1984-04-04April 4, 1984, (Regular Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on April 4, 1984,
a~ 7:30 P.M., in the Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:39 P.M.), and Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John,
County Attorney; Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development;
and Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher, at 7:43 P.M.
Callto Order.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr.
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public Hearing: 1984-85 County Budget (Advertised in the Daily
Progress March 27, 1984 along with proposed 1984 tax levy).
Mr. Fisher said that proposals for the County b~dget, made by all the agencies, department
and the school system, were received in the fall of 1983. These were brought together in a
series of thick documents which were then scrutinized by the County staff and recommended for
acceptance, partial acceptance, or for no funding at all. Along with this was a projection of
revenues for the I.~!~'~85year. Mr. Fisher then noted that the law requires the county to have
a balanced budget. Mr. Fisher then went on to explain that the Board of Supervisors then
holds a series of work sessions on the proposals it bas received, makes some adjustments to
those proposals, then orders a public hearing on theiBoard of Supervisors recommended budget
for 1984-85. Mr. Fisher said this does not mean that every member of the Board of Supervisors
agrees With everything contained in the budget document, but rather it is the collective
opinion of the Board to go to public hearing with these spending patterns. Mr. Fisher then
expressed appreciation to all department heads, employees of the School Board, the School
administration, General Government employees, the Agency employees and their Boards of Director
all who have participated in the budget process. He also thanked Mr. Agnor, Mr. Jones,
Mr. Tucker and others on the County staff who have aided the Board of Supervisors through the
budget process. Mr. Fisher then turned the meeting over to the County Executive, Mr. Guy Agnor
to present in summary form the results of the many months of work. Mr. Fisher said that when
Mr. Agnor completes his presentation, comments from the public concerning the proposed expendi-
tures will be heard.
Mr. Agnor explained that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to hear public comments.
said that the process which began last fall will be completed next week when the Board of
Supervisors considers approval of the 1984-85 budget~ Mr, Agnor said that of necessity any
budget summary involves many numbers in both percentages and dollars; the numbers presented
tonight have been prepared in the budget process that began in the fall of 1983 from the
perspective of those who pay the cost of operations of the County Government and from the
perspective of those who are the receipents of the budget. Mr. Agnor pointed out that these
two perspectives are not usually the same. Each year as the budget process begins, a number
of goals and objectives are established by the operating departments. Mr. Agnor then listed
the four major operating departments.
He
First, said Mr. Agnor, was the improvement of teacher salary scales; second, the funding
of the full-time Police Department beginning in July; third, improvements in the funding of
the Capital Improvements Program; and, fourth, consideration of adjustments to property tax
rates. Mr. Agnor said that while there were other goals of a departmental nature, but he
would not take the time to address same. Mr. Agnor said that an analysis of the expected'
resources or revenues, indicated that an adjustment of property taxes was possible; this has
been included by the Board of Supervisors in this proposed budget. A proposed rate of $~.50
per $100 value on personal property and machinery and tools has been included; this is a
$.50 reduction from the present $5.00 rate. The rate for real property is proposed to
remain the same, i.e., $.77 per $100 of value.
Mr. Agnor then summarized the proposed budget by referring to the several chart~ and
listings of numbers contained in the handout which was made available to the public. He
referred to General Fund Revenues noting that in a five-year summary format, state and
federal revenues to the County have not dramatically changed during that period of time.
Other local revenues, which includes sales tax, utility taxes and business and professional
license fees, and building permit fees for construction, climbed steadily in four of the
five years, and property taxes which include both real and personal property have continually
climbed at rates in excess of eight to ten percent per year. Mr. Agnor said that property
taxes continue to be the main source of funds for the County Government, not only in total
dollars, but also in the rate of the increases being experienced. These increases were
accomplished by an expanding base, plus an increase in value, of existing properties. This
increase was partially offset by reductions in tax rates in FY 1979-80 on both real and
personal property, and again in FY 84-85 by the proposed reduction in the personal property
rate. Mr. Agnor said that during this same five-year period, real property rates were
increased in FY 1982-83 to finance the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City of Charlottes-
ville.
Mr. Agnor then referred to a page showing School Fund Revenues noting that revenues
entitled, "Other" have been relatively minor and somewhat of a flat resource in terms of
growth. State revenues show a moderate increase during four of the five years with a flat-
tening trend in the last two years and local revenues show the sharpest rise both in dollars
and rate of change. Mr. Agnor then specified that in the five-year period of time, $11,750,000
was provided to the school system of which $7,250,000 came from local funds; $4 million came
from the state and approximately one-half million dollars came from the source marked "other".
