1985-04-10202
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on April !0, 1985, at 9:00 a.m. in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottes¥ilte,
Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. F~s~e~r,
J. T. 'Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy
County Executive; and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order.
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 a.m. by
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom to approve Item 4.1 and to accept other items as shown under Agenda Item No. 24.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: -~
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Change Order Nos. 15 and 16 for the Court Square Project were approved as
received. It was noted that No. 16 was required in order to provide the necessary controlled
temperature and moisture conditions for operating the telephone system and future data '~ ~
processing unit of which will be supplied by the State of Virginia at a later date for the~~'
Clerk's office. It was further noted that the occupants of the building will be moving -
back to the building the first week of May. ,7
Item 24.1. Receive and Order Filed Certain Letter from Pulaski County Board of
Supervisors re: Africa Relief Funds. The letter explained that Pulaski County has set a
.goal of one dollar per capita through voluntary contributions which are being coordinated
by that County and channeled through an existing charitable, non-profit organization. The
letter requested the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors initiate a similar fund drive.
Mr. Way asked for information regarding the County's participation in the aministration of
this type of program. Mr. Agnor said he would contact Mr. Sidney Clower, Pulaski County
Administrator regarding same.
Item 24.2. Letter dated April 3, 1985 from R. Bradley Chewning, State Water Control
Board, re: Serving on Committee to Formulate state Water Plan, was received and ~ordered ~
filed. The letter stated that the State Water Control Board Headquarters is coordinating
a State Water Plan Advisory Committee to deal with overall water policy and planning in a
statewide context. Additionally, the letter requested the Board appoint a representative
to serve on a subarea advisory committee, which will be formed to deal with water planning
at a grassroots level. Mr. Fisher said he woUld participate in the Subarea Advisory Committee.
Item 24.3. Statistical Report of Sheriff's Office for February, 1985 was received
and ordered filed.
Item 24.4. Monthly Building Activity Report for March, 1985 from the Albemarle County
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received and ordered filed.
Mr. Bowie express concern regarding the downward trend of the number of building
permits in the past six months being just above the 1982 level. He asked what effect this
will have on the County's projected income for FY 1985-86. Mr. Agnor said revenue projections
are based on five-year statistical information. He said he feels sure that the report
correctly reflects a downward trend. Mr. Agnor samd that was the basms of the budget preparatm~n.
Item 24.5. A copy of estimates of the Sales and Use Tax, Wine Tax and Alcoholic
Beverage Profits to be distributed to localities during Fiscal Year 1986 were received and
ordered filed.
Item 24.6. Copy of Annual Report for 1984 from Columbia Gas System (copy on file in
the Clerk's office) was received and ordered filed.
Item 24.7. Notice from Centel dated March 8, 1985 of State Corporation Commission
Hearing on Investigation of Customer Provided Pay Telephones, was received and ordered
filed.
Item 24.8. County Executive's Monthly Report for period ending February 28, 1985,
was withdrawn from the agenda because it was not ready for presentation.
Apr~t 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Item 24.9. Superintendent's Memo No. 83/State Departmentment of Education, Additional
State Aid Estimates, was received and ordered filed.
Item 24.10.
filed.
Planning Commission Minutes for April 2, 1985 were received and ordered
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 13, June 20, August 8, August 15 (Adjourne~
August 15 (Night), August 16, August 23, December 12, 1984.
Mr. Bowie had read a portion of the minutes of June 13, 1984 and noted one typographical
error on the fifth page and added a second sentence to the third paragraph from the bottom
of page 11 to read: "The public hearing was closed." Mrs. Cooke had read a portion of
the June 13 minutes and found the general content to be in order. Mr. Fisher had also
read a portion of the June 13 minutes and noted only several typographical errors.
Mr. Bowie hadlread pages one through nine of the June 20, 1984 minutes and found them
satisfactory. Mr. Way had not read the portion of the June 20 minutes assigned to him.
Mr. Henley had not read the pages of the August 8, 1984 minutes assigned to him.
Mr. Lindstrom had read pages nine through 36 of the August 8 minutes and added language to
the second sentence in the paragraph on the page immediately preceding Agenda Item No. 10,
changing it to read as follows: "Mr. Lindstrom did not have any problem with a written
policy and noted that the Crozet situation is different because of the plans for the
Lickingho!e Creek impoundment which would provide a publicly maintained detention basin
for pollution from urban development in the Crozet area. He then related the report done
several years ago about small impoundments as a means of eliminating pollution from urban
type development in the watershed."
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of August 15, 1984 (adjourned) and found no errors.
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of August 15, 1984 (night meeting) and noted some
typographical errors.
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of August 16, 1984 (adjOurned meeting) and found no
errors.
Mr. Henley had not read the minutes of August 23, 1984.
Neither Mr. Lindstrom nor Mr. Way had read the minutes of December 12, 1984.
Mr. Bowie made a motion to approve the minutes of June 13, June 20 (part), August 8 (part)
August 15 (afternoon), August 15 (night), and August 16, 1984, as corrected. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
re:
Agenda Item No. 6a. Highway Matters: Letter from Highway Department dated March 7, 1985,
Plans for McIntire Road (Meadow Creek Parkway).
Mr. Agnor noted the following letter dated March 7, 1985 from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer of the Highway Department:
"Ms. Lettie E. Neher, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
McIntire Road
U00G-104-i01, PE10I
0631-002-128, C502
Fr: Int. Preston Avenue
To: Int. Rio Road
Dear Ms. Neher:
The Department is currently developing studies and environmental documents to
take the McIntire Road/Meadow Creek Parkway project to a location public hearing.
The Department is considering a parkway type design for the section between the
Route 250 bypass and Rio Road. This type design does not lend itself to curb
and gutter but is of a more rural design with shoulders and ditches.
The City and County have made numerous recommendations concerning the design
of this road in the past. On at least two occasions the County has indicated
its desire to have this road designed as an urban curb and gutter section. I
refer you specifically to a letter from your office addressed to the Mayor of
Charlottesville dated June 5, 1980, and a study prepared by Ms. Kelley in the
summer of 1983 which was forwarded to my office by letter dated October 31, 1983.
204
April 10, t~85 (Regular Day Meeting..)
Before the Department goes to public hearing recommending a planned parkway
type design without curb and gutter, we feel both the City and ~the County
should be offered an opportunity to review their previous recommendations and
advise us of their feelings. The Department's Urban Office has already contacted
the City of Charlottesville and received their concurrence on the parkway type
design which eliminates the curb and gutter. I request that the board of
supervisors review their previous recommendations on this matter and advise me
of their current feelings.
Yours truly,
(Signed) D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer"
Mr. Agnor then referred to a memorandum dated April 4, 1985, from Robert W. Tucker, ~Jr..,
Deputy County Executive, to the Board of Supervisors, as follows:
"In 1983, the Board of SuperviSors approved a preliminary parkway design for
the extension of McIntire Road (Meadow Creek Parkway) to Rio Road (approximately
one-half of the parkway is located in the City and the other half in the County).
The County then requested that the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation prepare their final engineering plans ~i~ parkway design specifications.
During this same time the City had requested that the portion of the parkway to
to located in the City have curb and gutter rather than a rural-type cross
section. The County concurred with this primarily to assure that the entire
Parkway maintain a similar design.
Mr. Roosevelt's attached letter requests the County to reconsider its previous
curb and gutter design criteria and revert to basically a more rural cross
section. The City has already agreed to dropping their request for curb and
gutter, and staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors do the same. This
action will not, in staff opinion, lose the integrity of the parkway design,
but it will provide a major savings in cost to the project."
Mr. Fisher asked if the only access point to and from the parkway would be at the
street on which Charlottesville High School is located (Melbourne Road). Mr. Roosevelt
said there would be controlled access, meaning that entrances would be limited. Basically
these locations would be at the entrance to Penn Park and whatever streets cross Melbourne
Road.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this type design requires any long-term maintenance. Mr. Roosevelt
said no. He said the parkway design may be more favorable because with an urban design
~(curb and gutter) there is nowhere for a vehicle to pull off of the road in case o.f. problems
such as mechanical trouble. Mr. Lindstrom asked the amount of projected savings. Mr. Roosevel
said the savings are in the initial cost. The parkway design can be built at a lower cost
per linear foot than the urban design. The cost of maintenance for keeping shoulders graded
and ditches clean will offset the cost of curb and gutter. Another benefit of the parkway
design is that it allows variance in the alignment of the grade of lanes so they can run
independently. This enables natural areas to be saved more easily than with an urban design.
Mr. Roosevelt noted that an informational meeting is scheduled at Charlottesville High School
on April 23, from 4:30 to 8:30 p.m. He said the Highway Department's consultants will be
present to answer questions regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Mr. Way made a motion to concur with the Highway Department and staff recommendations
for the Meadow Creek Parkway as recommended by staff or a parkway type design for the section
between the Route 250 By-pass and Rio Road. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion which carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. Appeal: Georgia Leake Final Plat. This matter
was brought to the Board by letter dated March 15, 1985, from Mrs. Georgia Leake, seeking
relief from Condition b., Waiver from Subdivision Ordinance, Section 18-36(f).
Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development, presented the
staff's report as follows:
"History: Georgia Leake Final Plat was approved by the Albemarle County
Planning Commission with conditions on November 27, ~1984.
Proposal: The applicant requests relief from the condition that the sub-
division use one entrance as sole access to the parcels created.
Acreage: 3.46 acres.
Zoning: R-2, two dwellings per acre.
Location: Located on the south side o£ Route 631, south of 1-64 and approxi-
mately 600 feet east of the intersection of Route 780. Tax Map 76, Parcel 53A.
Scottsvitle Magisterial District.
Summary: The applicant states that both entrances have been in use for many
years. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has examined
the entrances and their report is as follows:
A ril 191985 (Re ~lar Da_~ Meeting) :
; 05
'The proposed entrance to serve these two lots has adequate sight distance
and will require trimming of vegetation on the other side of the road for
adequate sight distance to the east. With the trimming of vegetation, the
sight distance at this new entrance will Just meet the minimum requirements
for a private entrance. Due to the alignment of Route 631 at this location,
the Department concurs that the existing entrance should be closed and the
new entrance serve both of the lots. A permit will be needed from the
Department ~before any work can be done within the highway right of way.'
Staff cannot support the applicant's request. The Subdivision Ordinance
18-36(f) requires that 'any lot fronting on any such road shall enter only
onto such road and shall have no immediate access onto any public street .... '
Relief from this condition will rquire the Planning Commission to grant a
waiver from Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 12, 1985, by a vote
of four to three, denied the request for relief from Condition b, which resulted in a denial
for a waiver from Section 18-36(f).
Mrs. Georgia Leake was present. She said she had subdivided her property in order to
build without having to mortgage the total amount of land. She said her driveway (to be
closed) has been in existence for thirtynine years and that there has never been an accident
at its intersection with Route 631. The driveway on her back lot has been in existence for
nineteen years and there has recently been an accident at that location. Mrs. Leake said
she feels both driveways should remain open because there is too much traffic for one driveway.
~She said she could understand the position of the Highway Department if she had opened a new
driveway, but this driveway has been in use. Mr. Fisher asked where the driveway that had
been in use for a long period of time actually leads, noting that the map supplied the Board
shows a house under construction. Mrs. Leake said there had been a mobile home on that lot
for many years, but it has been removed and the house which is under construction is in its
place. Mr. Fisher said by subdividing the property, Mrs. Leake created a landlocked parcel.
He then asked for comments from Mr. Dan Roosevelt regarding this matter.
Mr. Roosevelt said the entrance that serves Lot A has approximately 80 to 100 feet of
sight distance, which is blocked by trees and shrubbery not under control of the applicant.
He said any driveway used twenty times a day with this sight distance has a potential for an
accident. Mr. Roosevelt said the other entrance has 255 feet of sight distance in one
direction and 225 feet of sight distance in the other direction and with minor trimming can
have 250 feet. He said the Highway Department considers this adequate for the situation and
recommends that the County take this opportunity to use its powers to require the entrance
to be upgraded since the property is being subdivided. He said if the Board sees fit to
waive this requirement, the Highway Department has the authority at this time to take action
to require upgrading.
Mrs. Cooke asked if trimming vegetation would increase sight distance or if the way the
road turns is the problem affecting the distance. Mr. RooseYe-lt said the vegetation is the
problem. Trimming it one time will not correct the situation. The applicant needs the
right to trim the vegetation whenever necessary. Also, the bushes should be removed. A driver
can probably see between the trees, but not through the bushes.
Mr. Way said the basic change is that a house is replacing a mobile home. He said he
is reluctant to insist that someone change the pattern they have established. Mrs. Cooke
agreed with Mr. Way. She said if Mrs. Leake could work out an agreement with the adjoining
property owner regarding trimming vegetation, that would seem to be a sensible solution to
the problem.
Mr. Way asked Mrs. Leake to address this suggestion. Mrs. Leake said she has discussed
this matter with her neighbors and they have agreed to trim to a certain extent. Mrs. Leake
said she has told the Highway Department that she will remove any trees and shrubbery on her
right-of-way as well as upgrade the driveway. She noted that the Highway Department has the
right to remove vegetation from an area twenty-five feet from the center of the road.
Mrs. Cooke said she had no problem supporting the waiver. Mr. Bowie agreed. He said
it would be different if there were two new lots and new houses, but the applicant has lived
there for forty years and the other driveway has existed for twenty years with a dwelling in
the form of a mobile home. Mr. Bowie said he could support the request for a waiver.
Mr. Way made a motion to approve the request for relief from Condition b., to grant
waiver of the Subdivision Ordinance, Section 18-36(f). Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.
Mr. Henley said he does not understand why it would be a problem for Mrs. Leake to move
the driveway on the small lot.
Mr. Fisher said there are many entrances onto this road and there might be similar
circumstances when the Board would like to make improvements. He said the Highway Department
recommendation seems reasonable, and the County staff and Planning Commission are supporting
those recommendations and he feels he ought to support them.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the Highway Department and staff are telling the Board that
the imposition on the applicant is relatively minor in order to improve public safety.
Mrs. Cooke said based on Mr. Roosevelt's comments, it seems that the vegetation is the
major "road block". Therefore, she supports the request for the waiver.
Mr. Henley said he did not feel the Highway Department recommendations are unreasonable
and that Mrs. Leake would be better off (to comply).
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
At this point roll was called and the foregoing motion failed (the denial of the waiver
stands) by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Way.
Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6c.
Culpeper.
Highway Matters:
Statement for April 15, 1985 Highway Hearing in
Mr. Agnor said staff was requested to draft a proposed statement for presentation at
the Highway Commission's Annual Preallocation Public Hearing to be held in Culpeper on April 1
1985. Mr. Agnor said Route 29 North is indicated as the item of highest priority for primary
funding needs in Albemarle County. The draft also includes a statement of the needs for
improvements to Free Bridge and to Route 250 East. The difference in this statement and
that made last year is that the County and the City of Charlottesville are requesting that
the Highway Department consider improvement of Free Bridge and the widening of Route 250
East as far-as its intersection with Route 20 North as an urgent priority, and retain its
first priority as improvements to Route 29 North.
Mr. Bowie said he has discussed this matter with several people in the Rivanna District
and there is much concern regarding both Free Bridge and Route 250 East. He said there is
general concurrence that the most critical problem is Route 29 North. Mr. Bowie said he is.
pleased with the statement as presented and intends to be at the hearing in Culpeper. Mrs.
Cooke said she also agrees with the statement.
Mr. Agnor said the Charlottesville City Council requests that the Board adopt the
statement in the form of a resolution. However it has been the experience that the appearance
of a Board member at these hearings is more effective than just adopting a resolution to be
sent as an inclusion at the hearing. Mr. Fisher said he feels the Board should adopt the
draft statement and that as many Board members as possible attend the hearing to present the
statement. Mr. Bowie made the motion to adopt the statement as presented today (copy in
file). The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke who said she plans to attend the Highway
Department hearing. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters: Free Bridge Project: Request from City Council.
The following letter dated February 20, 1985, was received from Ms. Jeanne Cox, Clerk of
Charlottesville City Council:
"Dear Ms. Neher:
Enclosed is a resolution adopted by City Council at its February 19th meeting
which requests the State Highway Department to establish "Free" Bridge as a
separate highway project and requests that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors adopt a similar resolution. I would appreciate it if you would
let me know when the County acts on this request.
Please give me a call if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
(Signed)
Jeanne Cox, Clerk of Council"
Since this request was addressed in the statement to be presented at the Highway
Commission hearing on April 15, 1985, it was not discussed by the Board. Mr. Fisher moved
on to Agenda Item No. 6e.
Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 9:52 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 6e. Highway Matters: Guard Rails Along Route 631 (Hardware Rapids).
Mr. Agnor referred to the following memorandum from Mr. Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer
"TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive
Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer
Hardware Rapids - Route 631 Parking Problem
April 5, 1985
We have studied the problem of trespassers parking along Route 631 while they
visit the Hardware Rapids. We suspect that it is a problem that cannot be
entirely solved by barriers, signs, fences, etc. However, we have not been
able to think of any better measure than to place a guardrail along the road
as discussed in the January 16th Board meeting.
It will take approximately 800 feet of steel guardrail at a cost of approxi-
mately $6,500.00. We will also have "No Parking" signs painted on and/or
securely attached to the guardrail. We feel that this will convince citizens
who will obey the law not to park here. We are concerned though that the
lawbreakers will park anyway and that they will then be blocking the road."
Mr. Agnor said if citizens still insist in parking along Route 631 after guardrails are
installed, the police can ticket fA~mand have the car towed away. Mr. Bowie said the area
is quite a distance out for a wrecker to come. He also reminded the' Board of a curve on
which parking could cause a traffic hazard because southbound motorists could not see a parked
car in time to stop. He said the guardrails could cause an accident rather than enhance law
enforcement. Mr. Bowie said there should be some way to prohibit parking in that area other
than by guardrails and roadblocks.
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting]
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if he concurred with the use of guardrails to prohibit
parking. Mr. Roosevelt said he saw no problem if four feet of shoulder is left as a safety
barrier between the guardrail and the edge of the pavement. In this way, cars could pull
off the road without hitting the guardrail, yet the wheels would be on the pavement, therefore
accomplishing what is necessary for ticketing. Mr. Roosevelt said he does have a concern
about the safety aspects. He referred to Mr. Bowie's statement regarding the curve on Route
631. If people park there in violation of signs, and guardrails, accidents will occur at
that location. Mr. Roosevelt said if ordinances are amended to allow police to tow vehicles
parked in violation of the law, it would be easier to enforce the law and a better way to
approach the problem. He said it is his understanding that an officer has to personally
hand a parking ticket to a driver parked in violation of a sign, but who is not blocking
traffic. This makes ticketing more difficult, therefore police enforcement is limited.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, for his comments. Mr. St. John
said traffic control is being recommended to remedy a problem that has nothing to do with
traffic. He said the problem is that people are trespassing, littering and causing a
disturbance. Mr. Fisher said parking on the highway is also a problem. Mr. Henley said he
does not see why guardrails are necessary if people can be ticketed. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
St. John if a vehicle can be ticketed if parked on private property that has been posted.
Mr. St. John said yes. The property owner can swear out a warrant and any police office who
witnesses a trespasser on posted property has the power to arrest without a warrant. He
said enforcement of the existing laws applicable to the situation is the answer unless there
is a need for guardrails related to a legitimate traffic problem. There are laws that can
be enforced to solve this problem.
Mr. Henley asked if a property owner can have a vehicle towed away that is parked on
his land. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Fisher said the property owner would probably have to
guarantee the wrecker company of payment. Mr. St. John said that is correct. If the police
have a vehicle towed, the owner of the vehicle is billed.
Mr. Fisher~said~hed~e~tizes~Ithat there is a problem. He said the request for guardrails
originated from citizens who did not want that area turned into a park. He said he believes
the County Attorney, County Engineer and Chief of Police should confer regarding a solution
to the situation. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned that public funds will be spent to install
guardrails and people might still park illegally, causing accidents. Mr. St. John said he
believes guardrails should be installed where the Highway Department says they are needed
from a traffic standpoint. Anything else is a law enforcement problem.
Mr. Way sa±d there is a serious problem here and the police do not seem to be able to
take care of it. No other solution has been recommended other than the guardrails - they
are an attempt to deal with the problem in another way.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John to confer with Police Chief Johnstone and the other
people who have been working on this matter to see what exactly should be recommended. Mr.
St. John said he needs to have the problem(s) defined. Mr. Fisher then said this agenda
item will be deferred to May 8, or whenever it is ready for discussion again. Mr. Way said
the problem is already there. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Way if a month's delay is too long. Mr. Way
said action should be taken as quickly as possible.
Mr. Daniel Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said he had been on the site early in
the week and noticed that only one of approximately one-half dozen "No Parking" signs is
still there. He asked if the Board wanted him to repost the area with more signs or wait
until further discussion with Chief Johnstone. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the area
woUld have to be posted with "No Parking" signs in order for parking regulations to be
enforced. Mr. St. John said yes; even if people could park legally, they could not do so on
another person's land. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Roosevelt should install signs again or wait
until discussion with Chief Johnstone. Mr. St. John said the signs should be put up right
away. Mr. Bowie suggested that Chief Johnstone accelerate whatever checking he is going to
do as stated in his memo of March 5. Mr. St. John suggested that the landowners effected
should post "No Trespassing" signs at their property boundaries.
Agenda Item No. 6g.
Plan and Annual Plan.
Highway Matters:
Letter from Highway Department re:
Six Year
Mr. Fisher referenced the following letter dated March 1, 1985, from Harold C. King,
Commissioner of the Department of Highways and Transportation:
"From time to time it is necessary for the Virignia Department of Highways and
Transportation to review its procedures in order to assure that we continue to
manage our financial affairs to the greatest possible benefit of the citizens
of the Commonwealth.
Recent studies indicate that the current Six-Year Secondary Road Improvement
Programs and Annual Budget Financial Plans in which the allocation has been
divided without due regard for the Highway and Transportation Commission's
concern for the welfare and safety of all the counties' citizens are creating
problems as they relate to manpower utilization, the timely utilization of
available state funds and federal funds prior to their lapse.
In order to assure that Federal and Stat'e funds can continue to be used to
the greatest benefit and that we meet our obligation to carry out your desires,
I must request several revisions to current procedures.
The Six-Year Secondary Road Improvement Program should be a list of projects
in priority order representing those projects which the Board of Supervisors
and the Department feel should be implemented with available funds within the
six-year period. This is not a detailed financial plan. We will continue to
give you our best preliminary cost of the project and the most up-to-date
estimate of anticipated funds for the six-year period. The list of projects
should, in fact, contain more projects than can be expected to be financed in
order for the Department to move projects ahead if, for some reason, projects
of higher priority must be dropped from the list.
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
The list, of course, will continue to be reviewed every two years. However,
I caution that radical changes in priority are undesirable as this results
in a waste of manpower that is exerted prior to change.
Due to the individual nature of various projects, we cannot promise that the
highest priority item will always be the next project implemented. However,
I do pledge that the highest priority items will be pursued by the Department
in recognition of the priority so placed.
Each year, prior to preparation of the annual budget, our Resident Engineer
will submit to you a list of projects taken in order of priority from the
Six-Year Plan which are to be financed in order to carry out the phase in
which the project exists; i.e., preliminary engineering, right of way acquisi-
tion, and construction. Our engineer will be instructed not to commit funds
to projects or phases of projects which are uncertain. It is understood that
if for some unforeseen reason a project or project phase must be delayed or
dropped, the Department will utilize the available funds to further the imple-
mentation of the next logical priority project or project phase.
The procedure as outlined will enable the Department to utilize to the greatest
extent possible the available funds and make unnecessary the practice of
carrying over large sums Of Secondary Road funds from one year to the next.
I must ask that you recognize the need to incorporate into your Six-Year Plans
projects which will qualify for the various special funds which must be utilized
by the Department in making up the annual allocation of funds. We derive funds
from many Federal-Aid Assistance programs, including high hazard elimination,
bridge improvement programs, railroad crossing safety improvement programs, etc.
Certain special state funds must also be utilized on specific projects. If
these special funds are not utilized as intended, they will be lost. This will
make it impossible for us to maintain the annual allocation ~t..~ent-1.e¥.el~.
Your Resident Engineer has been fully instructed as to the necessary management
of our manpower and finances. I request that you allow him to advise you with
regard to these matters and give every consideration to his assessment of the
most critical secondary road needs in your county. We will monitor the Resident
Engineer's financial plans to assure that the Six-Year Plan is implemented to
the greatest extend possible in accordance with the priority which has been
mutually established.
Your cooperation in providing the Department with your Six-Year Plans has and
will continue to be our inspiration. We pledge to you our best efforts in the
continued implementation of that plan."
Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department has had two problems with the Secondary
Improvements planning process. First, large balances are being built up in secondary funds.~
Hopefully, these balances can be reduced through a change in procedures. There is a current
balance of approximately $2 million in secondary funds for Albemarle County. Secondly, a
large percent of money allocated for improvements each year comes from federal aid, which
includes about thirty to forty percent of the allocation for the secondary system. Federal
funds can only be used for certain purposes. These are listed in five categories for the-
secondary system: 1) improvements on the federal aid secondary system; 2) improvements to
bridges on the federal aid system; 3) improvements to bridges not on the federal aid system;
4) spot improvements and 5) railroad grade crossing improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said that
in future years, the Highway Department will attempt to allocate money based on how much
they estimate will be spent on a project in the upcoming year. As a result of this change,
some projects with a lower priority will go to construction before a project that is number
one on the priority list. That is bound to happen in Albemarle County where the Meadow
Creek Parkway is the highest priority, but there are about ten secondary gravel road improve-.
ments which only take about about a year to eighteen months to get to the construction
stage. Over a period of five to six years, projects should be completed at a faster rate
than under the old financing procedure. Mr. Fisher asked if when the Meadow Creek Parkway
is built, it may be possible that nothing else will be built. Mr. Roosevelt said that may
be exactly correct; that year it may be nothing else in the budget. Hopefully those items
anticipated under the current sixyear plan will have already been built. Mr. Fisher asked
if this wilt defer the time when the Meadow Creek Parkway will be constructed. Mr. Roosevelt
said it should not. He said that so much money will be spent on gravel road improvements
that there will not be enough to finance the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Roosevelt said there
are projects listed in the latter part of the current six-year plan which are scheduled to
be financed and constructed in 1989-1990 which he expects to go to construction next year,
if not this year.
Mr. Roosevelt said there is another problem with federal aid that the Highway Department
has tried to grapple with-internally, but has not succeeded. In the coming year, it is
anticipated that $577,000 of t~e allocation for Albemarle County will come from federal aid
funds. Those funds must be allocated., with the State matching share, to projects which meet
rather narrow federal aid limits. The Highway Department has received instructions from the
Central Office of the Secondary Roads Engineer, that each construction district is to spend
the dollars allocated to that district and balance these funds among the five categories
(discussed earlier) as a total. That means that those projects with the highest priority in
each category may be designated to be this district's representative to spend these funds.
It is too early to talk in detail about how this will effect Albemarle County's secondary
improvement program but some projects that are not now in the six-year plan may have to be
added to that plan in order to use the Couhty's share of the federal aid obligation.
Apr_ ~1 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he did not understand the problem. Mr. Roosevelt said the ten or
twelve projects listed in the current six-year plan do not use enough money over the six-year
period to meet the federal aid obligation for Albemarle County. If the funds are not used
within three years, the federal government takes back the funds and reallocates them to
other counties. Mr. Roosevelt said a number of federal aid bridge projects were set up in
the last two years to use these funds. It was anticipated that the General Assembly would
allow the Highway Department to allocate to these projects administratively and not run it
through the counties' secondary improvements funds. Unfortunately, this proposal~was not
included in the new allocation law, therefore this program falls back on each county's
budget. Mr. RooseVelt said if off-system, bridge funds are not allocated to projects which
have been advertised and awarded by October of this year, large amounts of funds will be
lost-under this category of federal aid. Mr. Roosevelt said he will let the Board know what
projects will have to be done in order to be sure the Albemarle County allocation of federal
funds are obligated.
Mr. Roosevelt then distributed a hand-out to the Board which explained the 1985-86
ant'icipated Secondary Allocation as follows:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
1985-86
ANTICIPATED
Secondary Allocation
Existing HB 1269
Statute
UNPAVED ROAD FUND
REGULAR ALLOCATION
$ 257,963 $ 354,i40
1,223,669 1,289,353
Total $1,481,632 $1,653,493
CHANGE + 171,861
Federal Aid Obligation
577,014
Agenda Item No. 6g. Other Highway Matters.
