-31011-300601
1-1225-31011-520100
1-1225-31011-540104
1-1225-31011-550100
1-1225-31011-550101
1-1225-31011-700300
1-1225-31011-700700
Printing Services $ 1,400
Postage 200
Copy Supplies 300
Routine Mileage 550
Pool Car Mileage 250
Communication Equipment 300
Data Processing Equipment 1,500
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1984-85 County budget
is hereby amended by the addition of $4,500 to Code 2-1225-24000-240500
entitled Victim Witness PrOgram; and
FURTHER that this appropriation is effective this date.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Way.
by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called, and the motion carried
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10e. Appropriation - Special Education.
Memorandum dated February 12, 1985, was received from Mr. David C. Papenfuse, requesting
a supplemental appropriation for the special education program. His memo stated that as a
result of special placements of students and because of an increased demand for adaptive
equipment, the County School System will incur increased costs of $88,140 for special
education needs in the current fiscal year. These needs will be covered by increased funding
from state categorical and flow-through funding. Approval was requested for a number of
account transfers and appropriation of additional funds.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $88,140 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated and
transferred in the School Fund, and coded as follows:
1-2000-60000-100300
1-2000-60150-540100
1-2000-60151-300100
1-2000-60151-300218
1-2000-60151-700100
1-2000-60152-301200
1-2000-60153-301200
1-2000-60154-541200
1-2000-60154-700100
Part-Time Aide
Office Supplies
Health Services
Private Tuition
Equipment
Contracted Services
Contracted Services
Instructional Supplies
Equipment
$ 550 +
693 +
1,433 +
81,483 +
4,197 +
1,914 +
5,400 -
1,950 +
1,320 +
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Revenues section of the 1984-85 County budget
is hereby amended by the addition of $88,140 to the following codes:
2-2000-24000-240212
2-2000-33000-330110
Special Education
Flow-Through
56,922
31,218
FURTHER, that this appropriation and transfer are effective this date.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Way.
the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion carried by
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Revisions: Pay/Classification Plan - General Government Employees.
Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel, was present. She said that within any
organization the relationships of positions to one another, and the value of these positions
compared to those in other similar organizations, can change with time. The last wage and
classification study done in Albemarle County was completed for the 1983-84 fiscal year.
Since that time, a reorganization of the County's higher level administration, and the
creation of several new departments occurred. It seemed wise to conduct a subsequent study
of the County's positions, salaries being paid for these positions, and the general staffing
needs within each department.
Dr. Hastings said that during the fall of 1984, questionnaires were distributed to all
County employees for the purpose of receiving employees' perceptions of their duties and the
requirements and complexities of their respective positions. The variables being judged by
these questionnaires were consistent with those used in the previous study:
.154
~arch 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
a. Education
b. Experience
c. Complexity of work
d. Interpersonal contacts
e. Independence of Action
f. Supervision exercised
g. Responsibility and accountability
h. Working environment
i. Physical effort
The use of such factors in analyzing each position allows an organization to balance a
criterion like educational requirements in one position with physical effort required in
another. The employees' perceptions of their positions were reviewed by their department
heads to assure accuracy. All questionnaires were then submitted to the Director of
Personnel where they were scored. Thus, a rank ordering of positions was accomplished for
all general Albemarle County positions.
At the same time that the above procedures were being completed, a market study was
conducted to compare Albemarle County salaries to those paid for the same positions in
similar localities. The localities surveyed included the follOwing: Augusta County, City of
Charlottesville, Hanover County, James City County, Campbell County, Newport News, Montgomery
County, and Roanoke. This data was used to test the findings from the questionnaires
submitted from each department. Even though a position may compute to be worth a certain
salary internally, the market value of that position may be considerably different because of
geographic trends, supply in the labor force, etc.
Dr. Hastings said that in general, the relative value of the positions within the County
computed to be more than that which was currently being paid. From this perspective most of
the County positions would have warranted an increase in their ranges. This exercise of
using the point values of the positions also points out the issue of comparable worth. For
example, clerical positions have traditionally been paid less than positions such as
maintenance. The point values would erase this difference and call for a significant
increase in certain areas. The market value of the positions suggested that for the majority
of positions, Albemarle County was paying a competitive rate. When this was the case, the
recommendation was that no change in the current range be made. When the market value
suggested that the County's rate was low, and the point value 'of the position supported this,
a recommendation was made to increase the range. In a few instances, the market value
suggested that an increase was warranted; however, the point value for that position did not
support an increase in the County at the present time.
Several changes from the current classification and pay plan should be noted. The
current plan contained several categories of clerical positions (i.e., Clerk Typist I, II,
and III; Secretary I, II, and III; Clerk I, II, and III). The recommendation is to simplify
this system by going to fewer categories (i.e., Clerk, Clerk Typist, Secretary, Administra-
tive Secretary, Administrative Assistant). Similarly, it is recommended that only one level
of custodian be included in the 1985-86 classification plan. In some instances such as
account clerks, the department head felt a strong need to retain the multi-level categories
and no change is included.
In Parks and Recreation, the current position of Community Center Director is being
upgraded to that of Program Supervisor, thus broadening the responsibility and allowing that
position to be used on a county-wide basis as opposed to being confined to a particular
location. In the Finance Department, the current Supervisor of Administration position is
being changed to Division Manager for either Real Estate or Collections. In Social Services,
the recommendation is that the current Administrative Assistant be reclassified to Assistant
Director of Social Services. In Staff Services, several changes are being recommended. The
current position of Maintenance Supervisor is being changed to that of Custodial Supervisor.
In addition, only one level of Printer is included in the proposed plan. A new position,
that of Deputy Director of Staff Services, will include responsibilities in both the copy
center and maintenance areas.
In the Police Department, the position of Victim Witness Coordinator has been added to
the classification plan. The position of Dispatcher has been changed to that of Police
Records Clerk.
Dr. Hastings said that the following represents several months of analysis and discus-
sions regarding the County's classification and pay plan. It is recommended that a thorough
study be conducted every three years to assure that rates of pay are equitable and competi-
tive for all Albemarle County positions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CLASSIFICATION STUDY
SUMMARY OF CLASSIFICATIONS AND CHANGES - 1985-86
Position Titled Deleted
Clerk I
Clerk III
Clerical Supervisor
Switchboard Operator/Clerk Typist
Clerk Typist I
Clerk Typist III
Secretary I
Personnel Technician
Administrative Assistant III
Executive Assistant
Accounting Supervisor
Buyer
Engineering Technician I
Principal Planner
Senior Facilities Inspector
Custodian I
Printer I
Motor Equipment Operator
Supervisor-Copy Center, Stock-
room, Mailroom
Investigator
Commander III
March
13, 1985
(Regular Day Meeting)
155
Position Titles Added
County Executive
Victim Witness Coordinator
Position Titles Changed
Previous Title
Clerk II
Real Estate Transfer Clerk
Clerk Typist II
Secretary II
Secretary III
Administrative Assistant I
Watershed Management
Supervisor of Administration
Engineering Technician II
Engineering Technician III
Custodian II
Printer II
Building Maintenance Supervisor
Community Center Director
Dispatcher
New Title
Real Estate Clerk
Real Estate Transfer Technician
Clerk Typist
Secretary
Administrative Secretary
Administrative Assistant
Watershed Management Official
Division Manager, Real
Estate/Collections
Engineering Aide
Engineering Technician
Custodian
Printer
Custodial Supervisor
Program Supervisor
Police Records Clerk
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
SCHEMATIC LIST OF CLASSES
AND ASSIGNMENT TO SALARY RANGES
PROPOSED 1985-1986
Class Title
Clerical, Fiscal, Administrative and Related (000)
Real Estate Clerk ..................................
Real Estate Transfer Technician ....................
Clerk Typist .......................................
Secretary ..........................................
Administrative Secretary ...........................
Account Clerk I ....................................
Account Clerk II ...................................
Account Clerk III ..................................
County Executive ...................................
Deputy County Executive ............................
Administrative Assistant ...........................
Watershed Management Official ......................
Division Manager, Real Estate Collections ..........
Office Manager, Social Services ....................
Clerk to the Board of Supervisors ..................
Deputy Clerk to the Board of Supervisors ...........
Recording Secretary, Planning Commission ...........
Business License Examiner ..........................
Senior Business License Examiner ...................