Mr. Agnor said that local funds continue to be the main source of funds for the school system
not only in dollars, but in rate of change as well. Mr. Agnor said that the charts to which
he is referrring do not include what is known as the Federal Programs part of the school
system which are considered selfsustaining funds meaning that the revenues derived from the
Federal Government are spent for a specific program.
'077
Mr. Agnor then referred to the page showing Appropriations. He said that the expenditure
for the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City has only been in existence since FY 82-83
and has remained relatively flat. The formula that was agreed upon for sharing of revenues
will not allow a dramatic change in that cost. Debt Service, noted Mr. Agnor, has remained
almost entirely flat over the five-year period; this was planned in the Capital Improvements
Program of the County with a number of large capital projects that have been funded during
this five-year period, i.e., the new County Office Building, Scottsville and Red Hill Elemen-
tary Schools, and several phases of improvement at Albemarle High School. The projects
planned in the financial planning of the Capital Improvements Program were planned to keep
the County's total indebtedness'and the annual payment for debt service to a fairly constant
level so the Capital Improvements Program would not significantly increase the burden on the
property owners to finance this program. Mr. Agnor then referred to Public Safety and General
Management which have followed somewhat of the same trend; Human Development indicates a slight
rise, a steady increase over the five-year period. Mr. Agnor said that Public Safety, General
Management, and Human Development are reflective of a growing population and an expanding
county staff necessary to serve this growing population. This also reflects the continuing
rise in cost of operations, usually referred to as "inflationary cost." Mr. Agnor said that
Education also shows a steady increase over the five-year period which is not reflective of
a growing enrollment, but rather of the cost of operations of the school system. In FY 1984-85
the first significant effort to reduce staff and address the declining enrollment that has
occured over the past several years, will still not flatten that line on the graph and in
fact the line indicates a sharper rise for the coming year. Mr. Agnor said this is attri-
butable to the proposed ten percent rise in the teacher's scale and pointed out that the
slope of the line would be greater if staff reductions had not been planned and incorporated
into the budget for this fiscal year.
Mr. Agnor then referred to a page entitled "Appropriations and Expenditures" which is
very similar to the previous chart. The exception is that Public Safety, Human Development,
and General Management have been combined into a line entitled "General County Government."
Mr. Agnor noted that the Revenue Sharing Agreement and Debt Service are relatively flat while
General Government and Education have risen at a significant rate. Mr. Agnor commented that
the slope on the line for the Educational system is the basis upon which the School Board has
been addressing budget management matters and the reorganization of its staff as well as the
operating problems the School Board has been dealing with for several years.
Mr. Agnor then referred to a page on Revenues. Mr. Agnor indicated that the category
"Total Local Sources" will be increasing next year by $3.19 million or 11.6 percent due almost
entirely to a strong recovery of the economy in this area. Building construction, vehicle
sales, business licenses, and sales tax income all have increased dramatically since the last
fiscal year. ~Economic projections indicate that the recovery is beginning to peak and probably
will remain relatively constant into 1985. ?rojections beyond this period said Mr. Agnor, are
hazardous in that there are numerous unknown factors to be considered, only one of which is
the outcome of the National elections in the fall. There is also the long-range effect on
interest rates caused by the country's federal debt. Mr. Agnor continued that State revenues
show an overall decline of approximately one-quarter of a million dollars, while Federal
revenues are expected to increase slightly more than this amount. Mr. Agnor said state
revenues decrease due to the transferring of law enforcement responsibilities from the
Sheriff's Department to a Police Department. Miscellaneous revenues show a rather dramatic
percentage increase although same provides very few dollars.
Mr. Agnor then referred to the page entitled Appropriations. He noted that General
Government expenditures are increasing by 11.8 percent primarily in Public Safety and General
Management. Public Safety reflects the funding of the Police Department and a full year's
funding of the 911 Emergency Dispatch Center, plus the creation of a separate Zoning Department
The General Management category reflects the reorganization of the County Executive's office
and the creation for the first time of budget category for unanticipated expenditures which
will be carried in the Board of Supervisors budget. There are several staff expansions also
in the General Management category; in the Purchasing, Planning and Engineering operations;
also improvements will be made in landfill operations to make same more efficient. Mr. Agnor
pointed out that in the Human Development category for 1984-85, there is an amount of $3-3
million being proposed. Mr. Agnor noted that a $5 million figure needs to be added to this
to show programs administered by the local Department of Social Services although expenditures
are paid directly from Richmond through a state disbursement process of programs that are
beneficial to the citizens of Albemarle County, but do not show in the County's budget. Mr.