Mrs. Cooke referred to a letter she had received written to Mr. Michael Boblitz and
Mrs. Peter Bramley concerning the high speed of traffic approaching the area of a traffic
light at a cross-over on Route 29 North. She asked if there will be any signs warning
traffic, particular tractor trailers, of a stop. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. Although the
intersection is hidden from view, the traffic signal will be visible from a long distance,
but an advance warning sign will be installed. He said he believes the sign and signal will
be1 installed in approximately six months.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Electoral Board: Additional Precinct in Charlottesville District.
MN. Agnor said the Board had been advised previously that the Woodbrook Precinct has an
excess of 5,000 voters and the State Code requires that an additional precinct be created
when that limit is exceeded. He then summarized his memorandum to the Board dated March 26,
1985, as follows:
"The Code of Virginia in Section 24.1-37 requires the governing body to create
an additional precinct whenever the number of registered voters exceeds 5,000.
Currently there are 5,369 registered voters in the Woodbrook precinct.
Therefore, an additional precinct must be created as soon as possible.
Mrs. Cooke and Mrs. Matthews have looked at several locations such as the
Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Firehouse and the Rescue Squad
building, both on Berkmar Drive, which are not that desirable due to the
narrow entrances and parking. They have also looked at space at Eldercare
Gardens. No definite solution has been made as of this date.
Recommendation: After talking with Mrs. Matthews, staff recommends the Board
of Supervisors designate Mrs. Cooke, Mrs. Matthews and Ray Jones to select
a site and precinct boundaries for your future consideration."
Mr. Agnor said Mrs. Cooke, Mrs. Matthews and Mr. Jones will pursue this matter further
and possibly bring it before the Board again at the May 8 Board meeting. Mr. Fisher asked
about the timetable for making changes for the November, 1985 elections. Mrs. Matthews said
no changes can be made sixty days prior to an election. She said this matter must be brought
before the Department of Justice, which if expedited, will take sixty days. Mrs. Cooke said
she had discussed using the Division of Motor Vehciles (DMV) as a possible polling place
with Mr. Jones. Mrs. Matthews said DMV is a good place to conduct an election. She said
Mr. Jones had talked with Mr. Hodnett, the local manager of DMV, who said he has some re
tions about using the DMV building as a polling place because he is concerned about theft.
Mrs. Matthews said that yesterday Mr. Jones had written to Mr. Donald E. Williams, (
of the DMV, about the specifications for establishing a polling place at that site. Mrs.
Matthews said she, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Jones had reviewed changes in the boundary lines. New
boundary lines would be established from Route 29 North to Rio Road, west to Hydraulic Road
at the stone store and down to Georgetown Road and over to Barracks Road.
Mrs. Cooke said very few places physically lend themselves to what is needed in order
to establish a polling place. She asked what happens if the DMV building cannot be used for
that purpose and an appropriate place cannot be found. Mrs. Matthews said failure to comply
with the State Code does not invalidate an election, but an effort to find other acco:
must be made for at least six months. She said the concerns regarding theft at DMV are
questionable. The portion of the building that stores license plates, collects fees, records
etc. can be blocked off with gates. Mrs. Matthews said Mr. Jones stated that the County is
prepared to make these arrangements and pay for any DMV employees necessary to be present to
protect that area on election day. Mrs. Cooke said they are now waiting for a response from
DMV.
2i0
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 7b. Request for additional polling place in Earlysville area.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Henley has received several letters regarding establishing another
polling place in the Earlysville area. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, County
Registrar, if she had received a copy of those communications. Mrs. Matthews said she
received a memorandum from Miss Neher, Clerk of the Board. Mr. Fisher said he has a copy of
a letter from the Electoral Board to Mr. Henley and wanted the record to show fact that the
issue has been examined. He said the letter summarized the issue at the present time,
however the Electoral Board does not feel that it is necessary or desirable to estab!ish~n
additional polling place in the Free Union precinct. Mrs. Matthews said when the boundary
lines were redefined in 1981, the existing polling place for the Earlysville precinct (used
by the people making this request) was Broadus Wood School. In reviewing figures regard±ag
voters moved from Broadus Wood School to Free Union, Mrs. Matthews said she found that 373
people would be effected. She said she does not know whether or no~ that area will have a
large rate of growth. Another factor determining how many people will be effected is where
boundary lines are established to accommodate citizens making the request. The Earlysville
precinct now has 1,400 registered voters. It is possible to establish boundary lines that
will not place people in the precinct that they are requesting. Mrs. Matthews said an
additional voting machine would have to be purchased and her office would require a part-
time position if another polling place were established.
Mr. Henley said he feels the Board should accept the recommendation of the Electoral
Board. He said he believes the problem is a matter of inconvenience for t~ose people who
have requested another polling place. It would be different if they had to vote once a
month. Mr. Henley said he has to drive several miles to vote and does not mind doing so.
Mr. Fisher suggested that copies of the letter from the Electoral Board be sent with a cover
letter to all those people who had written to request another polling place.
Agenda Item No. 8. Dance Hall Permit: Henry's Restaurant. Letter dated March 29, 1985,
signed by Henry O. Hackett, was presented requesting issuance of a dance hall permit.
Mr. Agnor said before a dance hall permit is issued with County Code Section 3-12, the
applicant must submit certain information to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration
including the name of the owner, manager, location, a statement as to whether or not alcoholic
beverages are served on the premises and a certification from the County Building Official
and the Fire Official of conformity with the Building Code and the Fire Prevention Code. He
said that information was submitted in the letter from Mr. Hackett, dated March 29, 1985.
Mr. Henry Hackett said he is going to expand his restaurant by approximately 3,200
square feet which would include a twelve by twelve foot dancing area. He said his restaurant
is a family-style restaurant. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hackett if there will be live music.
Mr. Hackett said yes. He also will rent the area to organizations for meetings. Mr. Fisher
asked what hours the dance area would be open. Mr. Hackett said from 9:00 p.m. to 1:00 a~m.
He said the restaurant would be the only business open in the shopping center at that time.
Mr. Donald Wagner was present representing Riverbend Partnership, the owner of the
property. He said the dance hall permit application would not be before ~the Board, but
Riverbend Partnership was concerned that the iive music might create some kind of nuisance~
He said in the language of the agreement between Riverbend Partnership and Mr. Hackett, it,
is understood that if the business becomes a nuisance because of the permit, it will cease
operating the dance floor. He is confident it will be run in the proper manner.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John what name the permit should be in and will it run with
the property. Mr. St. John said the permit could be issued to either the lessee or the
owner - it would not make any difference legally. He said since Mr. Hackett applied for the
permit, it should be issued to the name shown on the application. Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr.
Hackett decided to sell the restaurant, if the permit would still be in effect. Mr. S~John
said yes; the permit would be transferable unless the Board places a condition on the dance
hall permit that it goes to the present lessee and no one else.
Mr. Fisher said Henry's Restaurant is in a commercial area. No residents will be
affected by its hours of operation except the commercial residents themselves. Mr. Bowie
said he had been to the restaurant and finds no problem in approving the dance hall permit.
At this point Mr. Bowie made a motion to approve the dance hall permit for Henry's Restaurant
in accordance with Section 3-12(b) of the Albemarle County .Code. Mr. St. John said the
Board usually includes a provi'so that the permit is issued as applied for, which mean that
the dance hall is to operate as shown in the sketches presented to the Board. Mr. Bowie
said that is his motion. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion which carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-82-60. Request for Extension of Time. The following letter
dated March 21, 1985 was received from S. W. Heischman, University Village Limited Partnership
"We request that special use permit 82-60, allowing for the construction
of a health center on the property known as Crestwood, be extended for a
period of two years from the current expiration date of April 20, 1985 to
April 20, 1987.
We purchased this land, located between Ivy Gardens Apartments and Huntington
Village, in December of 1984. Our plans are to develop a life care center
on the property in accordance with the existing proffer.
...... i.~.~. .... /~ Ap~?i. 10, 198~ (Regular Day Meeting)
The concept of a health center is an important factor in the viability of
a life care center. We have started the process for obtaining the State
required certificate of need that is necessary to have nursing care beds
in the health center. This process will take a minimum of six months to
complete. After we know the number and type of beds allowed, we can start
the engineering and design. This phase is expected to last approximately
six months also. Accordingly, we are asking for the extra time to allow
for any unforseen delays.
We are firmly committed to this project and are confident that it will
fulfill a need of our community.
Thank you for your attention to this request."
,Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development, read his mem¢
to RObert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, dated March 27, 1985, as follows:
"The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on October 20, 1982,
approved SP-82-60 for the construction of a 260 bed continuing care retiremenb
facility. Subsequently, on February 8, 1984 the Board approved an extension
of SP-82-60 for twelve months, to expire on April 20, 1985.
Previousiy, on March~21, 1981, the State Health Department issued a moratorium
on the construction of additional nursing home beds including life-care
~' facility infirmary beds. The moratorium expired June 30, 1983. At the present
time, according to State Health Department plans there is a need for five
additional nursing home beds within Planning District 10. In a March 26
telephone conversation with Marilyn H. West, Director, Division of Resource
Development of the State Health Department, it was determined that approval of
the state required certificate of need for nursing home beds, exceeding the
five beds needed in Planning District 10, would be extremely difficult.
In regard to special use permit expiration, Section 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance provides 'that the Board of Supervisors may, as a condition of
approval, impose such alternative time limits as may be reasonable in a
particular case.' In addition, Condition #2 of SP-82-60 requires 'approval
of all appropriate State, local and Federal agencies prior to issuance of
any certificate of occupancy'.
In review of the anticipated difficulty in obtaining the state required
certificate of need, which is necessary to have nursing care beds, staff
recommends extension of SP-82-60 for an additional period of twelve months."
Mr. Fisher said the issue here is whether or not to allow another extension of time on
this special use permit. He personally does not believe the Board should extend special
permits. Mr. Henley said he is willing to approve the extension of time. Mr. Fisher said
he basically feels this should be the last extension since it will have given the applicant
a period of four years.
Mr. Rick White was present to represent the University Village Limited Partnership. He
recognizes the Board's concern regarding the recommended number of beds. He said this
number will be reevaluated in 1986. Even though the apparent need is for only five beds at
this time, that recommendation will go before the State and they can choose whether or not
to follow that recommendation. In any event, the applicant feels that there is a need for a
continuing care retirement facility'the Charlottesville area. Whether or not the certificate
of need is obtained within the next six months, the applicant intends to proceed with the
concept of a health center. It is possible to have beds in a health center without a certi-
ficate of need. Mr. White said there was a bill before the General Assembly last year that
would give preferential treatment to life care centers. He said he does not feel this
special use permit will come before the Board again for an extension.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this life care center will be in a retirement village with nursing
care facilities. Mr. White said it will be an area where there will be several phases of
care. The concept is that the village will have relatively healthy, elderly people, who due
to brief illnesses, will sometimes need more care than they can give themselves. This is
usually referred to as a personal assistance unit where there is not skilled nursing care,
but there is assistance available to help them with eating and bathing. When they get to
the point where they need more than just assistance, they go into "intermediate care" beds
or "skilled nursing care" beds.
Mr. Way made a motion that an extension of one year be granted for SP-82-60. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
The Board recessed at 10:55 a.m. and reconvened at 11:06 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution to Authorize Staff to Make Application for Section 8
Moderate Rehabilitation funds.
Mr. Agnor said about one year ago an investment banking firm in Norfolk asked for
approval so they could utilize HUD Moderate Rehabilitation funds at the Jefferson Towne
apartment complex. The Board had concerns about concentrating a large amount of rent
subsidized housing units in one project, as opposed to the principal of scattered housing
that the County h~ad been following, but did approve the request and an application was
filed. In September, 1984 notification was received from the HUD office in Richmond that
the application process, which had been awaiting their response since Spring, had only
thirty days in which to be completed or it would expire. Mr. Agnor said the owners of
Jefferson Towne had been contacted and they said that the Norfolk people had not continued
with the project and the property has since been sold to others.
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting]~
Mr. Agnor said the HUD office was notified that this specific project was one where the
funds could be used. In addition, there was no way to meet the thirty-day deadline. In
December staff learned that the HUD office was in error regarding the thirty-day deadline.
The law requires a period of nine months for completion once the preliminary application has
been accepted. Therefore, staff has started to gather information to complete this 240~unit
application in Albemarle County. One of the requirements of the application is that a
resolution acknowledging that HUD has advised that they will accept applications for this
program, will make 240 units available, and that the Board authorizes the application to be
finalized by the County Department of Planning and Community Development and filed with HUD
be adopted.
Mr. Agnor said two days ago notification was received from the investment banker who
initiated this project, that HUD was in error in advising that the units were available ~for
Albemarle County; he feels the units are available to his firm only. He advised that he is
withdrawing the 240 units from Albemarle County and plans to use them in another project.
He quoted in his letter the director of the HUD office in Richmond as verifying that that is~
the case. Mr. Agnor said staff then contacted the HUD office in Richmond but was unable to
speak to the director, but HUD staff indicated there was confusion regarding the validity of
that claim. They asserted that the application for the units was made by Albemarle County
and therefore the units are allocated to Albemarle County and not to a specific project even
though the project was named in the application. These facts are to be confirmed in writing
by the HUD office to give assurance that the 240 units can be used by Albemarle County. The
units are intended ~to be used by the Department of Planning and Community Development on a
scattered basis. The application is being completed in that fashion. Mr. Agnor said the
banker .has been advised by telephone that the County is proceeding with the application with
the understanding that the units belong to Albemarle County. This investment banker assured
County staff members that he disagrees and he intends to go to the Philadelphia regional
office to get the issued settled. Mr. Agnor said he does not know how it will end, but he
recommended that the Board adopt a resolution so staff can proceed with the application with
the understanding that there might be a battle.
Mrs. Cooke asked if there is any way of specifying the number of units that can be put
in any one location. Mr. Bowie asked if the Board could vote on the various projects.
Mr. Agnor said, if approved, this matter will come before the Board again for approval in
terms of allocations for certain projects. He said staff will inventory rental housing
facilities and contact the owners to find out their interest and/or needs for rehabilitation.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board can limit or change the number of units requested on an
application. Mr. Agnor said it is his understanding that the Board can allocate the units
as it wishes. He said he is not certain that HUD will set any standards on that but he will
yerify it to be sure that there are no standards in terms of the quantity of units the Board
must abide by. HUD understands that Albemarle County wants to scatter the units, but scat-
tering has many interpretations.