Chief Accountant .................................
Deputy Director of Finance .......................
Director of Finance ..............................
Appraiser I ...................... ~ ...............
Appraiser II .....................................
County Assessor ..................................
Secretary/Documentationist .......................
Data Entry Operator ..............................
Computer Operator ................................
Programmer ...........~ ~ .........................
Computer Operat~uns Supe visor ................
Systems Programmer ...............................
Programmer/Analyst ...............................
Senior Programmer/Analyst ........................
Director of Data Processing ......................
Assistant Registrar ..............................
General Registrar ................................
Purchasing Agent .................................
Engineering, Planning, Inspections and Related
Engineering Aide .................................
Engineering Technician ...........................
Civil Engineer I .................................
Civil Engineer II ................................
Director of Engineering ..........................
Planning Aide ....................................
Planning Technician ..............................
Planner ..........................................
Senior Planner ...................................
(100)
Code
002
0O5
013
016
017
020
021
022
026
027
029
032
035
036
040
041
045
050
051
053
054
056
058
059
060
069
070
071
073
075
076
079
086
087
091
102
103
105
106
110
114
115
117
118
Existing
Range
06
10
06
07
13
07
08
13
34
15
18
15
15
19
14
16
18
21
26
32
17
19
22
10
20
22
27
10
22
14
16
18
22
29
08
10
16
19
Proposed
Range
06
11
06
09
14
07
09
16
38
35
16
20
18
18
19
14
14
16
20
23
26
32
17
19
23
10
08
12
14
19
23
20
23
29
10
23
14
16
20
23
29
09
11
16
20
156
Ma~ch 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Chief of Planning ............
..... ......
Chief of Community e e o m n ....
Director of Planning and Community Development ...
120 23 23
121 23 23
123 30 30
Facilities Inspector I ......
Facilities Inspector II ~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~'~'~ ...... ~''
Deputy Building Official· · ... '. ~ .... ~'' . .'
Zoning Inspector I ...........
Zoning Inspector II ....... i i' i~''i ...... i'i'i''
Deputy Zoning Administrator ' .~' ~'~ ' ~'
Zoning Administrator
Fire Prevention Offic~'''~ .... ~'~''~ ........ ~'~''
Director of Inspections
Deputy Director of Inspections ...........
135 15 15
136 17 17
140 20 20
142 14 14
143 16 16
144 20 20
145 26 26
147 18 18
149 28 28
150 22 22.
Labor, Skilled Labor, Trades, Supervision and Related (200)
Custodian ........................................ 202
Printer .......................................... 205
Carpenter ~~i~'~'''~'~ ~ '~''~' ' - ..... - · · ~..... 206
Custodian o .............. 208
Groundskeeper .................................... 210
Program Supervisor ...............................
Park Superintendent
Superintendent ''~ ........ ~ ............
Recreation ............
Parks Foreman .......................
Director of Pa~ks in~'Re~re~tion .... ~ ~...~'~'
O3/04 05
06 09
12 12
-- 13
07 07
Director of Staff Services
Deputy Director of Staff Serv es . .
Mailroom Clerk ...................................
219 11 16
220 18 20
223 18 20
224 11 13
225 27 27
Human Services Related (300)
Eligibility Worker ...........................
Senior Eligibility W~ke~ ..~ ................
Eligibility Supervisor ...........................
Social Services Aide
Senior Social Services Aide ........
Social Worker ....................
Senior Social ~rk~ .~ .~. ~ .... ~ .. ~' ~'~
Social Worker Supervisor
Assistant Director ofsociii' & jig& .... [ .....
Director of Social Services ......................
235 22 25
236 -- 18
240 05 07
Public Safety and Related (400)
Police Records Clerk
Victim Witness Coordi~'~~~~
Police Officer ...................................
Commander I
Commander II ......................................
Commander III .....................................
302 10 10
304 12 13
306 18 18
309 05 05
310 07 07
312 13 14
313 16 16
314 21 21
319 22 23
320 29 29
Deputy Animal Control Officer ....................
Animal Control Officer ..................... ~ .....
401 08 08
408 -- 16
409 14 15
414 18 19
416 20 22
418 23 25
421 29 30
451 10 10
453 11 11
Dr. Hastings said she discussed the revised pay plan at a meeting with the County
Executive, and his deputies. It was generally agreed that if a position is recommended for a
change in pay range, no salary increase will be granted unless an increase is needed to get
that person on the beginning step of the new range. Also, no pay ranges were lowered where
· n some instances the market showed that the County's range was higher than necessary. It
was felt that by the next update of this plan, the positions currently being paid more than
the market indicates is necessary will fluctuate. Rather than changing in a downward
fashion, the only effect that would have would be in the hiring of new people. The other
people would just be put into a lower pay range with no corresponding change in salary, so it
was felt best to just leave those salaries alone, letting the market catch up by the time the
next study is undertaken.
Dr. Hastings said the 1985-86 budget was calculated using the changes presented today.
She said it will cost $34,000 to implement this study to bring those people being paid below
the minimum step of their pay range into line with the new pay range proposed. Most of the
major increases proposed are for law enforcement personnel. Pay for police officers,
supervisory positions in the Police Department, and the clerical help have increased quite a
lot during the last couple of years on a nationwide basis. There has been more demand put on
clerical positions in terms of computers, and fewer people are going into secretarial work.
Dr. Hastings said there are a total of 85 pay ranges recommended to the Board. Of those, 34
are recommended for an increase over the existing plan.
Dr. Hastings said this report was given to the department heads about a month ago, and
she has heard no negative comments on the proposal. In the Data Processing Department, there
was one question because of the computer mainframe used by the County. In that case, an
outside person was brought in to check her conclusions, and that person came back with an
almost identical recommendation. (Note: Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 11:58 a.m.)
Mr. Agnor said there will be no pay increases given because of these revisions unless
the existing salary is below the first step of the new assigned range. If that is the case,
that person will be moved to the beginning step of the new range. Most employees will
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
realize no increase in pay. Dr. Hastings said the $34,000 is needed to bring those persons
who are below the minimum of the new range into the first step of that range. Mr. Agnor said
the staff has discussed this method of implementing the new plan. Other localities raise
salaries when the range is raised, but Albemarle County has not done that in the past. Staff
is in general agreement that this practice should continue.
Dr. Hastings said it has been found to not be a good idea to have the majority of the
employees over the mid-point of the range. When that happens, and there are a lot of people
nearing the maximum, there is something wrong with the pay plan. The fact that Albemarle
County does not have that situation is a good indicator that the plan is working.
Mr. Way said he is glad that this study was conducted in-house rather than hiring a
consultant. He asked if this same type of study is being conducted for the school system.
Dr. Hastings said the School Board approved the plan last Monday night. Mr. Way congratulat-
ed Dr. Hastings for doing what he has been advocating for the past fifteen years. Dr.
Hastings said the School Board felt it to be a healthy approach. For the 1985-86 school
year, all school classified employees will be on a pay grade and step in the County pay/plan
and there will be parity in salaries between general government and the schools. She hopes
this is a move in the right direction. Mr. Fisher said this was tried several years ago, but
there was no agreement as to who was going to set salaries for custodians, etc., so the
School Board went its way, and the Board went its way. He thinks that having coordination is
great. Dr. Hastings said there is one difference on which she is working, and that is in the
merit plan.
Mr. Fisher said he thinks Dr. Hastings has done a good job in this process, and the
proposal is great. The Board has an-unusual responsibility in dealing with employee salaries
because there is no natural check on how those salaries grow. Mr. Fisher expressed interest
in the market survey. He thought the market survey had been done on the local market in the
past, and he does not feel Albemarle County competes with Newport News, Roanoke, etc. for
secretaries and custodians. He asked to review the survey data with Dr. Hastings.
Dr. Hastings said that Mr. Ray Jones and Mr. Robert Tucker selected the localities which
they felt were similar in nature to Albemarle County in terms of divisions, and complexities,
etc. Mr. Lindstrom said that Albemarle County has a different package of fringe benefits for
employees. He asked if that was taken into consideration. Dr. Hastings said fringe benefits
vary greatly from locality to locality, so only average salaries for a position were
investigated.