Agnor wanted to emphasize that while $3.3 million is the amount incorporated into the County
budget, the actual amount of money directed for Human Development is $8.3 million. The
Education category is basically holding a line in terms of programs; it does reflect a decline
in enrollment of thirty students, a decrease of thirty equivalent teaching positions, a
decrease of four administrative positions, a ten percent increase in the teaching salary
scale, a reorganization of the administrative staff, and a salary classification plan for
non-instructional employees. The Capital Improvement Program is proposed to be funded at $t
million for next year which restores the financing of that Capital plan to the level of
funding that has been provided in three of the last five years. Mr. Agnor continued that
Debt Service is for school facilities; that Jail debt that the County had for a number of
years was completed this past year. The category marked "Refunds" primarily reflects the
cost of the land use tax deferral program. The total proposed appropriations for 1984-85
are $45.08 million or an increase of $3.96 million over the current year, an increase of 9.6
percent.
In closing, Mr. Agnor said that Albemarle County is in sound financial condition and
with this proposed 1984-85 budget, this condition should continue to exist. Mr. Agnor then
expressed appreciation to the staff, the Boards and citizens who have been involved in
developing this proposed budget and in helping to maintain the financial stability of Albemarle
County's government.
Mr. Fisher explained, for those individuals who might not understand the purpose and
function of the Capital Improvements Program, that money is set aside for building the schools,
parks, libraries or other kinds of things that are planned. While Mr. Fisher said he could not
indicate exactly what projects are included in the budget for next year, he wanted to inform
the public that these funds are partly for direct expenditures to be used in conjunction with
low interest loans for school constructions.
April 4, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
At 8:05 P.M., the public hearing was opened beginning first with the proposed expenditure
for the Capital Improvements Program. ~ ~
Mrs. Flora Patterson, PreSident of the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters,
read a prepared statement, excepted below: ·
"We are happy to hear that a 9.26 percent overall increase can.be
recommended by the County Executive and the County will still have
$711,745 in excess projected revenues over recommended expenditures
without a tax rate increase, in spite of the loss of State funds.
However, we do not agree with the proposal to use all (or even most) of
this $711,745 to decrease personal property taxes. We would support a
small tax decrease, but in our view, most of this amount should be used
to improve County services in a variety of ways. Specifically we recommend
increased funding in the following areas:
Housing for Low and Moderate Income Residents.
We believe that the County is still not doing its share within the
region in handling housing problems, although progress has been made
recently. We certainly supPort the increase requested for one-half of a
secretarial poSition, since we read on page 268 of the County Executive's
budget that the ~ounty could see additional units leased and thus more
payment back to the County with the position'. And we support the request
on page 270 for a word processor, given the confidentiality requirements
for housing records. But, are these measures enough? We ask that some
of the $711,745 excess of. projected revenues over recommended expenditures
be used to make some major strides in meeting the County's need for low
and moderate income housing.
Child Care and Youth Services.
We support full funding for the Central Virginia Child DeYelopment
Association's Information and Directory Service County residents in all
income brackets utilize the directory service. The screening and training
of child care providers is an equally valuable service to the working
parents of the County.~ We also support the provision of Child Care
Scholarships or recommended in the staff report. The League supports
funding for the Youth Service because it is the only Program providing
comprehensive services to youth at risk of juvenile delinquency and
teenage pregnancy--broblems which are very costly for the community to
handle after they have occurred. We believe that the Center can and
should take some credity for the improvements in the rates of juvenile
arrests and teenage~pregnancy.
Education.
We are pleased with the process used to develop the school budget and
with the efforts to improve communication between the Board of Supervisors
and the School Board, We applaud the School Board's effort to set.
priorities and to reflect these in the budget. The 15.5 percent raise
for most teachers.will help to bring their salaries in line with those
of comparably trained professionals. We also applaud the development of
long-range plans for maintenance and capital improvements. However, we
regret that the tightness of the budget which will not permit the planned
expansion of important pilot programs such as the computer awareness and
enrichment Programs. In addition, there is'concern that a financial
crisis is developing in the area of school transportation. (A plant ~o
replace worn-out school buses must be developed and financially supported.