Mr. Way offered motion to adopt the following Resolution:
RESOLUTION
THAT THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MAKE APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
TO ADMINISTER A SECTION 8 MODERATE REHABILITATION PROGRAM
IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA FOR 240 UNITS
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development has advised the
Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development that it will
accept applications to administer a Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program
in Albemarle County, Virginia; and,
WHEREAS, the Department of Housing and Urban Development is to make
available 240 units of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the~ County of Albemarle and the Department of
Planning and Community Development to make application to administer a
Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program in Albemarle County, Virginia; r~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
that the staff is hereby authorized to file an application to the Department of
Housing and Urban Development on behalf of the County of Albemarle's Planning
and Community Development Department to administer a Section 8 Moderate
Rehabilitation Program in Albemarle County, Virginia, for 240 units.
Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded ~ote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 11. Policy: Submitting Supplemental Material to Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Cooke said she had been requested by the Board to draft some language to cover the
situation discussed at the March 13 meeting. Staff has recommended a statement be added to
the applicant's notices of hearing dates:
"Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted
to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled hearing date."
~pr~l 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs. Cooke said the purpose of the statement is to let people know that the Board will
not make a decision after receiving new information on a moment's notice. Mr. Fisher said
he believes that this is good, but in practice the Board will still often receive new infor-
mation at a hearing. Mrs. Cooke said the Board is not obligated to act on an issue under
such circumstances. Mr. Bowie said it is good because the Board will not be put in an
embarrassing position because the person providing the information knows that the decision
may be held up if the Board receives information late. Mr. Way asked if the statement means
that under no circumstances can the information ever be considered. Mrs. Cooke said no; the
information can be submitted, but the Board does not have to act on the matter because of
the deadline.
Mrs. Cooke made a motion to accept this policy of submitting supplemental material to
the Board seven days prior to the scheduled hearing. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion which
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 12.
Policy: Withdrawal of Lands from an Agricultura!/Forestal District.
Mr. Donnelly sai'd the draft policy was submitted to the Board at its meeting on March
13, 1985. Mr. Bowie said he has a question pertaining to paragraph 1.a. in the draft
regarding the words "nearby district". He asked that "nearby" be defined. Mr. St. John
said it is his opinion that "nearby" indicates any other district that is affected by
withdrawal of the first district.
Mr. Bowie said in paragraph 2 under "Withdrawal Criteria" regarding an heir's right to
withdraw the property in accordance with State law upon inheritance. He questioned whether
the word "immediately" should be used. Mr. Bowie said if withdrawal by an heir is mandated
by State law as a. right, why must that person pay a fee, go through public hearing, etc.
Mr. Donnelly said the word "immediately" comes from the State Code, Mr. St. John said he
believes the legal interpretation of "immediately" means the heir's right to withdraw arises
immediately upon inheritance, not that the heir is cut off if he/she does not withdraw
immediately. There is no time limitation set out in the State Code, but the heir does not
have to go through the withdrawal process or show cause. Mr. Bowie said he does not think
it is clear that the "Withdrawal Procedure" does not also apply to paragraph 2 under "With-
drawal Criteria" (referring to heirs). Mr. Fisher said he believes the whole policy should
be retyped to show the whole withdrawal procedure falls under paragraph 1, and the by-right
withdrawal falls under paragraph 2. He said he believes the by-right withdrawal by an heir
should be handled in writing to the County Planning Director or some other appropriate
authority. Mr. St. John said proof of the former owner's death and that the applicant is
indeed the heir should be specified. Mr. Fisher added that the signature of the applicant
should also be required showing that withdrawal is requested. Mr. Way said he supports Mr.
Bowie's view of paragraph 1.a. and would prefer endng the sentence after the word "district"
deleting the words "or in any other nearby district".
Mr. Bowie then made a motion to adopt the policy for the withdrawal of lands from an
agricultural/forestal district as amended today and reading as follows:
POLICY FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF LANDS
FROM AN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
WITHDRAWAL CRITERIA
The Code of Virginia provides that nay landowner may file written notice of
termination with the Board of Supervisors. After a hearing before the Board
of Supervisors, the Board may allow a landowner to withdraw property from the
district "for good and reasonable cause shown." Withdrawal by an heir to
property in an Agricultural and Forestal District is a matter of right.
BY-RIGHT WITHDRAWAL:
If withdrawal is sought by an heir at law or divisee of an owner of land
lying within a district, such land may be withdrawn from the district
immediately upon inheritance as stated in the Code of Virginia.
Withdrawal Proc'edUre: The inheritor of property in the Agricultural,/
Forestal District who wishes to withdraw property shall furnish the following
information:
Proof of the death of the owner of the property;
Proof that the person requesting the withdrawal is, in fact, the heir
or designee of the deceased property owner;
A statement by the heir or designee that he/she intends to have
property withdrawn from the district.
PETITION FOR WITHDRAWAL:
In order to establish "good and reasonable cause shown", any request by a
landowner to withdraw property from a district must meet the following
criteria:
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;
The proposed new land use is in compliance with the most recent approved
Comprehensive Plan;
__~pril 10~ 1_8~ (Re _ular Da-- _.Meeti~n_g_~
The proposed 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 interests of the landowner
requesting withdrawal;
The proposed land use was not anticipated by the landowner at the time
the property was placed in the district, and there has been a change in
conditions or circumstance since that time.
Withdrawal Procedure: The owner of property (not an heir or designee) who
wishes to have land withdrawn from an Agricultural/Forestal District must use
the following procedure:
Owner of the property requesting withdrawal submits application with fee
of fifty dollars ($50.00) to the Department of Planning and Community
Development;
e
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;
Board of Supervisors notifies property owners within the district,
advertises and holds public hearing and makes final determination;
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."
The above motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 13. Scottsville Flood Control Project Easement.
Mr. Agnor referred to a letter from Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., attorney for the town of
Scottsville, referring to the Scottsville Flood Control Project, dated March 21, 1985,
addressed to Gerald E. Fisher, as follows:
"The Army Corps of Engineers will undertake the construction of the second
phase of the Scottsville Flood Protection Project, pending the receipt of the
approved easements and additional requirements from the Town of Scottsville.
A requirement of the Corps of Engineers is a ponding easement for all ponding
areas in the flood plain, which includes the land up to the elevation 275.4
feet MSL owned by the County of Albemarle. The 275.4 feet elevation is the
maximum height for water in the ponding area during a 100-year flood. The
project is contingent upon the receipt of this easement by April 29, 1985.
Please review it and obtain the approval of the Baord of Supervisors, and
return it to me at 224 Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901, by
April 29, 1985. If the easement is unsigned and the project not completed,
of course the Town and the County of Albemarle would be without the additional
protection, and water would rise above the 275.4 foot level during the 100-year
flood and other floods. This easement merely protects the Government from
future liability as a result of its flood protection project. If you have
any questions, please call me."
Mr. Agnor said the letter is accompanied by a map which has been been reviewed by the staf
of the County Executive and County Attorney. An explanation of the easement and recommendation
to the Board are contained in the following memorandum from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy
County Executive, to the Board, dated April 1, 1985:
"The second phase of the Scottsville levee is expected to begin construction
in the near future. One requirement of the Corps of Engineers prior to
construction is receipt of the County's approval of an easement for ponding
areas in the flood plain of the old Scottsville School property. During a
100-year flood occurrence, this property could be inundated to a maximum
elevation of 275.4 feet above mean sea level (MSL). This elevation equates
to the lowest footing or foundation elevation shown on the school's architectural
plans.
County Executive and County Attorney staff have reviewed the attached easement
submitted by Mr. Lindsay~ Dorrier, Jr. We recommend its approval subject to
the deletion and amendme~s~we have shown on the submitted document (a deed dated
March 25, 2985, a copy of which is on file). You will note in Mr. Dorrier's
cover letter, easement approVal is needed by April 29, 1985."
Mr. Agnor said the easement called for the conveyance of all right, title and interest
in structures and improvements to the structures now situated on the land, except fencing.
The staff has recommended that that provision be removed. Mr. Dottier had agreed that it
was not expected that the school building would be transferred in right and title to the
Town of Scottsville. The deed also provides that no structures for human habitation shall
/~ ~pril 10, 1985~(Regular Day Meeting)
215
be constructed or maintained on the land except as may be approved in writing by the represen-
tative of the United States in charge of the project. County staff added the word "new"
pertaining to structures and Mr. Dorrier has agreed to this wording. Mr. Agnor said staff
recommends the Board authorize execution of a revised deed of easement with those revisions,
and authorize that same be signed by the Chairman. He said the actual deed is not available
today since it has been sent to Mr. Dorrier to be retyped.
Mr. Fisher said he thought the Board has already granted an easement for flooding on
that property. Mr. Agnor said that is correct, however this deed changes the flood elevation
to that caused by the levee. The other easement allowed the river to top the levee, resulting
in flooding the land and ponding north of the levee. This easement eliminates topping the
levee and only allows ponding north of the levee. Mr. Fisher asked if this easement covers
a larger area than the previous one. Mr. Agnor said it covers a smaller area. Mr. Fisher
asked whether this easement supersedes the previous easement or will they both be in effect
on the property. Mr. Agnor said there is no reference to the previous easement in this
deed. He then asked Mr. St. John if he could address the question. Mr. St. John said he
would have to check the file before he could answer that question. Mr. Fisher said the
Board can clear the agenda of this if it is willing to authorize him to sign the deed provided
the previous deed is clearly extinguished and no longer applies. Mr. Way asked who is
responsible for reclamation of flood damage should it occur to this property. Mr. Fisher
said if water goes outside this easement and inside the building, he presumes the County is
"in the same boat" as before. Mr. Agnor said he assumes that if the County grants an easement
for property to be flooded, unless the easement specifically states that the damage will be
repaired by someone eIse, the County would assume that responsibility when it granted the
easement. Mr. St. John said he does not believe anything that could happen under this
easement will be as bad as what would have happened if the Board had done nothing. Mr. Fisher
asked if it is certain that 275.4 feet is not up to the building elevation. Mr. Agnor said
the height of the floors has been calculated on the building and it is concluded that they
comply with the plans in terms of the elevation of the footings.
Mr. Way made a motion that the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors be authorized to
sign the deed as amended to grant and convey unto the Town of Scottsville, a perpetual
right, power privilege and easement occasionally to overflow, flood and submerge up to an
elevation of 275.4 feet MSL, all of the property conveyed to the County by the Albemarle
County School Board dated September 14, 1981, with the proviso that this deed takes the
place of any former deed on this property. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion which carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 14. Earlysville Forest Water Company - Request. Letter dated February
1985 from George H. Gilliam (Paxon, Smith, Gilliam & Scott) to George R. St. John, County
Attorney, stating: "We represent Earlysville Forest Water Company, and John W. Riely,
Hunton & Williams, is associated with us in making application to the State Corporation
Commission under the Utility Facilities Act. U...I have enclosed a form of Resolution, also
prepared by Mr. Riely, for consideration by the County Board of Supervisors .... "was the
first notice of this request.
Mr. Agnor then referred to a letter addressed to the Board from J. W. Brent, Secretary-
Treasurer of the Albemarle County Service Authority, dated March 25, 1985:
"The Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority considered
the application of Earlysville Forest Water Company for a certificate of
public convenience and necessity at the regular meeting of the Board on
March 21, 1985. By the following vote the Board of Directors voted to
recommend to the-Board of Supervisors that no action be taken on this
petition: Mr. Humphris - aye; Mrs. Tewksbury - aye; Mr. Wagner - abstained;
Mr. Craig - abstained."
Mr. Agnor then noted memorandum dated April 3, 1985, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy
County Executive:
"Applciation has been made by the Earlysville Forest Water Company to the
State Corporation Commission to establish the company as a public utility.
This application is required by State Code when a private, central utility
system provides connections to fifty or more customers (a number which
this water company already exceeds). Comments regarding this request are
provided by the staff of the Department of Planning and Community Development,
and a recommendation from the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
In discussion With the County Attorney's Office, it is our joint opinion
that there will be important ramifications both to the County and to the
Albemarle County Service Authority if the Earlysville Forest Water Company
is approved as a public utility. This action would grant an exclusive
monopoly within Earlysville Forest's assigned territory and preclude
future service to the area by the Albemarle County Service Authority.
Currently, as a private central water system, the Service Authority could
at some future date either purchase or condemn this water company and serve
the area itself., but this will be precluded by the granting of this
application.
April 10, 1985 (R~guiar Day Meeting)~
Further study of this matter, however, indicates that the County has no
legal authority to deny this request since the applicant is complying with
the State Code requirements and has complied with conditions of its.PUD
approval, i.e., a central water system. In addition, a recent financial
feasibility study for the extension of public water from the Airport to
Earlysville was shown to be infeasible at this time.
As staff sees it, the County has basically four options to consider:
Approval as requested;
Approval subject to an agreement between the Service Authority and
the water company which would allow the dedication or sale of the
water system to the authority once the system had been amortized
sufficiently in order to make the dedication or sale feasible to
both parties;
Request the Service Authority to consider acquisition of the central
system as it is, and operating it as a public utility; and
Reconsider the feasibility of extending the waterline from the
Airport to Earlysville to provide public water.
Staff does not support the first option because of the ramifications outlined
earlier. The remaining options, however, are worth exploring further. Staff
would recommend that the Board of Supervisors defer action on this matter
until your May 8 meeting to give staff time to investigate with the applicant
and Service Authority, the feasibility of the remaining options listed above."
Mr. Agnor said staff has spoken to Mr. Gilliam, about the recommendation. He said that"
a month's delay will be no problem for him and that they would be interested in any alter-
natives that can be explored.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to add a fifth option, which is the one recommended by the
Service Authority - do nothing at this time. He said he would like to know what the ramifi-
cations would be if the Board did not do anything at this time. Mr. Bowie said he believes
there is a danger to having small State controlled, private corporations scattered throug~0u~-.
the County over which the Board has no control without negotiating with a corporate entity
whenever it wants to do something.