Mr. Bowie said his perusal of this plan seems to indicate that everybody's salary is
going up, and there is not a big change in the budget. That tells him that the new ranges
are what are being paid anyway. Dr. Hastings said that is correct, these changes would
affect 35 individuals out of 249 people, and cost $34,000. Mr. Bowie said he also was glad
to see that the study was done in-house, but he does not feel that Albemarle County competes
with Roanoke. Dr. Hastings said that in terms of who the County competes with, she would
have to go to local industry for some of these positions. It was decided to keep to the
public sector since it usually pays less than the industrial market. Mr. Bowie said there
are not too many zoning administrators in the business world, and once the business world has
hired all the data processing people needed, county executives and the other people have to
go somewhere for a job. Who does the County compete with for secretaries? Also, businesses
don't always offer some of the fringe benefits that County employees enjoy. Mr. Bowie said
he did not realize that the 1985-86 budget was already calculated using these proposed
changes. Dr. Hastings said the changes were incorporated into the budget, and the School
Board had implemented this salary range structure for its employees last Monday night.
Mrs. Cooke said one of the County's biggest competitors is the University of Virginia,
and there is no way the County can compare with that market. Mr. Agnor said another feature
of this pay plan is that there is parity and equity between the positions from the top to the
bottom of the organization.
Mr. Fisher suggested deferring action for a few weeks. He said he has no particular
objection, but does want to review the market data. It is clear that the impact of this plan
will not be on the existing employee, but on the hiree. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it is
possible to look at nongovernmental competition in the area. Dr. Hastings said if those
employers would give her the information, it would not be much of a problem, however, most
are reluctant to release such information. Mr. Fisher said he would call Dr. Hastings and
set up an appointment for review of the market data used for this proposal.
At this point, the discussion ended, with no time set for further discussion of this
plan.
Agenda Item No. 12. Contract Negotiations: School Facilities Plan Committee.
Mr. Tucker said he was not able to get any information out to the Board with the
materials mailed last Friday. The Committee just had its last meeting on Monday. Seven
proposals were received from the RFP solicited earlier in the year. The price of those
proposals ranged from $33,000 to $150,000. The staff reviewed, evaluated, and ranked those
seven proposals. The staff then met with the Committee on March 4 and presented its
recommendation. All seven proposals were reviewed by the Committee, and it came to the
conclusion that the staff should negotiate with Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates, Inc. of
Reston, Virginia, whose bid was a little over $44,000. Negotiations began last week, and
while there were no substantive amendments made in the proposal that would affect the
outcome of the School Facilities Plan, the staff was able to get the bid down to $35,000, the
amount allocated in the Capital Improvements Program. It will take six months to complete
the plan. The consultants will review the population and enrollment analysis of the school
system, facilities planning for all twenty-two schools, propose efficiency improvements, as
well as draft a financial plan. Some of the work will be done by County staff, which was one
of the methods used to reduce the consultant's cost.
158
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Way, who is a member of the Committee, urged the Board to accept this proposal. He
then offered motion that the Board accept the recommendation just presented by Mr. Tucker to
employ the firm of Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates, Inc. of Reston, Virginia, at a cost of
$35,000 to draft the "School Facilities Plan". The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Tucker said this proposal was presented to the School Board Monday night even though
the name of the firm was not presented. Mr. Fisher asked if they have to approve the
contract. Mr. Tucker said they do not.
Roll was called at this point, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Request to Change Name of Board of Public Welfare.
This item was brought before the Board by the following letter from Mrs. Regina Withers,
Chairperson, Albemarle County Board of Public Welfare, dated February 28, 1985:
"In the early 1970's, the Board of Supervisors elected to change the name of
the Department from Public Welfare.to Social Services. The Director's title
was also changed from Director of Public Welfare to Director of Social
Services. This was done as the result of enabling legislation adopted by
the General Assembly in 1970.
It was not until 1984 that the General Assembly adopted legislation (Section
63.1-38.1) allowing 'The governing body of each county or city ...' to
'...designate ... its local board of public welfare as the local board of
social services.'
The primary reason for changing the Department's name originally was to make
it more representative of the many and varied programs offered by the
Department. 'Public Welfare', in the mind of the general community,
connoted the major financial assistance programs (ADC, Food Stamps).
'Social Services' encompasses the broader scope of services that the Depart-
ment is responsible for administering.
Therefore, in order to provide consistency and clarity, the Albemarle County
Board of Public Welfare respectfully requests that the Board of Supervisors
formally designate this body as the local Board of Social Services."
Mr. Fisher asked if a change must be made in the County Code to accomplish this request.
Mr. Agnor said no. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve the request subject to
any changes that may be required by ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Way. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Not Docketed: At 12:26 p.m., Mr. Fisher requested that Agenda Items 14, 14a, and 14b be
deferred until later in the day. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to adjourn into executive session for discussion of personnel matters. The motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:40 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: 1985-86 Budget.
Health Department. Total Requested - $368,886. Recommendation - $368,886. Dr.
McCloud, Assistant Director of the Thomas Jefferson Health District, was present. Mr. Agnor
noted a staff comment in the Program Review Book. "As requested, the Health Department has
begun the process of determining a unit cost for its services. To date these have been
calculated for Environmental Health Services, Nursing/Medical Services, and Dental Health
Services at $13.46, $10.67, and $5.05 respectively, as Albemarle's share of cost. Addition-
ally, it has been determined that septic tank inspections (based on the average number
conducted each year) total $204.56 per permit. Albemarle County pays approximately $92.05 of
this through County appropriations."
Mr. Fisher mentioned the cost of septic tank inspections. He asked if the Health
Department is required to perform these inspections free of charge. Dr. McCloud said it not
a requirement, but the State has never set a fee. Some localities do set a fee. If that is
done, the fees are collected by the Health Department and become a part of the Health
Department's revenues, and are shared with the State. Questions have been raised as to the
legality of localities setting these fees without permission from the State, but it has not
been challenged thus far.
Mr. Fisher said the cost of this inspection raises the question of finding some way to
offset some of the cost. Dr. McCloud said Dr. Prindle has indicated that it might be
possible to add the cost of this inspection to another fee collected by the County, such as
the building permit. However, the State has been discussing setting a fee for this inspec-
tion for over two years. No one knows what would happen to the counties which are already
collecting, if that happened.
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Bowie said this same thing was discussed at last year's budget work session, and it
was recently discussed at the Planning District Commission meeting. He got the impression
that it can't be done. Dr. McCloud said the Health Department cannot do it. Mr. Agnor said
there is no enabling legislation that would allow the County to do this. If those who are
now collecting this fee are challenged, the staff is convinced the fee will be "knocked
down".
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County could charge this fee it the County adopted its own
sanitary code, and hired a County sanitarian. Mr. Agnor said the staff is not sure, but does
believe it can. Dr. McCloud said that some counties fund 100 percent of a sanitarian's
salary through the State system, and that person is considered a state employee.
There was no further discussion of this proposed budget.
Mental Health (Region Ten Community Services). Total Requested - $170,284. Recommenda-
tion - $117,560. Mr. James Peterson, Executive Director, was present.
Mr. Agnor said the State of Virginia provides the majority of funding on a ninety
percent state/ten percent local matching basis. Although the local governments contribute a
smaller share of the budget, the entire program is controlled by the six local governing
bodies through the fourteen member board of directors appointed by those governing bodies.
The local share formula used by Region 10 has a long, complex history. In the mid-1970's, a
formula was developed with technical assistance from the Tayloe-Murphy Institute, which
apportioned the local shares according to three factors: population, revenue capacity, and
the value of services received by each locality during the past year. All six governing
bodies adopted this formula. A year later, however, two of the localities requested that the
revenue sharing factor be dropped from the formula. All six governing bodies then adopted
the revised formula.
During the late 1970's and early 1980's, Region Ten underwent a prolonged conversion to
a computerized management information system under development by the University of Virginia.
A confident application of the "value of services" factor was dependent upon accurate service
information across the universe of Region Ten services, identified as to the locality of
residence. In the absence of this information, Region Ten based its relative local shares on
a straight percentage increase while at the same time keeping the localities informed of the
services provided to the extent that information was available. The FY'86 request is based
entirely on the approved formula, and therefore reflects substantial shifts in relative
shares.