Funds should not be diverted from salaries and educational pr0grams to
meet this high-cost recurring expense."
Mrs. Patterson then stated that the League of Women Voters also supports the following
r~¢~m~nded.~mounts:
$135,000 to bring the Ivy Landfill operation into compliance with
Watershed Management practice standards.
2)
3)
4)
5)
The $4,185 increase for the Watershed Management Program.
The full amount requested for JAUNT.
The $19,425 for the Victim-Witness Program.
The $27,480 for the Source Program Manager and Library within the
$91,420 for lease/rent software under data processing.
The recommended amounts for MACAA, Legal Aid, SHE, AHIP, JABA,
Region Ten Community S&rvices, the T. J. Planning District Commission,
OAR, and the Health Department.
"We agree with the five percent salary increase and the merit increases
for outstanding performance recommended by the County Executive. However,
we also agree with the JS~pervisors who say that it a very large percentage
of employees--any percentage over 50 percent-,get merit increases, the
system needs redefinition or recalibration. We support the proposed
increase for Mr. Agnor. ·
Azril 4. 1_84 -Re~.ular Night Meetin~
Budget Process and Priorities.
We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors hold a public
hearing prior to the work sessions, and that the work sessions schedule
be publicized earlier. Agencies should be given adequate notice of
their respective hearings. This brings us to the format of the budget
and the availability of the budget to the public. We recommend that the
Supervisors arrange for the development of a zero-based budget which contains inform
contains information on program measures and multiple activity-level
options. Such a format is used by other jurisdictions, and we can
attest that it is much clearer and more useful to the public. Also we
request that a little bit of the excess revenue be allocated to produce
from three to ten bound copies of the County Executive's proposed budget.
At minimum, copies should be available in the public libraries. It is
inappropriate to save the small amount of money needed to make a few
copies of the budget available for interested groups and individuals.
Finally, we ask that the social program objectives, currently used as
criteria for funding, be reevaluated. We are happy to read in the staff
committee's report that the staff will reexamine objectives and criteria
next year; we request that the Supervisors themselves carry on this
examination with public input.
Summary
We ask you to reconsider the proposal to decrease taxes by such a large
amount, and ask you to use some of the money to fund the important
programs and services which we have mentioned. And we ask that the
budget process be broadened to involve greater public participation."
Mr. Fisher thanked Mrs. Patterson for her comments then asked for any public statements
concerning the Capital Improvements Program. With no one present to address the Capital
Improvements Program, Mr. Fisher asked for comments regarding the Education budget.
Ms. Nancy Meeks, President of the Albemarle Education Association, said that the
School Board had spent many hours developing what she believes is an equitable budget for
the Albemarle County Schools. She noted that the AEA is aware of the need to reduce teaching
staff by the recommended thirty positions. Ms. Meeks said the AEA also supports the original
eight percent increase proposed for administrators, particularly principals. To cut this
increase to six percent is unreasonable and unrealistic when one considers the job these
individuals do. Ms. Meeks said the AEA wishes to commend the efforts of Mr. David Papenfuse,
Dr. Carlos Gutierrez and the administration for their efforts in formulating the budget.
Mr. James Duffey, President of the Greenwood P.T.0. referred to a meeting in March of
the Greenwood P.T.0. the purpose of which was to develop parental support for the closure
of Greenwood School, and to plan ways to transfer the children to other schools in the
least disruptive manner. Mr. Duffey said there remains significant confusion as to why
Greenwood School is being closed. Dr. Gutierrez was requested to supply the parents with
some justification as to why Greenwood School would no longer be opened, a task he failed
to do. Mr. Duffey commented that it is his opinion the reason this explanation never
arrived is because Dr. Gutierrez found it difficult to explain. Mr. Duffey feels there
really is no rational justification for the closing of this school and went on to describe
the results of his research into school size and the closing of smHll schools. He commented
that in his research he discovered an article which stated that in the general elections
which follow school closures, the school Superintendent's generally fail to be re-elected.