At this point, Mr. Bowie made a motion to defer the Earlysville Forest Water Company
request to May 8, 1985, when staff will return with a further recommendation, and he requested
that a fifth option option "to take no action", be added to the list of options. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Bowie then made a motion to request that staff devise a policy whereby all central
well systems and non-Albemarle County Service Authority water providers be required when the
central well permit is applied for, to develop systems compatible with those of the Service
Authority so they might eventually to taken over by the Service Authority to protect the
public interest. Mr. Fisher said that in many developments that have taken place within the
last five years, there has been a requirement that central water systems be built to the
standards and specifications of the Albemarle County Service Authority. In some of these
developments, there was a condition requiring that there be a way for the system to become
operated by the Service Authority, however, this is often difficult to achieve. Mr. Bowie
said there is another option for large developments, which is that it be serviced by the
Service Authority from the start. Mr. Agnor said the Earlysville Forest water system was
designed and approved by the Service Authority, but there is no mechanism by which they can
assume the operation. Mr. Fisher said a motion is not necessary to request this information
from staff.
Agenda Item No. 15. Request: Task Force to Combat Drunk Driving.
Mr. Fisher referred to a letter dated March 15, 1985, from Betty C. Scott, Coordinator,
Drunk Driving Task Force, to City Councilors, Members of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
Greene and Nelson Counties, as follows:
"As you recall, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area Task Force to Combat Drunk
Driving presented a report to you in the summer of 1984. One of our suggestions
was to monitor the implementation of recommendations in the report.
We would now like to establish this steering committee with your approval.
Our goals will be:
t)
3)
4)
5)
Monitor implementation of the recommendations from the task force report;
Advocate for a public information officer and act as a resource to that
person;
Keep communication open by providing information and support to local
police chiefs and sheriffs;
Act as a clearinghouse and coordinator for activities and efforts
relating to drunk driving control within the region;
Advocate for legislative change.
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
217
Persons who have agreed to serve on the steering committee are:
Patricia H. Cooke, Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County
Mary Alice Gunter, City Council, Charlottesville
Dr. R. Jack Eastham, III, Charlottesville
Jan Wilson, Albemarle County
William Kelsh, Virginia Highway Research Council
T. D. Thompson, Charlottesville
Sheriff William Morris, Greene County
Betty C. Scott, Charlottesville
Derry Miller, Albemarle County
Russell Otis, Administrator, Nelson County
Don Henck, Executive Director, VASAP
Delegate George F. Allen
Harriet Mohler, for Delegate Mitchell Van Yahres
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has agreed to supply
staff to provide meeting notices and minutes. We would appreciate an
action endorsing the steering committee so that we can continue to work
toward a safer community for all."
Mrs~J~gane Saunier, Thomas Jefferson Plannir.g District Commission, was present. She said
the purpose~ef~,his steering committee is to cor.tinue the recommendations that were in the
report of the Task Force and to see that those z.ecommendations are followed through with to
be a community resource. The James River Alcoh¢l Safety Action Board is going to employ a
Public Information Officer, who the Steering Committee can help by being a resource for
ideas, fund raising and projects. There is essentially no funding to staff the Steering
Committee. The Task Force asked for funding th~'ough the Highway Safety Program through
Albemarle County, but was turned down. Mrs. Sat.nier said the time she can devote to working
with the committee will be paid for through the local share paid by the County and the City
to the Planning District Commission and will th~.refore be limited. Because of the lack of
funds, the Committee will not be able to initiale any large projects, however it wishes to
have a process with which it can continue to me~t and monitor the progress being made.
Mrs. Cooke noted that she is a member of tile Steering Committee. She said the problem
the Committee is dealing with is not temporary in this or any other community. She feels it
is very important to continue with the Steering Committee as a mechanism to monitor and
follow through with recommendations, initiate new ones and do whatever it can to combat the
problem of drunk driving. She asked the Board ~embers to support the Steering Committee for
the Task Force to Combat Drunk Driving and give it the accreditation needed to function
properly.
Mr. Fisher said the Board's approval of th~ formation of this committee, and making
apPointments to same, is without any obligation for funding so is largely symbolic, although
it is apparently important to the committee. H~ suggested that some length of time be set
for the terms and suggested that it be on a calendar year basis. Mrs. Cooke agreed and
suggested the Committee be appointed for a two-year term beginning in 1986.
Mrs. Cooke noted that the reason there were no funds available from the Highway Trans-
portation and Safety Commission is because it was not in their recommendations for this
period of time.
Mr. Fisher said this committee should be entered in the "Boards and Commissions" appoint-
ment book along with those committees whose terms are not advertised because appointments
will basically be made from recommendation of those people who have served.
Mr. Bowie said he supports the Steering Committee and its formation but hopes that next
year at budget time, the Committee's solution is not adding another person on the Albemarle
County staff.
Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to establish the Steering Committee and to make the
appointments of the persons listed in Mrs. Scott's letter for the balance of 1985. Mrs. Cooke
offered motion to that effect, seconded by Mr. Bowie. Mr. Agnor said he assumes that all of
the appointments are ratified by Albemarle County as well as the other jurisdictions. Mr.
Fisher said that is not clear in the request from the Task Force. Mrs. Cooke said it is her
opinion to establish the Steering Committee as stated in the Task Force letter, then in 1986
it will come before the Board for review. She said that is a part of her motion and Mr. Bowie
said it is part of his second to the motion. The motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 16.
Clerk's Office.)
Survey - Task Force on Sexual Assault.
(Survey on file in the
The following memorandum to the Board dated April 4, 1985, from the Charlottesville/
Albemarle Task Force for Prevention of Sexual Assault, accompanied the survey:
"During your meeting on February l~th the Board expressed a desire to see the
final draft of the attitude survey which the Charlottesville/Albemarle Task
Force for the Prevention of Sexual Assault plans to use in the community.
Trained telephone interviewers would begin a pre-test about April 16th. After
an evaluation of the pre-test, the final survey will be completed during the
week of April 23-36. We plan to do between 100 and 200 interviews.
· 218
__~ril 10 1985 (Re Ular Da_~ Meeting~_
The Public Education Committee of-the Task Force has met frequently and
labored many hours to complete the final draft. We wish to acknowledge the
special assistance given to the Committee by Dr. Sheila R. Deitz and Jefferey
Frederick, Phd. Their expertise in this area of survey research was Particu-
larly crucial to the completion of the Committee's task. Their vitae are attached."
Ms. Barbara Burger, Co-Chair of the Task Force for Prevention of Sexual Assault, was
present to represent the Task Force. Mr. Way said he is opposed to people 16 years old
being interviewed in the survey, and he will vote against it on that basis.~ Ms. Burger
asked Mr. Way what age he considered to be appropriate. Mr. Way said legal age - 18 years
old. Ms. Burger said with a random survey, the likelihood of contacting many 16-year olds
is low, however it is no problem to change the age limit to 18. Mr. Bowie asked how the age
of the interviewee will be determined. Ms. Burger said they will be asked their age. The
telephone numbers will be chosen by using random combinations of the last four digits of the
different exchanges. In that way the names of the interviewees will not be known, which
will increase their anonymity. Mr. Fisher asked if the interviewer will ask to speak to the
oldest household member. Ms. Burger said to get a random of the population, grids are set
up for certain group sizes and the person interviewed will depend on a number that is
generated in the random distribution~For a better response to the questions, it has been
d~cided to have male interviewers forA lnterviewees and female interviewers for female inter-
vlewees. The survey will try to get an equal sample size of groups of males and females.
Mrs. Cooke asked what will happen if the sixteen year old does not give his/her age and
talks to the interviewer without the parents' permission and the parents then object to the
survey interview? She said this is a delicate subject and many parents have strong feelings
about it. Ms. Burger said if the interviewee is asked how many people in the house are from~
eighteen years old and older, that person would not know that the survey is only for people
of that age group. Mrs. Cooke said suppose a minor is contacted, answers the survey, and ~
the parents say you did not get their permission - what position does that put the Task
Force in? Ms. Burger said it would be a difficult position. Mr. Agnor said why not ask the
the person's age. Ms. Burger said that question is asked later. Mrs. Cooke said she has a~-
problem with not getting permission of the head of the household to answer the survey,. Ms. ~
Burger said the demographic section of the survey, questions 59 through somewhere in the
70's, can be moved to the beginning of the survey. The question of age will then be one of
the firs~ asked. In that way the interviewer cannot be deceived because the interviewee
will think the question of age is part of the survey. If the person is not eighteen, the
interview will be discontinued immediately.
Mr. Bowie said he has seen or heard results of similar studies within the last three
months. He asked if the Task Force has gotten results from the studies that have already
been conducted. Some of the questions in this survey are designed so they can be compared
to surveys in California, etc. Ms. Burger said she does not know of any surveys that have
been conducted in this area.
Mrs. Cooke said she has no problem with the survey except that she believes permission
should be obtained from the head of the household before conducting the-survey. Mr. Fisher
said someone who is eighteen years~old can legally answer the questions. Mr. Bowie agreed
with Mr. Fisher. Mrs. Cooke said if the Board and Task Force are comfortable with that, and
the Task Force is ready to deal with problems that might arise, then it is all right.
Mr. Way said he did not intend for his previous comments to be construed as being
negative. He said the survey shows that much work had gone into it and it has been well
thought out. Mr. Fisher noted that the survey seems lengthy. Ms. Burger said it will take
approximately twenty minutes to complete.
Ms. Burger said there are two kinds of changes to the survey that the Task Force is
considering. First, changes in the methodology page related to ambiguities in the questions.
The second change is an additional question - how safe does the interviewee feel in his/her
own community. Ms. Burger asked if the Board has any objections to these changes. Mr. Fisher
asked the Board for comments regarding the survey. Mr. Bowie said as long as the concern~ .
mentioned are resolved, he had no further comments. No other Board member commented.
The Board recessed for lunch at 12:15 p.m. and reconvened at 1:25 p.~m.
Agenda Item No. 17. 1:30 p.m.: Adoption Annual Appropriation Ordinance for FY 1985,86~
Mr. Agnor gave a brief-summary of each page of the Appropriation Ordinance.
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members had any changes to make to the Appropriation
Ordinance as the result of the public hearing of the previous week.
Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the addition of $10,934 for the United Way Child Care
Scholarship Fund. He said he is convinced that this is an important and economic use of
public funds because it provides people an opportunity to get off of the welfare program and
it is a healthy approach to the problem. He said he understands the Board's concern about
setting a precedent by opening the door to request more money, but this is not a precedent
in a legal sense in as much as it is up to the Board as to how much money will be spent each
year. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the Program Review Committee recommended this new
program be approved. He then made a motion to add the United Way Child Care Scholarship
Fund as Item Number 25 under the Human Development category, in the amount of $10,934, and
to reduce the Board of Supervisors' Contingency fund by the same amount.
Mr. Fisher said he has struggled with this question since.the~hearing. He now feels
that entering into pre-school care programs is a large step. He said the Board shoul~d look
at the whole range of the problem to see what the needs are. Mr. Fisher said the County is
now paying approximately $4,000 per child for education. He said he would like to know the
total liability to the County for child care from birth to twelfth grade before he votes to
become involved. Therefore, Mr. Fisher said he will not support the motion.
~pril 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
2.19
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not consider the Child Care Scholarship an extension of the
educational system to a new class of people. He feels it will benefit a limited class of
people who will meet a certain criteria and the program will be administered by an independent
agency. It will offer an opportunity for some people to be able to work who would not
otherwise have that opportunity. He said he is not in favor of offering child care services
to everyone - only to those people at the lower end of the economic scale who are interested
in working but cannot without the assistance of this money.
Mr. Henley said he believes most people can work out child care problems by themselves.
He-said he thinks it will become a problem that people will unload on the County. Mr. Bowie
said-he has problems with tax dollars being used to supplement voluntary contributions. He
said if something is going to be done, he feels there are other ways to handle it besides
the~Child Care Scholarship. Mr. Lindstrom said the other way to handle it is the way the
County has traditionally handled it and that is to put these people on welfare. The cost of
day care makes the choice of whether-to work or stay on welfare an uneconomic decision.
Mrs. Cooke said she did not support the request last year and does not support it this year.
She agrees with Mr. Henley and Mr. Bowie and cannot support the motion. She said whenever
the government takes the responsibility of caring and providing for someone, there are those
people who will take advantage of the government. She said she believes people should be
given the opportunity to provide for themselves and work out their own problems as much as
possible.
Mr. Way said the County is already involved with child care in a sense, through the
After School Enrichment Program. He said the thing that is attractive to him through this
method is that there are regulations that are set up that require the individual to qualify
for the Scholarship program. He said the person will have already made the decision that
they prefer to be working rather than going to the public welfare agency. Mr. Way said
although he is torn regarding the issue, he will support it. He seconded the motion which
failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way.
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
Mr. Agnor reminded the Board members that the item in the Board of Supervisors' budget
called "Contingencies" is divided into three items according to their instructions. He
listed these three contingencies as being: $5,000 for the Jefferson Area Board on Aging
(JABA) Home Safety Repair Program; $60,550 for the Data Processing Department - pending
completion of a study; and the third is $78,056 in excess monies. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the Board needs to take any action on the $5,000 for JABA. Mr. Agnor said it is not necessary
at this time. He noted that this is to provide materials for the Albemarle Housing Improvemen~
Program for projects on rental occupied dwellings.
Mr. Fisher asked what could be done to the tax rate on personal property with part of
that unallocated balance. Mr. Agnor said it could be reduced by 6.45 cents per hundred.
Mr. Fisher said if the rate could be reduced by even five cents that would be going in the
right direction. Mr. Bowie said he would like to see something done with the real estate
tax rate, but there is not enough left this year, so he would support another reduction in
the personal property tax rate.
Mr. Henley asked what was done with the request to fund a retirement plan for school
bus drivers. Mr. Agnor said the amount allocated was left in the School budget with the
understanding that there will be a report to the Board of Supervisors and the School Board
from the Personnel Office on the impact of such a plan. Mr. Henley said he would like to
have the unallocated amount applied to reducing the personal property tax rate.
Mr. Fisher said the Board had a Contingency accoung this past year and it came in right
handy to fund some items. Mr. Bowie noted that there is even more money in that line item
this year. Mr. Lindstrom said this budget was funded with a substantial amount of money
from the Carry-Over (Unallocated) Balance, which was not done last year. Mr. Agnor said the
budget was not balanced with the Carry-Over Balance last year, but certain non-repeat
expenditures were funded from that balance. Mr. Fisher said since so much of the Carry-Over
Balance was used to balance the budget, the other option would be to put money back into the
Carry-Over balance and keep the tax rates the same. Mr. Lindstrom suggested putting a
substantial portion of the Contingency account approximately $50,000, back in the Carry-Over
balance, or reduce the personal property tax rate, however, a nickel on that rate is hard to
get carried away with. The County has some capital projects facing it, and this $50,000
could help with architectual studies that may be requested this year. Mr. Henley said he
would hate to see this used to hire an architect to build another school. Mr. Fisher said
he feels there will be requests forthcoming for a lot of things from the School Board. Mr.