Mr. Agnor said that during review of local share formulas by the Planning District
Commission, there was some sentiment expressed that shares be allocated on the basis of
actual services provided. The Region Ten Board is sympathetic to this view if all jurisdic-
tions would agree to the change. It must be recognized, however, that Albemarle's relative
share would be reduced from 35 percent to 31 percent, while Charlottesville's share would
increase .from 34 percent to 41 percent. The shares of the rural counties would also be
impacted. Region Ten has commented that any particular formula will be to the advantage of
one locality over another, therefore, it is imperative that the participating jurisdictions
keep in mind that the reason this kind of program is established on a multi-jurisdictional
basis is that each locality can benefit from a comprehensive range of highly professional
services while paying only a small fraction of the total cost.
Mr. Agnor said that in reference to the difference between the requested amount, and the
recommended amount, the staff made the following comments:
"The requested funding is based on a local share formula which was endorsed
by the Program Review Committee and the Board of Supervisors last fiscal
term. In addition, Region Ten's overall budget this year includes a 10.5
percent increase in personnel services. The Committee cannot fully support
the 10.5 percent increase at this time. Instead, the Committee's recommend-
ed funding level is based on an eight percent increase to cover
cost-of-living and merit increases.
Due to the large amount of money being considered, the Committee recommends
a "phase-in" period to implement the funding formula over the next three
fiscal years. The "phase-in" plan would be as follows:
FY 1985-86
FY 1986-87
FY 1987-88
$117,560
$134,987'
$152,416'
17 percent increase
17 percent increase
17 percent increase
*FY'86-87 and '87-88 based on FY'85-86 request. No adjustment for
increases due to inflation and/or reduction in state or federal
support factored into the amounts.
Mr. Agnor said his recommendation on the funding would be: if this Board believes
funding should be proportional over the entire district, direct the staff to arrive at some
type of agreement before the next budget cycle that the funding formula will be abided by.
In Virginia, local governments are supporting Community Services agencies at an average of
$4.90 per capita, but in Region 10, the local government support is only $1.91.
Lastly, Mr. Agnor said that full funding of the local share formula which was approved a
number of years ago has not been taking place because there was a lack of data. That data is
available now, so staff recommends that the County's full share be phased in over a
three-year period.
M&rch 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meet±ng)
Mr. Bowie said the statements concerning the Planning District Commission's part in this
are not totally accurate. He was asked to chair a committee to work on this formula, and
could not even get two other people to work on it. The feeling expressed by the Supervisor
members was not that they do not want to share costs based on services, but that they must
wait to see what their total resources will be balanced against their total requirements. At
that time, they will fund Region Ten to the extend that they feel they can fund. No one
wanted to commit to any formula. His position was that Albemarle County is getting only
thirty percent of the services, yet is paying thirty-five percent of the cost. He feels that
if the counties which are paying more than their share of the costs reduce their payments,
the counties who want the services will have to find some way to afford those services.
Mr. Agnor said the Board approved the formula a number of years ago, but it has not been
followed. Now that it is to be followed, the staff felt that Albemarle had some obligation
to use the formula, but could not recommend that it all be done in one year, so recommended
that it be phased in over a three-year period of time.
Mr. Jim Peterson noted that Dr. Lewis Fibel, Albemarle County's newest representative on
the Region Ten Board, is also present today. Mr. Peterson said he understood from the
Planning District Commission meeting that members favored using "services" instead of
"population" for dividing up the request. That is the idea he discussed with his Board of
Directors and they felt that made as much sense as anything else. Since that time, they have
heard from the localities that would be disadvantaged by such an approach that they favor
using population. It is not only difficult to agree on basic rules, but implementing those
rules is a different question altogether.
Mr. Peterson said he was gratified by the Committee report, but would request that the
entire funding request be met this year and not phased, for four reasons: 1) A change was
made to annualize the salary of the people at the new group home on Park Street, and
personnel at the Paul Victorius House. Also, through a salary study made last year, it was
found that salaries for Region 10 are about fifteen percent below the salaries for similar
personnel in the state generally. 2) Because of two catastrophic illnesses, plus other
unexpected costs, the cost of Blue Cross/Blue Shield for employees will increase by fifty
next year. This is $34,000 that was not budgeted at all. 3) The move into the
United Way Building (all services are being consolidated into that building which is being
provided entirely through philanthropic efforts, the Perry Foundation, local contributions,
and the Worrells), will have an effect on client services through disruption, particularly at
Gordon Avenue, and that will impact directly on fees. 4) In error, no cost was included in
the budget for moving. Region 10 has no buildings and grounds staff, and only one vehicle,
so they must pay a mover for about 100 offices.
Mr. Peterson said Region Ten has been responsive to the Boards and City Council as to
the type of services provided. However, those services tend to be those that are not fee
generating, such as crisis services, employment services, outreach services. Mr. Peterson
said about the only thing they can do to absorb cuts, other than freezing salaries again, is
to cut services.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was lost, and asked for an explanation of the formula used for
this budget request. Mr. Peterson explained the formula. He said this budget represents a
redistribution because last year the request was based on a straight increase. He said the
formula hits the rural counties hardest, and they are not going to honor it.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what percentage of the total Region Ten budget the County paid last
year. Mr. Peterson said it was about thirty-five percent. Mr. Bowie said the formula
percentage for Albemarle County is 34.73 percent while the County actually paid 36 percent
last year. The percentage would be less if it were paid based only on services.
Mr. Lindstrom said he understand the difference between the $117,000 recommended by the
staff, and the $152,000 to be the'difference between the 10.5 percent requested for person-
nel, and the eight percent recommended by the Committee. The difference between the $152,000
and the $170,000 is the fact that "we don't want to bite the whole bullet this year" even
though last.year the~County paid a higher percentage of the total that it is being asked to
pay under the formula this year. It appears to him that the whole quarrel here is not with
the percentage, but with the actual amount of dollars.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Peterson knows what the other local governments might do about
their budget requests. Mr. Peterson said he assumes they will give some nominal increase.
The City's budget review committee recommended a ten percent increase where their share of
the formula would call for a fifty percent increase.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had worked on a committee for another agency in this same regard,
and found it is easier to assign costs if things can be divided up. He asked if there is any
way one jurisdiction could work out a contract with Community Services and pay for that
contract. Mr. Peterson said yes. When the original formula was approved, a policy was
adopted that if a locality did not pay its share, its services would be adjusted, but since
there was no uniform following of the formula during the two years in which it was tried,
that policy was not enforced. At this point, if the County or City fully funds its requested
share, they would get their requested services even if that meant making difficult adjust-
ments in other localities.
Mr. Lindstrom said if this formula has been agreed to, and is a smaller share of the
total cost than the County has been paying in terms of percentages, he would prefer for the
County to go ahead and pay its percentage now, and stick to the formula, and live by the
formula. Mr. Fisher said that still leaves the total number of dollars being requested to
the Region 10 Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that, but this Board still has the
opportunity to review that request and determine if the dollars are justified. Mr. Lindstrom
said he is willing to go along with the staff's recommendation for only an eight percent
increase for personnel, but if the formula has been agreed on, he would prefer for the CoUnty
to fund the formula now.
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said the whole Region Ten budget may be too big. Mr. Bowie said that is
something to be considered. Mr. Lindstrom said his point is that if the staff's evaluation
is something the Board agrees with, then the County should go ahead and fund its full share.
If the quarrel is that the budget is too big, that is a different question. Mr. Lindstrom
said he is upset because he does not like the approach where there is a formula that is just
ignored because "we" don't want to pay that much money. The County needs to decide how much
it is willing to pay for services, forget about the other jurisdictions, and pay that amount.
What this whole conversation boils down to is not wanting to pay the $170,000.
Mr. Bowie said the whole issue is confusing to him because there was an eleven percent
increase in the budget, with a one-third decrease in Federal funding. If the Board continues
to automatically increase County spending to make up for whatever the Federal government
cuts, in two or three years they will not be able to afford it even if they want to. Mr.
Lindstrom said that is the real issue the Board should be discussing. The County has
essentially been subsidized by this Federal money, has come to depend on and expect that
money for its citizens. If the Board is not willing to pick up that extra share of the
costs, it will have to look at all programs that have been funded and are being cut at the
Federal level, to determine what will be done. About three years ago, the Board said it had
had enough of trying to figure out requests on a case-by-case basis, and so set up the
Program Review Committee which makes for a vastly improved and streamlined procedure. He
feels it would be better to look at the whole issue and come to grips with it instead of
doing so agency by agency. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have enough information before him
to adequately address the issue today.