He found this to be a tantalizing statement; in Albemarle County neither the Superintendent
nor the School Board members are elected, but Albemarle County does in fact elect the members
of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Duffey feels the closing of Greenwood School is a clear
case of a bureaucracy feeding its own needs rather than those of its constituency. He
continued that he feels the Board of Supervisors should provide leadership and comment on
the direction and development of education especially at the primary level. Mr. Duffey
said he believes that the first three years of a child's education are the most critical,
adding that the nurturing and warmth of a community school provides the support so important
to a child during those years. He urged the Board of Supervisors to urge the School Board
to embrace the concept of neighborhood schools. Mr. Duffey said that the parents of Greenwood
School have once again joined as a community to make a final statement before the Board of
Supervisors. He then referred to the proposal made by Col. William Washington to the Board
of Supervisors last month, urging the Board to continue its discussion with the School Board
on this proposal.
Mr. Duffey made reference to a petition containing the names of voters in the district
who disagree with the decision to close Greenwood School. He then read the statement which
prefaced the signatures as follows:
"We, the undersigned residents and friends of the Greenwood Community
hereby respectfully ask the Board of Supervisors, as our elected
representatives, to invoke a moratorium on school closures until a
comprehensive plan for elementary education can be designed and found
consistent with the overall plan for County development. Zn particular,
we believe that the closure of Greenwood School is inconsistent with
population projections, unjustified in educational philosophy and
unnecessary in its harm to the integrity of our community."
Col. William Washington, President of the Greenwood Citizens Council, said the closing
of Greenwood School is an issue of deep concern to the citizens of this community. He
referred to the petition presented by Mr. Duffey commenting that most of the addresses are
of people living in the Greenwood, Crozet and Afton areas. Col. Washington said there is a
genuine and abiding feeling among the people in the Greenwood School area that this school
provides good education for its children. It is generally assumed that its proposed closure
will hasten the day for construction of new school capacity in the western part of the county,
April 4, 1984 (R~gular Night Meeting)
an assumption borne out by the fact that the two remaining schools in the western secvion of
the County cannot handle local needs and children are to be bused out of the area to attend
the Red Hill School. Col. Washington suggested that with a sewer system for Crozet being a
funded reality, Crozet will soon reach the size envisioned in the County's Comprehensive
Plan. He continued that Albemarle County, like other localities has seen a decrease in
student enrollment over the past ten years, a situation that evidence indicates is now
changing; kindergarten enrollments are up, live birth rates are up and soon areas will not
be faced with a decline in student enrollment. In fact, said Co~l. Washington, the opposite
seems to be true, most especially in the western portion of the County. The projected tripling
of the Crozet population will undoubtedly double the local elementary school needs. Due to
the lead time needed for planning and fitting into a Capital Improvements Program the
ultimave expansion of Brownsville Elementary School, Col. Washington suggested that now is
the time to begin the process. Col. Washington said the County should be looking toward
increased capacity rather than taking short-term action to reduce capacity. Col. Washington
said the citizens of Greenwood are requesting the Board of Supervisors to restore operating
funds to the proposed 1984-85 budget in order to keep the Greenwood School open. He indicated
that from the County's perspective, Greenwood School has probably been the most cost-effective
school in Albemarle County. No capital investments have been made at this school through
the years to keep the building abreast of changing design criteria, nor has the County ever
had to amortize the initial cost of this school. Col. Washington said it is this prolonged
neglect of the building which has prompted some people to consider its abandonment. The
citizens of Greenwood have tolerated this neglect because of their feelings regarding the
advantages of small neighborhood schools outweighing the disadYantages of having toilets in
the basement. He pointed out that the advocates of multi-sections per grade, an issue in
the redistricting plan, have not achieved that purpose by redistricting. In fact, the
proposed move of children in the western part of the county creates, in some cases, the need
for combined classes; a disadvantage to both the teacher and the student. Col. Washington
continued that the School Board has demonstrated reluctance to modify any part of the redis-
tricting plan because of the domino theory that each community would in turn request recon-
sideration. He recognizes the delicate position of the Board of Supervisors in overriding
School Board actions, but he hopes that in view of the recent cooperative relationship
established between the School Board and the Board of Supervisors, this is the time for the
Supervisors to exercise their influence through persuasion of the School Board to reinstate
the operating funds for the Greenwood School at least until a clearly defined comprehensive
plan can be developed for the future of the County's schools. Col. Washington said school
policies and plans which are broad enough and flexible enough to meet the needs and aspirations
of both the rural and the urban areas are needed even if the per pupil costs are slightly
higher in the small community schools. In closing, Col. Washington said that from the
simple point of view of good planning for the future, this is not the time to abandon existing
school facilities in the absence of a viable comprehensive plan for the future. Without
restoration of funds for the operation of Greenwood School, the opportunity for its inclusion
in a comprehensive plan is lost.