Lindstrom said he would support a reduction in the personal property tax rate if it was a
meaningful amount.
Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board's contingency account be reduced to $28,000 and the
remaining ~50,056 go into reducing the amount of the Carry-Over Balance required for operation
Mr. Lindstrom made a motion to that effect. Mr. Agnor said this will reduce the bottom
line of the whole budget by the $50,056. Mr. Way seconded the motion.
Mr. L%ndstrom said the Board has gotten a lot of comments from parents the last few
weeks about various amounts they feel will make or break the schools. Since Mr. Bowie was
not able t~ attend the public hearing, Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to repeat his remarks.
He feels that he and Mr. Bowie looked at the staffing situation carefully and also saw a
number of Core classes very small in size. The three- extra positions for the school system
would cost approximately $70,000, but he feels there is an attempt to hold the County's
taxpayers hostage over decisions regarding how the reduction in the school budget will be
absorbed. Mr. Lindstrom said although some cuts are sensitive, he still feels there is room
to cut. Eventhough the ones that have been cut are sort of glamorous and have received much
attention from the news media does not mean if there are not unglamorous programs that could
be cut, or if the parents know more about the core classes that are to be cut, they would
220
April 10, 1985 (Regular D~y Meeting)
not be as upset. He said he supports the fine arts program and would like to see it extended.
He said it is his understanding from the School Board that the position (band director/choir~
director) will not be cut if there is enough enrollment to justify the second position. Mr.
Lindstrom said in supporting putting the $50,056 back into the unal!ocated balance which he
feels will go into the Capital Improvements fund and ultimately~g$~as*~hoo~ in the form of
bricks and mortar, will not necessitate any cuts in substantive programs in the Schools.
Mr. Bowie said he has had considerable contact from parents who generally concur in the
Board's funding of the School budget. Some of these parents are now concerned about what is
being taught. Mr. Bowie said he believes when the parents start analyzing what their children
are doing in school, the Board may not have some of these problems in the future. Regarding
the motion on the floor, Mr. Bowie said he would fight to reduce the tax rate if it could be
more than five cents. He said as long as the money is in reserve for public use and will be
returned to the una!located balance if it is not needed, he will support the motion. 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. Lindstrom then moved to adopt the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for the Fiscal
Year Ending June 30, 1986, as presented and amended this date. Mr. Bowie seconded the
motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1986
An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1986; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions
with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all
ordinances wholly in conflict with this ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent
with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1986:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, AND OTHER REFUNDS
the sum of two million five hundred thirty-six thousand four hundred
seventy dollars and no cents ($2,536,470) is appropriated from the General
Fund as follows:
1. Refunds and Abatements
$ 2,536,470
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of four million five hundred ninety-three thousand four
hundred eighty-two dollars and no cents ($4,593,482) is appropriated from
the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Board of Supervisors
2. County Executive
3. Personnel
4. Legal Services
5. Finance
6. Data Processing
7. Elections
8. Engineering
9. Landfills
10. Staff Services
11. Planning
12. Soil and Water Conservation
13. Watershed Management
14. Planning District Commission
15. Visitor's Bureau
$ 299,746
306,370
178,533
168,090
1,167,500
406,212
87,730
274,615
605,966
632,310
364,600
10,620
34,035
20,425
36,730
April 10, 1985 (Re_ ~gular Day Meeting)
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the sum
of three million five hundred sixty-two thousand six hundred two dollars
and no cents ($3,562,602) is appropriated from the General Fund to be
apportioned as follows:
1. Health Department
2. Region Ten Community Services
3. Virginia Public Assistance
4. Public Assistance Payments
5. Food Stamp Program
6. Employment Service Program
7. Fuel Assistance Program
8. Parks and Recreations
9. Regional Library
10. Housing
11. VPI Extension Service
12. Piedmont Virginia Community College
13. District Home
14. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
15. Jefferson Area Board on Aging
16. Jefferson Area United Transportation
17. Offender Aid and Restoration
18. Madison House
19. Monticello Area Community Action Agency
20. Shelter for Help in Emergency
21. Outreach Counseling
22. Legal Aid Society
23. Urban Bus Service
368,886
117,560
946,069
442,510
162,703
11,203
38,235
527,400
534,564
49,975
62,305
5,170
18,000
166,950
6,408
17,770
18,284
3,000
18,400
21,196
10,800
6,499
8,715
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of the Function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
the sum of four million two hundred four thousand nine hundred forty-two
dollars and no cents ($4,204,942) is appropriated from the General Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
1. CircUit Court
2. General District Court
3. Magistrate
4. Juvenile Court
5. Clerk of Circuit Court
6. Commonwealth's Attorney
7. Police Department
8. Victim/Witness Program
9. Sheriff
10. Joint Dispatch Center
11. Fire Department
12. Volunteer Fire Departments
13. Ambulance and Rescue Squads
14. Forest Fire Extinction Service
15. Correction and Detention (Jail)
16. Inspections
17. Animal Control
18. Emergency Services
19. Zoning
20. Juvenile Detention Home
21. Community Attention Home
22. Emergency Medical Communication Equipment
23. SPCA Contract
24. Emergency Medical Services Council
41,340
11,170
4,445
33,250
260,755
216,330
1,741,467
23,535
283,965
115,934
347,260
250,850
42,900
9,060
75,362
444,126
53,701
7,851
193,485
11,906
22,720
230
6,500
6,800
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum of one million
dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriated from the General Fund and
transferred to:
1. Capital Improvements Fund
$ 1,000,000
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of the Annual Payment to the City of
Charlottesville, pursuant to the REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT between the City
and the County dated February 17, 1982, payable in January, 1986, the
amount of one million eight hundred seventy-five thousand one hundred
seventy-nine dollars and no cents ($1,875,179) is appropriated from the
General Fund as follows:
1. Revenue Sharing Agreement $ 1,875,179
April 10~ 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
SUMMARY
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations
For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 17,772,675
$ 14,881,760
2,890,915
--0--
$ 17,772,675
SECTION II
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro-
priated for school purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1986:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the SCHOOL FUND the sum of thirty-one
million two hundred seventy thousand five hundred fifty-nine dollars and no
cents ($31,270,559) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. General Reserve and Compensation $ 21,002,081
2. School Board 532,029
3. Superintendent 102,756
4. Community Services 12,109
5. Personnel 253,849
6. Finance and Administration 2,446,187
7. Maintenance 370,556
8. Transportation 794,119
9. Vehicle Maintenance Facility 378,304
10. Instructional Administration 1,462,140
11. I.T.E. Program 51,905
12. Media Services 91,393
13. Special Services Administration 505,459
14. Special Education 128,595
15. Pupil Services 27,607
16. Speech/Preschool 19,000
17. Ragged Mountain 183,928
18. Flow Through 109,267
19. CBIP Moderate 15,361
20. CBIP SeVere 223,163
21. Enrichment Program 30,622
22. Vocational Education 164,270
23. Adult Education 2,650
24. Computer Instruction 106,573
25. Broadus Wood Elementary School 61,915
26. Brownsville Elementary School 62,778
27. Crozet Elementary School 37,907
28. Greer Elementary School 94,919
29. Hollymead Elementary School 80,841
30. Meriwether Lewis Elementary School 30,303
31. Murray Elementary School 27,913
32. Red Hill Elementary School 50,597
33. Rose Hill Elementary School 40,990
34. Scottsville Elementary School 47,092
35. Stone Robinson Elementary School 65,088
36. Stony Point Elementary School 35,036
37. Woodbrook Elementary School 67,827
38. Yancey Elementary School 33,599
39. Albemarle High School 468,152
40. Albemarle High School Driver Education 8,346
41. Albemarle High School Athletics 147,740
42. Western Albemarle High School 259,493
43. Western Albemarle High School Driver Education 7,160
44. Western Albemarle High School Athletics 127,493
45. Burley Middle School 103,758
46. Henley Middle School 142,802
47. Jack Jouett Middle School 120,685
48. Walton Middle School 134,202
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 31,270,559
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources (Transfer from Gen Fd)
Revenue From the Commonwealth
Revenue From the Federal Government
*Federal Revenue Sharing (Transferred from
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund)
Miscellaneous Revenue From Local Sources
Total SCHOOL FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 17,838,864
12,096,400
325,400
175,611
834,284
$ 31,270,559
*Federal Revenue Sharing monies are earmarked for payment of energy
usages of electricity and fuel in Education.
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
£°3
SECTION III
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1986:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the
sum of one million one hundred ninety-six thousand two hundred sixty-one
dollars and no cents(S1,196,261) is appropriated from the Cafeteria Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
Maintenance and Operation of
School Cafeterias
$ 1,196,261
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA OPERATIONS appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources
Revenue From the Commonwealth
Revenue From the Federal Government
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 1,196,261
817,956
40,000
338,305
$ 1,196,261
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS, the sum
of one hundred eighty thousand dollars and no cents ($180,000) is appropri-
ated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Textbooks
$ 180,000
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTALS appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 180,000
TO be provided as follows:
Revenue for Rental Fees
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
180,000
180,000
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the sum
of seven thousand dollars and no cents ($7,000) is appropriated from the Mclntire
Trust Fund as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools
$ 7,000
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 7,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986 $
7,000
7,000
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of one
million three hundred fifty-four thousand three hundred eight dollars and
no cents ($1,354,308) is appropriated from the Regional Jail Fund as
follows:
1. Operation of Regional Jail
1,354,308
SUMMARY
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
1,354,308
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Revenue from Other Sources
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
219,509
1,114,299
6,000
50,200
$ 1,354,308
224
April !0, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Paragrap-h--~e
For the current expenses of DEBT SERVICE the sum of two million sixty-
three thousand two hundred fifty-eight dollars and no cents ($2,.063,258) is
appropriated from the Debt Service Fund as follows:
1. Debt Service Payments
2,063,258
SUMMARY
Total DEBT SERVICE appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources
Total DEBT SERVICE resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 2,063,258
2,063,258
2,063,258
Paragraph Six
For the current expenses of ELECTRICITY AND FUEL the sum of one hundred
seventy-five thousand six hundred eleven dollars and no cents ($175,611) is
appropriated from the Revenue Sharing Fund and transferred to:
1. School Fund
$ 175,611
SUMMARY
Total REVENUE SHARING appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
175,611
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total REVENUE SHARING resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
175,611
175,611
Paragraph Seven
For the current expenses of GRANT PROJECTS the sum of one hundred
twenty-nine thousand one hundred sixty dollars and no cents ($129,160) is
appropriated from the Grant Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Tips-NDN $ 70,904
2. Tips-CJS 56,756
3. Miscellaneous 1,500
SUMMARY
Total GRANT FUND appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 129,160
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total GRANT FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
70,904
58,256
129,160
(Note:
Appropriation for Grant Projects are made subject to
approval of the Grant Application and sufficient funding
by the Grantor.)
Paragraph Eight
For the current expenses of FEDERAL PROGRAMS the sum of four hundred
fifty-six thousand seven hundred eleven dollars and no cents ($456,711) is
appropriated from the Federal Programs Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Organizational Research $ 12,613
2. Chapter I 359,881
3. Chapter II 59,025
4. Migrant Education 25,192
SUMMARY
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 456,711
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government $
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
456,711
456,711
April 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
225
Paragraph Nine
For the current expenses of COMMUNITY EDUCATION the sum of one hundred
thousand eight hundred thirty-five dollars and no cents ($100,835) is appro-
priated from the community Education Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Community Education $ 100,835
SUMMARY
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 100,835
To be provided as follows:
Revenues from Other Sources $ 100,835
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available
for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986 $ 100,835
Paragraph Ten
For the current expenses of FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT the sum of one
hundred twenty-two thousand four hundred dollars and no cents ($122,400) is
appropriated from the Facilities Refurbishment Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Facilities Refurbishment
$ 122,400
SUMMARY
Total FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT FUND appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 122,400
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Total FACILITIES REFURBISHMENT FUND
resources available for Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 1986
$ 122,400
$ 122,400
Paragraph Eleven
For the current expenses of JOINT DISPATCH CENTER OPERATIONS the sum
of three hundred sixty thousand four hundred ninety-one dollars and no
cents ($360,491) is appropriated from the Joint Dispatch Center Fund and
apportioned as follows:
1. Compensation $ 300,523
2. Operations 59,968
Total JOINT DISPATCH CENTER FUND appropriations
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1986
$ 360,491
To be provided as follows:
From the County of Albemarle
From the City of Charlottesville
From the University of Virginia
Total JOINT DISPATCH CENTER FUND resources
available for the Fiscal Year Ending
June 30, 1986
$ 115,934
181,219
63,338
$ 360,491
Total Appropriations mentioned in
Sections I through III in this Ordinance
for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1986:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
General Fund
School Fund
Other Funds
$ 17,772,675
31,270,559
6,146,035
GRAND TOTAL
$ 55~189,269
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Director of Finance is hereby autho-
rized to transfer to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time
as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess of, the
appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period
covered by this appropriation ordinance.
SECTION IV
Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in
Sections I through III are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions,
and provisions hereinbefore set forth in connection with said terms and those
set forth in this section.
228
April 10 ~? -_
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro-
priations made out of the General Fund, the School Fund, the Cafeteria
Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textbook Rental
Fund, the Debt Service Fund, Grant Projects Fund, Federal Programs Fund,
Community Education Fund, Facilities Refurbishment Fund, Joint Dispatch
Center Fund, and the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund are declared to be
maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being
to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if
necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and
available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are
sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said
appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total
sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount
of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board
of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said
agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board
or by the Board of Public Welfare without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards
make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or
make transfers between specific items of appropriation without the consent
of the Director of Finance being first obtained.