Mr. Peterson said the overall budget is in line with comparable communities across
Virginia. The non-local share of the budget is among the top two or three of all community
service boards in the state because Region Ten has sought out non-local sources. The County
is not paying too much of the total cost. The Federal share, which was to have been phased
out in eight years from 1970 was delayed by the President for two years, so would have ended
in 1980, but part of those funds are still being received. This is not a faddish type of
program that just began in the last few years.
Mr. Fisher said he is not prepared to scrap the whole review process at this time.
There may be other such problems as the Board goes through these work sessions, and he would
prefer to defer this conversation until the last of these sessions.
Regional Jail (Joint Security Complex). Total Requested - $77,627.
$77,627. Mr. Mike McMahan, Jail Administrator, was present.
Recommendation -
Mr. Agnor said since Mr. Henley serves on the Jail Board he would not give any details
on the Jail Board's budget. It does reflect a four percent cost-of-living adjustment, and
some salary changes of the State Compensation Board in excess of that percentage. The costs
of the Jail are divided between the City and the County based on actual usage of the
facility.
Mr. Henley asked if the new Pay/Classification Plan is reflected in this request. Mr.
McMahan said several salaries have been adjusted according to that plan although this Board
has not yet adopted the plan for its general government employees. Only about one-fifth of
the Jail employees are not funded by the State Compensation Board. He really thinks it would
be best to stick to the County's pay scale for all employees even though that would mean
putting some local dollars into salaries. Mr. Fisher asked if that would be a supplement
over and above what the Compensation Board reimburses. Mr. McMahan said if the Board elected
to supplement every employee, and keep on the pay scale projected by the County Personnel
Office, would get about $20,000 for all Compensation Board funded people. If it was decided
not to fund other than what the Compensation Board reimburses on, that figure would be less.
Mr. Henley said this would be similar to what the Board did for the Sheriff a few years ago.
Mr. Fisher asked how many employees are involved in the $20,000. Mr. McMahan said it is 36
employees. If the Jail is funded solely on what the Compensation Board will reimburse, there
would be four employees who would get only the amount approved by the Compensation Board.
Nine people would not be on any scale because they are funded from a Department of Correc-
tions Block Grant, leaving 32 employees who would be on two different scales. Administra-
tively that would be a nightmare. That is one of the reasons that five years ago the Jail
Board decided to go on the County's pay scale.
Mr. Fisher said of the 36 employees it appears that the average supplement would be
between $500 and $600. Some of the changes are between three and five ranges. Mr. Henley
said Dr. Hastings had compared the employees at the Jail with other similar institutions and
tried to bring the salaries up to at least even. The Jail Board argued over this for a long
time, changed its position several times, but finally agreed on it.
Library. Total Requested - $586,083.
Library Director, was present.
Recommendation - $532,308.
Mr. William Swinson,
Mr. Tucker noted that the recommended amount should be changed to $532,337, a recent
change made by the-Library Budget Committee. This change was occasioned by a recent salary
survey, and the need to implement the survey. This includes a three percent cost-of-living
adjustment plus an average three percent merit increase. The staff level has not been
changed. There has been a twenty-one percent increase in circulation in Crozet, and that
branch will increase operating hours by seven hours a week. No particular change has
occurred at the Scottsville Library. The overall increase is under eleven percent. The
Committee met two times, and worked with staff and the Library Board of Trustees to reduce
the original request to this recommended amount.
Mr. Swinson said he is very satisfied with the way the budget turned out. He thinks
that over the next three years the Library will see how implementation of the Virginia Tech
Library System impacts operations. During that time, it zs intended to keep the staffing
level at status quo.
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
VPI-SU Extension Service. Total Requested - $82,117.
Elizabeth Payne, Unit Chairman, was present.
Recommendation - $69,705. Mrs.
Mr. Agnor said this amount funds one full salary and participates in the salary of five
agents. Two years ago, the Extension Service presented a contract arrangement where they pay
two-thirds of salary and fringes of the agents, and the County pays one-third so the payments
became standardized. An additional problem has arisen for Mrs. Payne. The~State Office now
says that as a result of the 1980 Census, they are reassessing the staffing pattern in all
offices. They have determined that two agents shall be removed from Albemarle County. There
are now seven agents, the County paying for five, and the City for two. The two being
removed will come from the County's share; one agent's entire salary, and the second agent is
currently on maternity leave, and if she returns to work the salary will be funded by the
State, but if she does not return to work, that position will be eliminated. The recommended
amount needs to be changed to $35,000 instead of the $45,950 shown. That will fund four
positions at one-third cost, the fourth person presently being on maternity leave.
Mrs. Payne asked if the $35,000 includes the cost of fringe benefits. Mr. Agnor said
no, the amount should be changed instead to $36,000. Mrs. Payne said she would like to
clarify that the decision was not made to remove two employees from the County. The decision
was based on which employees were left in the office.
Visitors Bureau. Total Requested - $52.072. Recommendation - $45,405.
Mr. Agnor said this budget was reviewed by the Policy Board and the Management Committee
of the Visitors Bureau. This is a 23 percen~ increase, and two factors account for that
change. Advertisements were placed for a manager of this bureau at a salary of $22,000, and
no applications were received, therefore this budget shows an increase of $8,000 for that
expense. Also, the County/City bought the Bicentennial Building and rented it to the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation which in turn is sub-leasing to the Visitors Bureau. The
Bureau has never paid rent before. Mr. Agnor said from the total budget request, the contri-
bution from the Chamber of Commerce was subtracted, along with the revenues generated at the
bureau, and the balance of the budget request divided one-third for the County and two-thirds
for the City.
Mr. Fisher asked about the amount of the Chamber's contribution. Mr. Agnor said the
tri-party agreement sets out that the Chamber will pay $15,000 per year. Mr. Fisher said he
feels the County should not increase its payment. Mr. Agnor said the agreement provides that
the City and County will change their shares based on the one-third, two-thirds distribution,
but the Chamber will pay the $15,000. Mr. Fisher reiterated that he did not feel the County
should increase its contribution.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this proposed budget amount is consistent with the written
agreement. Mr. Fisher said the total of the budget is not a part of the agreement, only the
split between the three parties. When the budget changes, the public contribution is also
changes, but the Chamber's contribution does not change, and they are still appointing
one-third of the membership on the Policy Board. He does not like that. Mr. Lindstrom said
the majority control of that Board is in the hands of the public (City/County) that has to
pay the increased share of the budget by virtue of their decisions.
Mr. Henley said the proposed salary of the manager seems unduly large since there are
only three employees. Mr. Agnor said there were seven employees; three full-time, and
several that worked only twenty hours per week.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the duration of the existing tri-party agreement.
has no specific termination point.
Mr. Agnor said it
Mrs. Cooke asked how the Bureau will generate fees in the future. Mr. Agnor said the
major source of revenue will be from sale of what is called a combination ticket to
Monticello/Ash Lawn/Michie Tavern. For every ticket sold at the Bureau, they will receive
fifty cents.
Mr. Bowie asked the proposed amount of the manager's salary.
increased to $30,486.
Mr. Agnor said it has been
Mr. Fisher said he has heard from people around town that there are a lot of assumptions
that the Visitors Bureau is to become a convention bureau to help market the City's hotel.
He does not remember this Board ever seeing or hearing anything official on this, yet the
amount seems to be built into this budget request. Mr. Agnor said that no amount is built in
for that reason. Mr. Fisher said he has heard that is the real reason the salary is so much
higher in this budget. He does not think everybody is "playing cricket" on this request.
Mr. Bowie asked the description of the manager's position~ Mr. Agnor said this person
is to operate the Bureau and its staff, and be a contact person for tour groups in order to
encourage them to stay overnight in this area rather than just stopping for the tour. That
requires contact with the national bus association - Mrs. Cochran, Acting Director, has been
traveling to about three eastern associations each year to promote this idea. Mr. Agnor said
the Policy Board of the Visitors Bureau has not decided that this will be a convention
bureau, so that is not incorporated into this budget. If this were to become a convention
office, the staff would have to be increased since such an office would not only register
conventions, but also make room reservations. The requested amount is just to operate the
Bureau for the people who walk in for information.