Mrs. Nancy Courtney read a letter from Rev. John Manzano from the Greenwood area:
"I thank you for providing an opportunity for public input on the
proposed School budget for this upcoming year. In the proposed budget
there is, at present, nothing set aside for the operation of Greenwood
Elementary School.
Because you are our elected representatives, we as Greenwood'residents
are left with no choice but to present to you a vital issue affecting
the future of our community. The issue I refer to is the exercising
of arbitrary authority by the School Board in recommending the closing
of Greenwood School.
No other word but "arbitrary" can describe the treatment that the Greenwood
issue has received from the majority of the School Board. What we have
asked for as concerned parents and citizens is the reason--the compelling
reason--that would force the closing of a productive and well loved
school. To date, we have not received that reason. In fact, in a recent
parent-teacher meeting attended by Dr. Gutierrez, a parent was promised
by the current Superintendent that she would receive a letter stating the
precise reason for the closing of Greenwood School. Unless it is in
the mail, that letter is over one month overdue.
Reasonable people can accept reasons for their lives being disrupted.
If a school is emptying or fails to produce quality education or if it
lacks community support, then it ought to be closed. That seems most
reasonable. When a school is performing as well as Greenwood has for
decades then we consider its closing, without sufficient reasons, a crime.
Why is it that parents get so upset about uprooting their children and
sending them to another school district? Are they just sentimentalists,
uninformed about the benefits that their children will receive~ elsewhere?
Are they so ignorant as to think their children will not receive optimal
care in another school? No, I believe the issue goes deeper. I believe
that concerned parents, who are willing to attend a meeting of this nature,
have a better sense of the needs of their children than anyone else.
believe that if parents move into a school district, or remain there in
support of the school, it is because they have confidence in what their
children are receiving in that school environment. There are a multitude
of factors that make up an educational experience for a child. If the
overwhelming majority of the parents involved in the school support its
programs and are satisfied with its results, then I believe that their
opinions are worth hearing.
~ril 4~lar Night Meeting~
The question once again arises. Do I have sufficient reason to disrupt
the lives of other people? What certain committee members have proposed,
in effect, means that you turn a deaf ear to the individual concerns of
the districts that you represent.
Greenwood would be adversely affected by closing of its center of activity.
Our neighborhood school symbolizes our hopes for the future of our small
community. Please don't close this school without a strong and compelling
reason, a reason that reasonable people can respect and submit to.
What we request is that a moratorium be placed on school closings
until a comprehensive plan for elementary schools can be established by
the School Board.
Thank you for your attentive hearing."
Mrs. Courtney referred to a letter she had sent to each of the Board members stating
her reasons for wanting Greenwood School to remain opened. She described herself as a parent
of a Greenwood School student and a substitue teacher who has become more aware this year of
what Greenwood School has to offer its children. She stated that she is shocked that the
School Board can act so arbitrarily without giving the concerned parents any reason for its
decision. Mrs. Courtney said she has attended School Board meetings, written letters, and
still cannot determine any reason why the School Board has elected to close the Greenwood
Elementary School.
Dr. Carlos Gutierrez, Superintendent of Schools, said that he wished to thank the Board
for the confidence it has shown in its School Board and the school administrators regarding
the proposed budget presented to the Board of Supervisors. He requested that the proposals
be permitted to remain intact and expressed regret that there has been some unfortunate
rhetoric surrounding comments made with regard to the worth and value of administrators,
both central office and building level principals. Dr. Gutierrez said he hoped that the
Board members would, in their personal contacts with their constituents, investigate this
question. He continued that the pupil achievement scores in Albemarle County have risen
over the past few years and will continue to do so. He stated that this is directly attri-
butable to work done at the building level, most especially by the building principals. Dr.
Gutierrez said the school system is about three years into a plan which places direct respon-
sibility at the building level with the principal for the management of instruction and
accountability for student achievment. He continued that these are the people who are
absolutely essential for the continued success of the work being done with the children of
Albemarle County. Dr. Gutierrez said he is impressed with the clear manner in which the
County budget has been described by Mr. Agnor and only wishes another graph could be super-
imposed on those already noted, which would show the return that is derived from the expenditur
investment being made in public education.