Paragraph Three
Ail balances of appropriations payable out of the General fund of the
County treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of
June, 1986, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be
lapsed into the County treasury and shall be used for the payment of the
appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the
next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1986. However, nothing in this para-
graph shall be construed to be applicable to the School Fund, Capital
Improvements Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust
Fund, Debt Service Fund, Grant Projects Fund, Federal Programs Fund, Com-
munity Education Fund, Facilities Refurbishment Fund, Joint Dispatch Center
Fund or Federal Revenue Sharing Fund, but any balance available in these
funds shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures of these funds
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1986.
Paragraph Four
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or
contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department,
bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided,
however, no requisition for contractual services--such as communications,
travel, freight, express--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be
required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services
involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the
contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual and the purchasing
agent, who shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the
basis of specification furnished by the contracting department, bureau,
agency or individual.
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate
action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to the purchasing procedures pre-
scribed in the Ablemarle County Purchasin9 Manual shall not be considered
obligations of the County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any
warrants in payment of such obligations.
Paragraph Five
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by
any or all County departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of
the Board of Supervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense
on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal
automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the
same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees
and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according
to regulations prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
APril 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
227
Paragraph Seven
All ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the .provisions
of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Eight
This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred
and eighty-five.
Agenda Item No. 18. Notice of Proposed Tax Increase Caused by Reassessment of Real
Property (deferred from April 3, 1985). Mr. Agnor said no action is really needed by the
Board. State Code requires a public hearing and that was held last week.
Agenda Item No. 19. Set Tax Levy for 1985.
_~ Mr. Lindstrom made a motion to adopt a resolution to set the tax levy for 1985 as
follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby lay the County Levy for the taxable year 1985 for General County
purposes at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of
real estate; at Four Dollars and Fifty Cents ($4.50) on every One Hundred
Dollars worth of assessed value of personal property; at Four Dollars and
Fifty Cents ($4.50) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of
machinery and tools; at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on every One Hundred
Dollars worth of assessed value on mobile homes; at Four Dollars and Fifty
Cents ($4.50) on every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public
service on unequatized assessments; and at Seventy-Seven Cents ($0.77) on
every One Hundred Dollars worth of assessed value of public service on
equalized assessments; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle
assess and collect on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property,
including machinery and tools not assessed as real estate, used or employed in
a manufacturing business, not taxable by the State on Capital; including Public
Service Corporation property except the rolling stock of railroads based upon
the assessment fixed by the State Corporation Commission and certified by it
to the Board of Supervisors both as to location and valuation; and including
all boats and watercraft under five tons as set forth in the Code of Virginia;
and vehicles used as mobile homes or offices as set forth in the Virginia Code;
except farm machinery, farm tools, farm livestock, and household goods as set
forth in the Code of Virginia, Section 58.1-3500 through Section 58.1-3508.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Way and carried by the the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Appropriation and Transfers - School Fund.
Mr. Agnor referenced a memorandum to the Board of Supervisors dated March 13, 1985,
from David C. Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent, Finance and Administration, regarding
Education Fund FY 84-85, as follows:
"At its meeting of Monday, March 11, 1985, the School Board received and
approved the following data and requests for appropriation and budget
transfers. They ask that you, in turn, approve these actions.
Revenue
A review of estimated revenue for the balance of this fiscal year indicates
that the School Division should receive an additional $111,836.00
over current appropriations. This is due mostly to recovered costs
which reflect the 15 percent increase in teacher salaries included
in the current budget. The state's original estimate was based upon
the ten percent guideline.
Another factor that contributes to the gain in revenue is increased sales
tax. This is, however, offset by a decrease in basic aid as the formula
is changed to incorporate fiscal year sales tax as an offset.
Appropriation Request
It is requested that the Board recognize this additional revenue and appro-
priate same to the education Contingency Account 1-2000-60000-999999.
At the beginning of the year each department was assessed ten percent of
their discretionary funds to build a beginning balance in the contingency
account of $175,297.00 with the hope of returning those funds if the fiscal
conditions permit.
228
April t0, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Transfer of Funds
In addition to the contingency account, there are accounts which will be
underspent for a total of $319,311.00 in potential reserve.
Current Contingency
Additional Appropriation
Personnel
Albemarle Athletics
Western Athletics
$175,297.00
111,836.00
10,000.00
11,000.00
11,000.00
$319,133.00
The following represent unfunded commitments to be covered by this reserve.
Additional Teaching Positions $189,000.00
Additional Bus Repair Parts 27,768.00
Additional Classroom at Stony Point 753.00
Additional Natural Gas at Burley 3,000.00
$220,521.00
Thus, leaving a $98,612 balance of reserve funds.
Of this reserve it is requested that $52,225.00 be released back to cost
centers. This release would take into account variations of enrollment
from budget and also be in proportion 'to the initial amount taken to
establish the contingency.
A balance of $46,537.00 would remain in reserve to fund any additional
unforeseen requirements."
Mr. Agnor also' referenced a memorandum from Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, dated
~priI~, ~985~whieh ~a~e~an~analysis and review of the above memorandum.
"The attached memorandum from David Papenfuse includes a combination of
transfers and additional appropriations. Additional revenues in the
amount of $111,836 are being projected in the School Fund. These addi-
tional revenues primarily are the result of additional state funding
based on the 15 percent increase in teacher salaries for this fiscal year.
These revised revenues are itemized on page one of the attached memo.
The current School Fund budget includes a contingency amount of $175,297
which was established by reserving 10 percent of each school cost center's
discretionary funds (supplies, repairs, etc.). A request is being made
at this time to transfer $128,910 of this contingency back to the various
school cost centers. This will leave a remaining contingency balance of
$46,387 for additional needs or adjustments for the remainder of the
school year.
Adjustments to current appropriations are itemized on pages 2 and 3 of the
attached memorandum. The net amount of these adjustments is $240,746 of
which $128,910 is being funded from the contingency account and the balance
of $111,836 from the additional revenues.
The major items included in these adjustments were outlined in a separate
memorandum to the Board from David Papenfuse and include $189,000 for
additional teaching positions and related fringe costs which he discussed
with the Board earlier this year, $27,768 for bus repair parts which is
currently overexpended, and $3,000 for natural gas expenses at Burley
which was not included in the original budget. The remainder of the
adjustments are primarily the reallocation to the various school cost
centers, a portion of the contingency which had been reserved from their
funds.
I would recommend approval of this request although I am sure it will
still be necessary for additional adjustments prior to year end."
Mr. Agnor said the general government staff is reluctant to get into any kind of dispute
as to whether or not additional revenues should be used. Mr. Fisher asked if there is
evidence that the School Board has looked at decrease as well as increase in revenues and
expenditures that might be under-projected. Mr. Agnor said yes. He then referred to a
memorandum from David Papenfuse to Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, dated March 13, 1985,
as follows:
"RE: My Memo to Board of Supervisors Dated March 13, 1985
The following represents detailed transfers:
Reserve
2-2000-15000-150201
-16000-161201
-161206
-161214
-18000-189900
-19000-190101
-190102
-190103
-2~000-240201
-2~0202
Property Rental
Tuition - Private
Tuition - Adult Ed.
Vehicle Maintenance Facility Fees
Miscellaneous Refunds
VSRS
Group Life
FICA
State Sales Tax
Basic Aid
$ + 10,000
- 20,000
- 1,500
- 40,000
+ 10,500
+ 77,097
+ 2,045
+ 49,569
+ 71,742
- 42,393
10~ 1985=(Regular Day Meeting)
229
Reserve (Continued)
2-2000-24000-240203
-240205
-24'0208
-240217
-240219
Incentive Aid
Foster Home
Gifted and Talented
Vocational Ed
Pupil Transportation
- 10,914
+ 13,072
+ 27
- 26,409
+..19,000
$ +111,836
Expenses
1-2000-60000-100126
-100127
-100135
-100140
-100141
-100142
-100300
-200100
-200200
-2oo5oo
-200600
1-2000-60100-100101
-100140
-200100
-200500
1-2000-60120-100123
-10014'0
-200200
1-2000-60753-200200
1-2000-60763-200200
Principal $ - 1,500
Assistant Principal - 5,000
Teacher +135,000
Secretary + 24,000
Para-Professional - 1,500
Custodian - 5,000
Part-time + 6,000
FICA + 10,000
VSRS + 15,000
Health Insurance + 10,000
Life Insurance + 2,000
Board Member + 300
Board Clerk + 1,800
FICA + 200
Health Insurance + 700
Supervisor - 5,000
Secretary - 3,000
VSRS - 2,000
VSRS - 11,000
VSRS - 11,000
Sub-Total Compensation $ +160',~'00
1-2000-60133-540700
-60633-700100
-60751-700100
-60771-510200
-60773-541200
Repair Parts $ + 27,768
Equipment + 753
Equipment + 2,418
Heating Service + 3,000
Instructional Materials + 270
Sub-Total Account Adjustments $ + 34,209
1-2000-60000-999999
-6O1OO
-60111
-60120
-60130
-60131
-60133
-60140
-60145
-60150
-60151
-60153
-60154
-60155
-60160
-60170
-60180
-60190
-60621
-60623
-60625
-60626
-60627
-60628
-60629
-60631
-60632
-60633
-60634
-60635
-60751
-60752
-60753
-6O761
-60762
-60763
-60771
-60772
-6O773
Contingency - General $ -128,910
Superintendent + 282
Community Services + 161
Personnel + 659
Finance + 448
Maintenance + 2,984
Vehicle Maintenance Facility + 9,804
Instruction - Administration + 2,040
Fine Arts + 386
Special Ed - Administration + 211
Special Ed + 2,021
Pupil Services + 433
Speech + 132
Ragged Mountain + 80
Enrichment + 245
Vocational Ed + 702
Media Center + 1,661
Computer Instruction + 279
Broadus Wood + 1,871
Crozet + 2,203
Greer + 1,166
Hollymead + 834
Meriwether Lewis + 1,207
Murray + 1,788
Red Hill + 1,456
Scottsville + 1,664
Stone-Robinson + 1,662
Stony Point + 1,830
Woodbrook + 1,290
Yancey + 544
Albemarle + 78'5
Albemarle - Driver Ed + 49
Albemarle - Athletics + 446
Western Albemarle + 1,774
Western Albemarle - Driver Ed + 65
Western Albemarle - Athletics + 417
Burley + 786
Henley + 1,384
Jouett + 786
Sub-Total Reserve Release $ -'"'~2,373"
Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, said he talked to David Papenfuse earlier
today regarding this subject. He said Mr. PapenfuSe indicated the delinquent Burley gas
bill would be paid with these adjustments and the FY 84-85 budget would end up in the "black"
by approximately $46,000. This is the first adjustment he has requested that allocates
supplies and materials to the cost centers; there are based on enrollment. Mr. Agnor noted
that in Mr. Papenfuse's memorandum to Mr. Breeden, a request of $3,000 is listed for natural
gas expenses at Burley School. That amount will bring that bill up to date, including the
back payment. Mr. Lindstrom said the $30,000 recently requested for this expense was actually
$27,000 more than needed. Mr. Agnor said that is right. Mr. Lindstrom said that is why he
suggested the Board wait before making transfers. Mr. Bowie said he wants to be sure he
230.
April 10, 198~ 5 (Regular Day Meeti
completely understands what he read in the memorandum as compared to the discussion taking
place. He said the $111,836 noted as "additional appropriation" is actually adjustments,
plus or minus, to revenues due the schools. Mr. Jones said that is correct. Mr. Bowie said
the Board has asked before that no changes be made until "the dust has settled", and e¥idently
everything is now going to work out all right. Mr. Agnor said only if the schools get the
additional $111,836 in revenues allocated to them from the State. Mr. Lindstrom said there
is no question that they will get the money from the State. Mr. Agnor said that is right.
The Board has the alternative of reducing the General Fund allocation to the Schools by the
same amount thus they would have the same total amount of revenue that they started the
fiscal year with. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the $111,836 was a "surprise". Mr. Agnor said not
really. The school staff knew soon after the school year began that their calculations on
the refunds on retirement and social security were based on a ten percent salary increase
and Albemarle County had given a 15 percent increase. These calculations had not been
revised.' The rest of that amount was probably a surprise, iHowever, the sales tax revenues
funded to the schools is partially offset by a reduction in the basic aid formula. The more
State sales tax funds received by the schools, the less basic aid received.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the appropriation and transfers as outlined
in the memorandum from David Papenfuse to the Board of Supervisors, dated March 13, 1985.
Mr, Bowie seconded the motion because he feels that he has implied all year long, either
directly or indirectly, that he would, however, he does not want this to be construed as
"the sky is the limit".
Mr. Lindstrom said as he understands it, the additional teaching positions are funded
all from local funds because they are in excess of the State rati0~i Mr. Agnor 'said that is
correct. Mr. Lindstrom commented that it is interesting that these' tWelve teaching positions
cost $189,000 (referring to the memorandum cited in the motion), while seventeen positions
were mentioned as costing approximately $400,000 during budget work sessions.
Dr. Carole Hastings, Director of Personnel was present. She said if the 'schools had
not been able to hire these twelve additional teaching positions at lower salaries, they
would Rave come back in September for funds. After the salary accounts balanced out, the
school system had nearly $89,000 remaining. Mr. Bowie noted that in that case, $189,000 was
not the total cost of the twelve positions. Dr. Hastings said that was correct. Mr. Lindstrom
asked the cost of the average teaching position salary. Dr. Hastings said $19,170. Mr.
Lindstrom asked how much the benefits package cost for a teaching position. Dr. Hastings
said with benefits, the total position costs nearly $22,000. She said the projected cost
for 1985-86 is $25,000. Some~of the twelve positions are teachers' aides because the schools
could not house all of the additional teachers. Mr. Lindstrom clarified that the $22,000 is
for an average teaching position, so there is approximately a $3,000 difference in what was
projected for 1984-85 and what is projected for 1985-86. Dr. Hastings said that is correct.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if that is due to the increase in the bottom step, or the overall salary
scale. Dr. Hastings said the difference is due to the overall salary scale as well as the
difference in staff makeup - the number of teachers earning maximum versus minimum wages.
Mr. Fisher asked how many teachers are presently at the top step of the salary scale.