Mr. Fisher said he has been told that this manager would be able to manage all of those
types of things. Mr. Agnor said he would not be able to do it within this budget, and that
Ks not the job description that was drafted for the advertisement. Mr. Fisher said that is
what the folks who want it claim, and that is what they are telling folks in the community.
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
163
Mrs. Cooke asked if a person in this position working with conventions would replace the
marketing positions at the various motels/hotels in the area. She said it sounds to her as
if there would be an overlap. Mr. Agnor said he understands that such a person would not
replace any person at a hotel that has this type of arrangement. It is his understanding
that if a convention were solicited, and there were not enough rooms at a certain hotel, this
office would help find rooms. Mrs. Cooke asked if the individual hotels would then pay a fee
for that service to the Bureau. Mr. Agnor said someone would have to pay to expand the
Bureau to incorporate that kind of work. The members of the Chamber have argued that they
pay for services through the Transient Lodging Tax, and the answer has been that the Lodging
Tax was not intended to pay for the expanded operation of the Bureau, but only to replace
local taxes used to pay for its operation.
Mr. Lindstrom said he is not anxious to ignore the stipulations of an agreement, but he
too has some concern about a burgeoning organization. He asked what the manager's duties
would be if he were not involved in getting tours to stay overnight in the area. Mr. Agnor
said his duties would be the general operation of the Bureau. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the
assistant manager. Mr. Agnor said this operation runs seven days a week so there is a need
to have someone available more than forty hours a week. The manager's position has been
vacant for over eighteen months. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that the position should remain
vacant, and continue to advertise it for the $20,000. He asked if there has been any visible
consequence of not having a manager for these past months. Mr. Agnor said the Management
Board has had to meet quite often to do the things that a manager would normally do.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the present salary of the manager. Mr. Agnor said it is $22,500.
The position was held empty because it was not certain that the Visitors Bureau would contin-
ue in operation after the sale of the building. Once that decision was made, the position
was advertised. There was a mere smattering of applications received even though the adver-
tisement was widely distributed. The job was readvertised through travel agency periodicals,
and they still did not get but a handful of applications. Then a salary survey was conducted
of similar operations in the state and it was found that most salaries were at least $8,000
higher than this salary.
Mr. Henley a~ked if the same number of employees are proposed for the operation. Mr.
Agnor said it will be basically the same operation - helping walk-ins and trying to get the
bus tour business. When the Visitors Bureau first opened it was essentially a counter
operation. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much it would cost to run the Bureau in that manner now.
Mr. Agnor said th~ salary would be less, and there would probably be fewer brochures handed
out. Mr. Lindstrom said he would personally like to leave this as a counter operation. If
people in the private sector want to do more with the Bureau and are willing to pay the
costs, let them fund the operation. When this operation was first set up, he thought that
because of the Lodging Tax there was some commitment to maintain some public tourism assis-
tance, but at a minimum. The facility is there, and he would be willing to let them have the
facility rent free, but he is not interested in expanding this operation. Mrs. Cooke agreed.
Mr. Agnor said he would rework this budget with the Acting Director to ascertain the
cost for just an over-the-counter operation. Mr. Henley asked that Mr. Agnor express the-
Board's concern about the way the costs of this operation are rising.
Piedmont Virqinia Community College. Total Requested - $5,170. Recommendation -
$5,170. Mr. P. J. Jenkins was present. Mr. Agnor noted that the request has not increased
for 1985-86.
Mr. Jenkins said that this is his last appearance before this Board as he is retiring on
May 1, 1985. He has been coming before the Board for a long time, and he cannot express too
much his appreciation for the courtesy that has been extended to him by the Board and County
staff. He feels that Piedmont College is one of the finest additions to the County since the
early 1970's. He hopes that they have been responsive to the wishes of the Board and the
needs of the citizens of Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Jenkins for his years of
work at the College.
Urban Bus Service. Total Requested - $8,715. Recommendation - $8,715. Mr. Agnor said
this amount is decreased from the previous year's request since the contract signed after the
budget was adopted for the last fiscal year, contained a decrease for cost of service. The
Charlottesville Transit Service has asked for continuing authority to operate a bus route to
Piedmont College, but the County does not contribute to the cost of that service.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Jenkins had remarked to him recently that the ridership on that
route is above projections, and a significant percentage is from minorities in the City.
Administration at the College is very pleased with the bus service. Mr. Fisher asked if the
request takes into account any Federal funding that might be used. Mr. Agnor said it is not
known if there will be any Federal funding.
Mr. Bowie said he is sorry that there is no one present from Charlottesville Transit to
address the ridership issue. It is noted in the back-up materials that the ridership figure
is 121,240. He wOuld like to note for the record that one person riding back and forth to
work accounts for 500 passengers. So, for all of the bus routes, the County is underwriting
each passenger about $15.00. He feels that this should be noted in the minutes.
SPCA Contract. Recommendation - $6,500. Mr. Agnor noted that the amount is calculated
on the contract, and is based on useage of the facility. Useage has increased in recent
years. This account was underfunded in the 1984-85 fiscal year.
District Home. Recommendation - $18,000. Mr. Agnor noted that this item is really
controlled by the Social Services Department. When an Albemarle County citizen is place in
the Home and has expenses not covered by a multitude of other programs and sources, those
March~ 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
expenses are charged to this account. The budgeted amount has increased in the past few
years as Medicare and Medicaid have changed reimbursement amounts, but it is levelling off.
Emergency Services. Recommendation - $7,851. Mr. Agnor said this office is housed in
City Hall. The office was funded one-fourth by the City, one-fourth by the County, and
one-half by the State. The State decreased its share two years ago, and that amount was
picked up by the City with the understanding that the Director, Mr. Michael Carroll, could be
assigned other duties. The City now pays 45 percent, with the County still paying 25 per-
cent, and the State paying thirty percent. Mr. Carroll has been temporarily assigned as the
manager of the 911 Emergency Dispatch System.
City/County Revenue Sharinq A~reement. Recommendation - $1,875,179.
meeting at 3:32 p.m.) There was no discussion of this item.
(Mr. Way left the
Capital Improvements Transfer. Recommendation - $1,000,000. Mr. Agnor said this amount
will not fund the annual Capital Improvements Program, but the staff has other alternatives
to propose for this funding, so he is not nervous about continuing this level of funding,
although he may be after the School Facilities Plan is received.
Mr. Fisher said if the School Board and the School Facilities Plan Committee were to
jointly recommend a new school in the Ivy area that would create a considerable drain on the
Capital Improvements Fund. Mr. Agnor said there is always the split collection of real
estate taxes, which creates a windfall in one year. The staff has not yet recommended this
method of deriving funds.
Emergency Medical Communications Contract. Recommendation - $230. Mr. Agnor said this
is the cost of a maintenance contract on radio equipment used by the rescue squads. It is
managed by Fluvanna County, and has been used for a number of years by the squads in the
Planning District.
Juvenile Detention Home. Recommendation - $11,906. Mr. Agnor said this category
receives the majority of its funds from the State. Rents are charged to jurisdictions that
do not own a part of the home. The net cost to the localities that own a part of the home
are portioned on a useage basis. There has been a thirty-one percent increase which is due
basically to useage. (Mr. Way returned to the meeting at 3:41 p.m. Mr. Bowie left the
meeting at the same time.)
911 System. Recommendation - $115,934. Mr. Agnor said this item is funded in the
current budget for only seven months. The 1985-86 budget shows a dramatic increase because
it is for a full-year of funding. Also, the original budget was calculated on information
that has been found to be incorrect since the center went into operation.
Animal Control. Total Requested. $54,796. Recommendation- $53,701.
there was nothing significant to point out concerning this budget.
Mr. Agnor said
American Red Cross Home Care.
Ray Mishler was present.
Total Requested - $9,375.
Recommendation - $-0-. Mr.
Mr. Agnor explained that the Red Cross is seeking funding from Albemarle County for the
provision of Home Care and Personal Care services to elderly, disabled, or handicapped county
residents. This program is a consolidation of the former Interagency Home Care (IHC) program
and the Home Care services of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging.
The American Red Cross states that their home care program is different from the compan-
ion program provided through the County's Department of Social Services. For example, aides
have been trained in a Medicaid certified personal care training programs to provide and/or
assist with essential daily activities of at-risk individuals. The program's goal is to
prevent or delay institutionalization as a matter of choice by the individual by providing
services to keep them safely in their homes.