Dr. Gutierrez commented that this is not the correct forum to debate any differences
the school administration might have with the Board of Supervisors, with regard to the
issues at hand. However, Dr. Gutierrez felt that since his name had been mentioned several
times prior to his addressing the Board, he wanted to clarify that he did in fact attend a
meeting at the Greenwwod School. At that time, he agreed to restate the reasons for closing
the school. The reasons, continued Dr. Gutierrez, had been stated many times over the past
year and a half when the redistricting issue was before the public. He said he rejects the
statement that reasons had never been given for the closing of Greenwood School. Dr. Gutierrez
said that while he agreed to send a letter providing a restatement of the reasons for closing
the school, he did not say when he would do this. He placed this on his list of other tasks
and the letter was mailed today. Dr. Gutierrez said he saw no particular hurry to address
this~chore.
There being no further comments concerning the Education budget, Mr. Fisher called for
comments regarding Debt Service. There were no public comments on the Debt Service category,
so Mr. Fisher called for comments on General Management and Support. There were no comments
offered.
Mr. Fisher called for comments from the public regarding the Human Service categories.
Mrs. Ruth Wadlington commented on four different requests in the budget related to
youth services. She said the Rent-A-Teen program puts teenagers in touch with those in the
business community who need help in mostly short-term jobs, pointing out that some of these
jobs have turned into full-time employment. She then mentioned the Outreach Counseling
Program which works with youths who have come to the attention of school authorities, social
service workers, or the juvenile court. Outreach Counseling attempts to address the needs
of low-income and poorly-motivated youths who are unlikely to cooperate with traditional
therapy or programs. She continued that this service has received much praise from those
persons who make referrals, but the program has not been able to come up with a stable
source of funding from year to year, so relies on a variety of funding mechanisms which
change often. Mrs. Wadlingtbn said that Outreach Counseling will not go out of business if
not funded by the County, but ~a great deal of time will be spend raising funds. Therefore,
Outreach Counseling will require a large grant from the County in order to remain at an
efficient size. She then referred to the Community Attention Home category and stated that
she is pleased this item is included in the County's budget. Community Attention deals with
youths who must be placed away from home and who receive intensive supervision and counseling.
Mrs. Wadlington referred to the Youth Services Center which she stated is performing in the
manner the State intended when same agreed to pay 75 percent of its funding. She then quoted
the final sentence of the report made by a certification team, as follows:
"Both the Director and the Program seem to be outstanding in every
measureable way. If the County is not satisfied with the accomplish-
ments of the program, it seems to me it makes much more sense to try
to change the State requirements rather than refusing to participate
at all. That is false economy that will no doubt come back to haunt
US."
April 4, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mrs. Wadlington feels that services to youth deserve a mention in the criteria for
funding social service agencies by the County. While she wholeheartedly supports energy
conservation and housing rehabilitation, she cannot help but believe that healthy youths to
be an overriding concern. She asked that the Board please reconsider their decision not to
fund Outreach Counseling Service and the Youth Services Center.
Mr. John Carter referred to a discussion several weeks ago concerning the Urban Bus
Service. Mr. Carter said bus service in Albemarle County is inevitable so he felt that
providing a plan to supply better bus service at a less expensive cost than was proposed by
the Planning staff and the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) was a wise approach. He
then handed to the Board members, a map and described his proposal for bus service from the
University Hall to the Hydraulic/Georgetown/Rio Road areas. Mr. Carter estimated the cost
of his proposal as being approximately $3,000 to $4,000 which would be offset by the revenues
derived from passengers. Mr. Carter requested that the Board of Supervisors consider his
proposal and allow staff to review same. Mr. Carter said he would be glad to help the staff
with this review.
Mrs. Kay Grady, President of the Central Virginia Child Development Association (CVCDA),
expressed her concern at the Board's lack of support for all youth services. In particular,
for the CVCDA's Child Care Information Directory. Mrs. Grady said that as a working parent
and an employer of working parents over the past years, she states that having an affordable
and reliable child care situation is essential to finding and maintaining employment. In
Charlottesville and Albemarle County, the Child Care Information Directory is the only resource
available to all parents seeking child care; although not classified as poor, the majority
of working parents must work. Seventy percent of these people are single or have spouses
who earn less then $8,000 per year. Mrs. Grady said that according to statistics, Child Care
Centers have room for only one out of seven children awaiting day care; the ratio is lower
for infants. She added that child care can consume half of the average secretary's take-home
pay. This forces many people to seek informal child care arrangements. The Directory provides
the basis of comparison for these parents and a network of support for their care givers.