Dr. Hastings said that of approximately 634 teaching positions, 1tl teachers are on step
eleven for FY 1985-86. Mr. Fisher said he presumes the number of teachers going into the
top step will increase. Dr. Hastings said that is correct because the number of steps has
not increased in recent years. Mr. Fisher said the County has ~ ~all number of large steps
in comparison with salary scales of other counties. Dr. Hasting~he emphasis' is going to
more compressed steps because too many small steps end up going o~f the end of the "page",
Mr. Fisher said he understands that, but teachers are now complaining that they are. at the
top of the scale and are not getting much of a raise. Mr. Bowie said there are also complaints
from teachers who have been working five years and who are earning the same as those who
have only worked one year. Dr. Hastings said she does not think the answer will be a simple
one. She said a committee needs to be established soon after the new Superintendent of
Schools takes over, to study the whole salary issue, The entry level salary needs to be
looked at, but to afford a large Jump in the entry level, something more creative must be
done with the whole teachers' salary schedule. Mr. Fisher said he agrees that the bottom
step of the salary scale seems to be more out of line than the top of the scale. Dr. Hastings
said she believes something needs to be decided prior to the School Board beginning its
budget work sessions next October.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Policy: Delinquent County Auto Decals.
Mr. Agnor said this policy is proposed as a joint effort by the County Police and
Finance departments to encourage County residents to purchase their automobile decal license,
which will also improve personal property tax collections. He then referred to the following
memorandum from Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive, to the Board of Supervisors, dated
April 4, 1985:
"Proposed Policy for Collection of Delinquent County Auto Decals Taxes
Renewal of County automobile decals is April 15. However, as in years
past, it is expected that not all County residents will meet this deadline.
To encourage County residents to pay the decal license tax and, in many~
instances, their 1984 personal property tax which is required prior to the
purchase of the decal, the Albemarle County Finance and Police Departments
propose the following policy:
.... 22!
In order to accommodate County residents, the Department of Finance will
operate extended hours during the week prior to the April 15 deadline.
During the week of April 7-13, the Finance Department will operate on
the following schedule.
April 8, 10, 12 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
April 9, 11 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
April 13 9:00 a~m. to 1:00 p.m.
No extension of the deadline for purchase of County decals will be
provided.
Beginning April 16, the County Police Department will begin operating
road checks. Ail drivers operating vehicles with delinquent County
decals will be ticketed.
In addition to ticketing violators, the Police Department will also
patrol the County, particularly apartment/condominium complexes and
high schools, issuing warning notices to parked vehicles with delin-
quent County decals. The warning notice (see sample attached) will
notify the owner of the violation citing the relevant County .Code
Section, price of decals, location for purchasing decals, and penalty
for violation.
It is hoped that this policy will result in a decline in delinquent decal
violations and an increase in revenues to the County from the sale of County
automobile decals and collection of additional personal property taxes."
Mr. Agnor said if a decal is not purchased within approximately ten days after a warning
notice has been issued, a summons will be issued to the owner of the vehicle. He noted that
according to State law, a summons cannot be placed on a parked vehicle - it must be given to
the driver. Mr. Fisher asked if a record of the license plate number and date will be kept
so there can be a follow-up procedure. Mr. Ray Jones said the police officer will take the
license number and leave the warning notice on the vehicle. The license number will be
checked through the computer at the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMIf), which will send a
print-out. The print-out will be copied in the Police Department, sent to the Finance
Department where the numbers will be checked off as the decals are purchased. Mr. Jones
said this warning informs the citizen of the basis for the tax and gives them the opportunity
to purchase the decal on their own before they are ticketed. However, if they are caught in
a road check, they wilt be ticketed.
Mr. Bowie asked how many County vehicles do not have decals. Mr. Jones said DMV forwards
a print-out of those statistics, but that list has an error factor of approximately five
percent. According to the print-out, there are about 48,000 vehicles in the County.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he wanted this policy to .be approved by the Board. Mr.
Agnor said yes. Mr. Lindstrom made a motion to approve the policy as set out above. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 22. Disposal of Fire Engine Number 10.
Mr. Agnor referred to a memorandum from Ray B. Jones to the Board dated March 27, 1985,
regarding disposal of Fire Engine Number 10, as follows:
"The County of Albemarle owns a 1966 Ford 750 GPM Pumper, which is referred
to as Engine Number 10. This unit is a surplus unit that was originally
purchased by the County and assigned to the City Fire Department for County
fire service. Several years ago (1976), the unit was replaced by the County
with a new unit (Engine Number 11) for the City. Since that time, Engine
Number 10 has been used as a back-up to the County volunteer companies.
The Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association has requested me to see if
Engine Number 10 could be transferred to the Dyke Volunteer Fire Company
as a donation in exchange for aid in providing fire protection in the
northwest corner of Albemarle County. The Dyke Volunteer Company has
built a fire station in Greene County several miles over the Albemarle
County line on State Route 810. This corner of Albemarle County is quite
remote from the Earlysville Volunteer and the Crozet Volunteer fire stations.
According to the Jefferson Country Firefighters, Engine Number 10 has not
-been used much for over a year and when it was used the unit had dead
batteries, flat tires, etc. It costs too much to keep it in operating
condition and in the opinion of the Jefferson Country Firefighters it will
be of more value to Albemarle County citizens to be donated to the Dyke
Company in exchange for their protection to that remote area of the County.
Attached is a letter from James R. Morris, President of the Dyke Volunteer
Fire Company and an agreement drafted by the County Attorney's office to
finalize the above.
The staff recommends the Board approve the agreement and authorize the
County Executive to transfer the title to the Dyke Volunteer Fire Company."
Mr. Agnor also referred to the following letter from James R. Morris, President, Dyke
Volunteer Fire Company, to the County of Albemarle, Jefferson Country Firefighters' Associati¢
222
April 10~ 1985~ular Da_y_Meetin~)
"Dear Sirs:
This is in regard to the disposal of Engine 10.
The Dyke Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. hereby requests that Engine 10 be donated
to our fire company in return for aid in fighting fires in the northwest
corner of Albemarle County as mutual aid to the Earlysville Fire Dept.
The specific mutual aid agreement would be negotiated between our fire
company and the Jefferson Country Firefighters' Association."
Mr. Agnor said staff requests that the following agreement be approved, that the Chairman
be authorized to sign same, and that the County Executive be authorized to transfer the
title of Engine Number 10 to the Dyke Volunteer Fire Company. Mrs. Cooke made a motion to
that effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of April, 1985, by and between the BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the DYKE
VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY, INC. (the "Fire Company");
WI TNES SETH
That's'for and in consideration of the Fire Company providing fire protection
services to the northwest corner of Alemarte County to supplement fire
protection services in that area provided by the Earlysville Volunteer Fire
Company and the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company, the County hereby conveys and
transfers to the Fire .Company Engine No. t0. If at some time in the future,
the Fire. Company is no longer providing fire protection services to the north-
west corner of Albemarle County, the Fire Company agrees to convey and transfer
Engine No. 10 back to ~the County..
The County Executive is authorized to take such action as is necessary to
transfer title to Engine No. 10 to the Fire Company.
Agenda Item No. 23. Report: Coalition of Rural Governments.
Mr. Agnor referred to a letter received by certain Board members (Clerk did .not receive
a copy) from James B. Anderson, a citizen who suggests that Albemarle County join the Coalition
of Rural Governments that was formed in Virginia in recent months. Mr. Agnor said he has
investigated the aims of that coalition to determine the advisability of Albemarle County
membership. The following memorandum from Mr.. Agnor to the Board, dated April 4, 1985,
states his recommendations regarding same:
"In response to a letter from Mr. James B. Anderson to members of the
Board, the staff was requested to investigate the advisability of Albemarle
County membership.
The Coalition was formed from leadership initiated by Patrick County in
Southwest Virginia. The primary issue, and the only issue, at the time
of its formation was the highway funding formula being considered by the
General Assembly in their recent session. On that issue, the Virginia
Association of Counties (VACO) took a neutral position because of the
urban and rural differences, and the Rural Coalition lobbyed against the
formula changes.
The Coalition assures VACO that they are planning to work within the VACO
organization, and not become separated or fragmented. The Coalition,
however, has adopted a constitution and by-laws, formed a board, and are
collecting dues from prospective members. At the outset, it appears that
the formality of the organization begins to compete with the structure of
VACO, and does not support the assurances being made. In fact, a divisive-
ness can occur from its existence.
The VACO Board and officers are predominantly from rural counties. The
representation of rural interests is already there. Whatever the perception
is for the need of a rural coalition, it appears to me the need would be
better served by an informal group, meeting and conferring with the VACO
Board and its Executive Director. It is my recommendation that Albemarle
County not join the coalition."
Mr. Agnor said he believes specific interests of rural counties can be represented by an
informal group meeting with the VACO Board and its Executive Director, rather than a formal
organization.
Mr. Lindstrom said the only reason he can see for becoming a member of the coalition is
to keep track of what is going on. He asked what the dues are. Mr. Agnor said $500 per year.
Mr. Lindstrom said it might be better to be part of the organization to help shape some of
its programs and goals.
Mr. Fisher said if the County was considering joining another organization, he would be
interested in the Municipal League because it is a good source of information. It has a
larger staff than VACO, and it has insurance and retirement programs. Mr. Fisher said he is
not advocating joining the Municipal League, but if the County was going to join another
organization, he would like it to have some benefits.
~ . ~ ril 10. 198_ (.Re, .ular Da~
Mr. Bowie said he concurs with Mr. Agnor's recommendation not to join the Coalition. He
said he believes the Board can keep track of its issues through VAC0. Mr. Bowie noted that
is one of the two Board members who received Mr. Anderson's letter. He said the letter
expressed concern regarding representation of rural votes - not only rural counties, but also
within the counties.
Agenda Item No. 24. Receive and Order Filed Certain Correspondence, Reports, etc.
matter was addressed earlier in the meeting along with the Consent Agenda.
This
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not on the Agenda from the Board and Public.
Mr. Agnor said he has contacted Louisa County and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
officials concerning the Gordonsville land disposal issue. He said information is being
assimilated, however there is not enough to make a report. Mr. Agnor said it appears that
Albemarle County is being avoided as an entity to review the project. A letter has been
drafted to the Rivanna Authority stating that the County cannot be avoided bec.ause the land
is in the County, whether or not it will be used. He said a notice was received today that
the plant in Gordonsville is part of the project and wants to meet with County staff.. When
the date of the me'eting is set, Mr. Agnor said perhaps some Board members would like to hear
the presentation.
Mr. Agnor referred to correspondence he received from the University of Virginia, written
on "Housing Renovation Foundation" letterhead. This foundation has been renovating fraternity
houses. The second year cycle of renovations will occur this summer. Six fraternity houses
will be renovated - five in the City limits, one in the County. The University has been
financing these projects with tax-exempt financing through Chartottesville's Redevelopment
and Housing Authority. Mr. Agnor said the letter he received inquired about means to provide
tax-exempt procedures to the Foundation for financing of the one house in the County. In his
response to the University, Mr. Agnor suggested aski~ng for County concurrence that the house
be included in a package plan with the other five to be financed by the Charlottesville
Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Mr. Agnor pointed out that under the priority system
for allocating funds for tax-exempt financing, fraternity houses would receive a low priority,
if no priority at all. Mr. Ray Hunt of the University said they are attempting to get a
special allocation from the State reserve, therefore neither the City nor County's allocation
will be effected by these projects.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Hunt informed him that three more houses are scheduled to be renovated
in the County next .summer. The University might have to request the County to consider a
Rehabilitation and Conservation zone on campus in order to make the houses eligible for some
kind of tax exemption in terms of financing. Mr. Fisher asked if that would require a special
zoning text. Mr. Agnor said the State attorneys have advised that it is not a zoning matter.
Tefra requires that a boundary line be designated to cover an area that is considered for
rehabilitation and conservation.
Mr. Fisher said he hopes a means for financing can be found. The fraternity house
renovated last summer is an improvement to the whole community, but he does not know how long
it will stay that way. Mr. Agnor said a specified maintenance program is built into the
financing of the houses by which the University assumes that responsibility. He went on to
say the house to be renovated in the County is located between Carrs Hill and the Culbreth
Theatre.
Mrs. Cooke said she received a letter from the chairman of a building committee in a
subdivision in the Charlottesville District. She said two problems have arisen that she
would like direction from the Board in solving.
One resident has several old trucks and cars parked on the premises (on blocks, etc.).
The neighbors are not able to resolve the problem. They asked Mrs. Cooke what part the
County plays in this type of situation. Mr. Agnor said the Zoning Ordinance provides restric-
tions on parking abandoned automobiles. He said to his recollection, more than two constitute
a junk yard. Mrs. Cooke asked who enforces the ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the Zoning
Administrator does.
Mrs. Cooke said the other problem involves a skateboard ramp that has been built in a
residential area. The owner says it is there for the pleasure of his family and he has no
responsibility to take it down for the neighborhood. The residents view it as an attractive
nuisance. There have been two injuries so far. Mrs. Cooke asked if the County can give any
help in addressing this issue. Mr. Agnor said a skateboard ramp probably falls in the same
category as a swimming pool or basketball court where youngsters play and congregate. The
County has no control over these situations. Mr. Agnor said he will check thoroughly to see
if there is any County regulation, however to his knowledge there is not.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to convince whoever is in charge of the renovations to
the Old County Office Building that the new passageway between the Courthouse and the old
County Clerk's Office have windows installed on the High Street side rather than a solid
wall. Mr. Agnor said the architect can be asked to request a change order and determine the
price. It might have to go through the Historic Landmarks Commission for review to change
the design as originally approved, but the decision is up to the County. Mr. Lindstrom
suggested that an estimated cost for the change be requested. Mr. Agnor said this has been
mentioned to the architect before, and he had indicated it would be "extravagantly" expensive
to change at this time.
Apr,il 10, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Henley made a motion that Mr. Norman Gillum be reappointed as a member of the
Albemarle County Service Authority Board of D'irectors, with his new term to expire on April 16,
1988. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Fisher noted that he received two packages of information from Cardinal Industries.
He asked if they have, any business coming before the Board. Miss Neher, Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors, said they had a request which has now been deferred indefinitely.
Agenda Item No. 26. Executive Session:
Executive Session was not needed.
Personnel.
Mr. Fisher noted th'e scheduled
Agenda Item No. 27. Appointments. Miss Neher said she had been to schedule only one
person for an interview this afternoon. Since the Board Would have to wait a half hour for
only one interview, Mr. Fisher requested that it be cancelled. After some discussion, it was
decided that vacant positions on boards and commissions would be readvertised and the subject
was deferred to the meeting of May 8, 1985.
Agenda Item No. 28.
Mr. Fisher.
Adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:13 p.m. by the Chairman,