According to American Red Cross, the volunteer component of the program provides an
extremely cost-effective means of providing companionship and assistance. Volunteers are
assigned to augment the services of an aide or they work individually providing respite for a
family, transportation, and personal care, if qualified. During the recent 18 month period
of the IHC program, 55 county residents received home care services through volunteers.
Red Cross began operating the consolidated program in October, 1984. The County
caseload currently includes 15 clients, of which eight received care by aides and seven by
volunteers. The American Red Cross Home Care Program has had 22 referrals for service and
currently has five individuals awaiting the services of aides. Referrals and need for
services are anticipated to continue to increase without the current ability to provide paid
aide services. It should also be noted that the Program processes referrals, when appro-
priate, to other care providers and agencies and has used the Department of Social Services
companion program as much as possible.
This is the first request for County funding made by this program. Presently, American
Red Cross funding is a mix of public and private dollars and fees charged for non-volunteer
services. Albemarle County's requested share is based on the proportion of Albemarle County
residents served by three separate programs and not on an assessment of the need by Albemarle
County residents of the service. As noted, a formal needs assessment has not'been conducted
18'5
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
to quantify need and identify geographic concentrations or target populations. Generally,
the future demand for home care services is expanding, given the overall "aging trend" of the
population and particularly the local population composition.
The consolidation of home care services under the auspices of the American Red Cross was
an efficiency motivated effort aimed at reducing administrative costs and duplication of
services. The program has been operational only five months. Levels of service and other
measures of effectiveness are difficult to compare and/or to project.
A number of other programs currently exist which provide home care and related services
to the elderly. For example, the Albemarle County Department of Social Services Companion
Program is currently funded by the County at $65,000 and is requesting $72,000 in County
funding support for fiscal year 1985-86, and the Health Department's home care services.
The level of services offered under these different programs varies; however, the Program
Director for American Red Cross concedes that duplication of some services may be occurring.
Fees are charged for some service programs using trained persons. The fee structure was
not clearly presented to the Program Review Committee, and not included in the budget over-
view. The program utilizes an extensive volunteer component. However, this "in-kind"
contribution was not quantified for the Program Review Committee. During the past fiscal
term, approximately 25 County residents were served, largely through expenditures of United
Way funding as JABA support. The present request is to offset reduced United Way funding and
increase services to approximately five additional County residents.
The Program Review Committee recommended zero funding for the following reasons:
The County directly supports a home care program through the Department
of Social Services, and it was not clear how the Red Cross program would
differ from the County's current program.
The Red Cross program requested $9,375 from the County in addition to
$27,000 from the City, yet is demonstrating an 80 percent decrease in
United Way funding. City/County funds would be supplanting private
support.
The Red Cross program ranks low because there was no data on volunteers
in total number of hours contributed, responsibilities, local assessment
of need for the program, and service population data.
(Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 3:51 p.m. and Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting.)
Mr. Ray Mishler, Executive Director of the local chapter of the American Red Cross, said
he was present to speak in support of the proposal. He will not argue for reinstatement of
full funding of this program because he understands the County is considering a ten percent
increase in funding of the Companion Program of the Health Department/Social Services Depart-
ment. He would ask for some consideration of the volunteer component of this program. The
Interagency Home Care program operated for eighteen months on a Federal grant, but that grant
was not continued in October, 1984. At that time, the Red Cross home care program and the
JABA volunteer services programs were consolidated as an efficiency move. It was felt that
it would be better to have the programs under one administration and one set of case manag-
ers. It would cost about $3,000 to continue the volunteer program in the County. That
amount would provide services for about thirty clients. The program will continue by use of
paid services through an agreement with JABA.
As to the United Way funding received by Red Cross, these are discretionary funds for
providing services. Last year the Red Cross diverted an extraordinary amount of funds into
the home care program. Now, they are requesting that the different localities bring back a
part of that funding into their programs that had to take a "back burner" during the past
year. Mr. Mischler said they want to continue to provide the home care services in the
localities.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 4:00 p.m.)
Youth Services Center. Total Requested - $7,295. Recommendation - $-0-.
Melville, Director, was present. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 4:01 p.m.)
Ms. Amy
Mr. Agnor noted from the Program Review Book that the overall purpose of the Youth
Service Center (YSC) is to promote improvements and services in the community which will
result in the prevention of juvenile delinquency, enhance the development of healthy youth,
and the efficient and effective use of existing resources. YSC attempts to achieve its goals
through a combination of direct services, coordination of existing youth resources, evalua-
tion of the youth service system and public education in the use of community programs. The
agency's emphasis is now half direct services (Project SOAR began in 1984; Rent-A-Teen began
in 1983; Out-Of-School Youth began in 1979) and half indirect services. The Youth Service
Center receives funding under the Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act from the
Department of Corrections. State law requires a 25 percent match for this grant which must
be local government funds. The local match is currently provided by the City of
Charlottesville. Due to the requirements of this grant program, no state monies can be
utilized for provision of direct services. Outreach Counseling provides the direct service
component of Project SOAR. The Out-of-School Youth Program is planned to be discontinued
during FY 1985-86 due to limited staff resources and a programmatic shift to implement
Project SOAR.
Staff commented that the Rent-A-Teen Program is operated entirely with volunteer labor.
YSC reports that all projects of the Center include the involvement of people from other
organizations who volunteer their time. The YSC operates under the guidance of a Youth
166
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Commission, an interagency, private advisory board. The YSC attempts to implement programs
responsive to the concerns of the Youth Commission, and strives to avoid program duplication.
The YSC requested $7,295 from Albemarle. Of that amount, $6,037 is to be applied as
one-half of the local match. Grant requirements specify that localities must demonstrate a
"maintenance of effort" and not reduce their share below the level of the first year of grant
funding.
The YSC is proposing in FY 85-86 to study school dropouts, focusing on "the causes of
dropping out, who drops out, ways to prevent it, and what happens to youth after they leave
school." This would be a major indirect service project. It is hoped that if YSC is suc-
cessful in obtaining a VISTA volunteer a portion of that volunteer's time could be utilized
on the school dropout study.
The Program Review Committee noted that YSC did attempt to design and present a curricu-
lum which provides a direct service component. This indicated a responsiveness by the agency
to comments made during the last fiscal process. This agency was commended for that effort.
The Program Review Committee recommended zero funding for the following reasons:
The YSC did not rank highly in the Program review process because the YSC
programs lack identifiable target groups specified in the Comprehensive
Plan, and was rated low in measurability, local-share formula and self-
sufficiency.
2. Adequate evaluation data is not yet available for Project SOAR to justify
the need or success of the level of service of the program.
3. YSC has not actively pursued private sector fund-raising.
4. The Committee recommends YSC refine its goals to target assistance and
service to those who demonstrate the greatest need.
The Committee recommends YSC work on quantification of data and needs
assessments. In the future, YSC should strive for more accurate collection
and presentation of data.
Mrs. Cooke said that she remembers that last year the Board spent a good deal of time
explaining the exact type of information it desired. She is disappointed to see that none of
those requests were followed through on.
Ms. Amy Melville, Director, said some of the information requested last year was pro-
vided to the Committee. A comment was made by the committee that information was provided in
terms of percentages. The Center provided a number of client services in programs, and
provided information from the needs assessment survey done a few years ago. The numbers were
really meaningless, the percentages being more important.
Ms. Melville said that Project SOAR started August 1 and has been in operation since
that time. The project is being run jointly with Outreach Counseling Services. They have
been able to take advantage of matching funds from the State to service young people who are
at risk of dropping out of school. They have serviced 24 youth and their families. This is
a program being offered only in the City of Charlottesville, since the County made no contri-
bution to YSC last year. Outreach Counseling had some referrals that would have been appro-
priate for this type of project if Albemarle County had contributed last year.
Ms. Melville said she thinks that some of the staff comments are misleading There is
the statement that only $6,037 of the request would be applied as local match. Actually, the
entire $7,295 would apply toward the State grant as local moneys. The State will not accept
a grant request with a local match of less than $6,000, which is referred to as "maintenance
effort" money, but will accept grant requests for larger amounts. In relation to the
Coordination/Consultation Project, there is a statement that Outreach Counseling has said
that early intervention does not necessarily make the length of services shorter. For that
reason, the proposal for next year includes a decision to extend services from three to six
months.
Ms. Melville said in reference to statements about the lack of a fee for services, YSC
does not impose any income guidelines because research shows that delinquency and other youth
problems are not something that occur only in low income families, but in all levels of
income. They do not charge fees for programs because it is virtually impossible to do so.
They experimented for a while charging those who participated in the Rent-A-Teen program and
it cost more to collect the fees than was realized from the fees. In terms of charging a fee
for Project SOAR, most families do not want the service in the first place, and if they could
pay, they would probably have been referred to more usual counseling services.
Ms. Melville said that during the last year, the Department of Corrections hired an
independent consultant to conduct an evaluation of the delinquency prevention projects in the
Commonwealth. She then handed to the Board a copy of the Executive Summary of that study
released in January. Mr. Arnold Goldberg of Virginia Commonwealth University looked at 21
communities that have delinquency prevention programs and compared those to communities that
did not have these programs for the three years prior to the Delinquency Prevention Act, and
for the three years since. It was found that there has been a substantial improvement since
these programs began. Ms. Melville said that concluded her remarks.
Central Virginia Child Development Association. Total Requested - $13,699.
tion - $-0-. Present was Ms. Carole Lanning, Director.
Recommenda-
Mr. Agnor said the Central Virginia Child Development Association is a comprehensive
child care information agency formed originally to coordinate day care services in the
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
community. It originated in 1970 as a volunteer effort, and after incorporating in 1973,
received.funds from the University of Virginia Hospital Department of Pediatrics, to conduct
workshops on child development and consult with the community on child care concerns. Since
that time, CVCDA has also contracted with area social services departments to recruit and
train foster parents and provide other youth services. In the past, these contracts have
fOrmed the core aCtivi%y and funding base for CVCDA.
This year, CVCDA is requesting funds from Albemarle County for only one of its current
programs, the Child Care Information and Directory Program. The dual goals of this program
are to equip parents with a broad range of information on how to recognize, select and
monitor high quality child care, and to upgrade the quality of care given in family day care
homes through training of providers. Family day care is care for a small group of children
in the provider's home. It is the most prevalent and least regulated type of care.
CVCDA maintains updated information lists of child day care centers, preschools, camps,
cooperative nurseries and play groups. These are available by mail or telephone contact.
The agency maintains an updated Directory of Family Day Care Providers, which currently lists
more than 75 family day care providers. Information on each provider includes a photograph,
training and experience, physical facilities, special activities provided, meal services,
hours of operation, fees, etc. Those who have been trained by CVCDA are indicated and
parents are shown the training curriculum. A similar directory is available of approximately
15 providers who will provide care in the child's home. Parents must visit the CVCDA office
to use these directories. Parents receive information on finding and evaluating care givers
in a talk with the Child Care Services Coordinator, and receive handouts including a
checklist of items to look for when choosing child care, suggestions on how to interview and
monitor their care giver, warning signs to look for in recognizing poor or abusive care
givers, how to make the day care experience happy for their child, sample agreement and
authorization forms, etc. Day care providers are listed in the Directory free of charge.
At present, City residents use this directory free of charge due to City funding sup-
port. Albemarle County residents are charged a fee of $10 for use of the service since CVCDA
is not funded by the County. This fee is waived if the family income is below the guidelines
of the United Way Child Care Scholarship Program.
The Program Review Committee recommended zero funding for the following reasons:
This program ranked low in part because it is not directly related to the
adopted objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. This is largely due to the
lack of target population definition and needs assessment.
CVCDA has begun to keep records on the number of persons served by place
of residence. While this is a start, more quantifiable data such as
family income relative ~to size should also be collected. The program
is commended on its increased use of volunteers.
The basic need for County funding of this indirect service has not been
adequately substantiated.
CVCDA did not establish a target or maximum number of day care providers
(Albemarle residents) could be processed with the requested funds. The
level of training available was not clearly defined by the agency.
e
Ms. Carole Lanning was present. She said they recently went to the name "Office for
Children and Youth." The program started about ten years ago with a group of volunteers who
saw a need for child care services in the community. Since then the agency has expanded and
added other services for children. They have a runaway shelter program, food program for day
care and a United Way scholarship program. They feel that child care is the most important
support that can be given to a working family. Child care is not just for low income people,
there are many new women in the work force, and two-worker families, or single parents who
need such assistance. It is not unusual these days for children to be in the care of someone
else while his/her parents work. Five years from now, it is expected that fifty percent of
the people in the country who have children under the age of six will be working outside of
the home. In five more years, twenty-five percent of the children under the age of ten will
be living with a single parent. The number of children living with unmarried mothers has
increased five times in the last ten years. The number of children living with a parent who
has never been married has increased five times in the last twenty years. CVCDA is trying to
help people with child care which is the least explored and least regulated of services.
Ms. Lanning said there are three ways to improve the quality of care given in these
homes. 1) Be sure the home is supervised by people who know what makes for good child care.
2) Have the care supervised by parents. 3) Teach the providers the proper method of child
care. Part of the reason the City of Charlottesville now supports the directory program is
that the City conducted a needs survey to determine the child care needs in the City, and at
the completion of the study they decided to fund CVCDA.
Ms. Lanning said CVCDA would like to conduct a study in Albemarle County. They know
there is a need for their services since parents come to them for advise. Mr. Fisher asked
if CVCDA is assuming that while the Federal government is cutting dollars to local government
it will start to supplement child care services. Ms. Lanning said she thinks the Federal
government will eventually respond as the demand grows. The one Federal program being cut
that effects Albemarle County is the huge cut in Title XX funding which helped many parents
pay for child care while they worked. Also, the Social Services Department has stopped
approving the number of child care homes they once approved and supervised because of the
loss of the Title XX funds.
3.68
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Legal Aid Society. Total Requested - $6,499. Recommendation - $6,499. Mr. Peter
McIntosh was present. He said that the law school clinic will serve an additional 200
clients per years just in the City and the County, mostly in domestic relations. Legal Aid
thinks there is a good chance they will receive funds from Nelson County this year, and they
have approached Louisa County, but do not feel they will be successful with that request.
Fluvanna County already funds Legal Aid, and they are trying to get them on the same share
formula used for Albemarle County and the City.
This category ended the budget work session for this date.
Agenda Item No. 14. Italian Student Exchange Program: Announcement.
Mr. Fisher noted the following press release concerning this subject:
The City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle will sponsor the second
international student exchange during the summer of 1985 between the sister
communities of Charlottesville/Albemarle County and Prato/Poggio a Caiano
Italy. ,
Applications are now being accepted from local high school students who wish
to participate in the exchange program. Students selected to participate in
the program will travel to Italy from June 17 to July 15.
During their visit to Italy, students will stay in the homes of the Italian
students who participate in the exchange program. In turn, local students
will host the Italian students during their visit to the Charlottesville and
Albemarle County community in late July and August.
Sophomores and juniors who are currently enrolled in a foreign language
course, or who have completed at least one year of a foreign language, are
eligible to apply for the exchange program. Twenty local students will be
selected.
The previous student exchange, held during the summer of 1983, proved a
memorable and exciting experience for both American and Italian partici-
pants. Visits to surrounding cities and local historical sites were
combined with family activities to provide the students with valuable
personal, cultural and educational experiences.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Appointments. Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Linda Leake, Deputy
Clerk to the Board, has accepted another position in the community and will terminate
employment with the County on March 29, 1985. She has worked for the County eleven years,
nine months, and the Board will be very sorry to see her leave. He then presented Mrs. Leake
with a Certificate of Appreciation for her years of service to the County. Mrs. Leake
expressed her appreciation to the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept Mrs. Leake's
resignation effective March 29, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
On the recommendation of the Clerk, supported by the County Executive, motion was
offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Mrs. Janet L. Hanks as a Deputy
Clerk effective March 13, 1985, and to appoint Mrs. Yvonne B. Vess as a Deputy Clerk
effective April 1, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mr. J. C. Middleton
of Greenwood, Virginia, claiming damages for one 250 pound ram, five years old, killed by
dogs on February 11, 1985. On motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Middleton
was allowed $250.00 for this claim. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Henley.
March 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
169
Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
were no other matters offered.
There
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjournment. Upon motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. ~Way, the
Board adjourned until March 18, 1985, at 1:00 p.m. Roll was called, and the motion-carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.