Without this, it is the children who lose. Mrs. Grady said that last year the CVDCA's proposal
to the Board of Supervisors was met with questions concerning the number of Albemarle families
served. The figures, as presented, show that nearly one-half of those using the Directory
were County residents; for the coming year it is predicted that 200 County parents will use
the Directory, and twenty County providers will be solicited and trained by the staff of
CVDCA. Mrs. Grady added that this cannot happen without the needed funds. She commented
that the program needs the support of the Board if it is to grow into a network of reliable,
affordable, home-based care facilities for children of all ages.
Mr. Paul Kingston, a member of the Central Virginia Child Development Association, stated
that as a parent, he uses an individual listed in Child Care Information Directory. He said
he has found this service extremely useful. Mr. Kingston said that the majority of children
are now raised in families were both parents work or there is a single parent who works. He
continued that many studies have shown that the most common form of child-care outside of
the home is a very informal system of home child-care. He pointed out that this type of
system only works effectively if people have necessary information, which is precisely what
this service provides. Mr. Kingston said informal child-care appeals to many people as
opposed to center care because it is low cost and it is believed to have the potential for
extra warmth and the kinds of subtleties which may not be provided in a large center. This
potential can be found only if parents have some information available to them. Mr. Kingston
said that a very small local contribution will service a very large number of people.
Mrs. Marie Cole, a Greenwood resident, and Board member of the Shelter for Help in
Emergency, asked that the Board seriously consider funding the Shelter. Mrs. Cole commented
that this is a very beneficial program which provides help not only to abused woman and
children but to the abuser as well. She believes the Shelter is very necessary for the
stability of the community and society in general.
Mrs. Monica Davidson, a business owner and wife, urged the Board to consider the long-term
economic future of the County reducing the property tax rate in lieu of improving educational
and social service programs. Mrs. Davidson said that quality child care in particular
attracts professional and skilled employees to the area. She supports the funding request
of the Central Virginia Child Development Association Directory Service. Mrs. Davidson
feels this service is a cost-efficient, quality program serving county residents of all
income brackets. She stated that she used the directory service herself to locate child
care for her youngest son before opening her business. Mrs. Davidson commented that this
service is particularly helpful to single parents because it allows them to retain work and
also become consumers. She added that the child care program trains its providers and enables
them to be gainfully employed. Mrs. Davidson said that the City of Charlottesville funds the
CVCDA and she asked that the County assume its proportionate share of this program.
Mr. Tom DeMaio, psychologist, spoke in support of funding for the Outreach Counseling
Service. He stated that this service operates to treat youngsters in the home thus avoiding
the cost of expensive treatment away from home. Mr. DeMaio said the cost of residential care
is approximat~ely $25,000 to $30,000 per year, per child. Outreach Counseling operates at
one-tenth of that cost, approximately $2,500 per family, per year and the program serves the
entire family. In the past, Outreach has refused to ask the local government for its entire
support if the State did not participate in a funding cycle. Mr. DeMaio said Outreach
Counseling has followed through with its promise to the Board not to ask for money unless it
first found money elsewhere. Mr. DeMaio said that after seven years of operation, Outreach
Counseling has received national recognition for its services as an innovative program to
use in families. In closing, Mr. DeMaio asked the Board's support and reconsideration of
the request.
Mr. Clayton Lewis, an Albemarle County School employee, said that those who work with
handicapped children in the schools, often use the services of Outreach Counseling, the Youth
Services Center, and the Community Attention Homes. He stated that these services not only
provide excellent assistance to the public schools with difficult children, but also save the
~chools money. Without these services the schools would be forced to go elsewhere and pay a
I~uch higher rate for the same services. He asked that the Board seriously consider providing
iome funding for both the Youth Services Center and the Outreach Counseling Service.
April 4 1 8~~lar Night Meetin_~
Ms. Alice Runkle, of Great Eastern Management Company on Hydraulic Road, said she is
petitioning for approval of the urban bus route as proposed by Charlottesville Transit. She
stated that most of Great Eastern's rental property would be on the bus route proposed for
Georgetown/Hydraulic/Rio Roads. She understands the County cannot subsidize a bus route for
the benefit of Great Eastern Management Company, so she made a survey of possible customers
along the route and found unqualified support for the route. She then referred to the signed
requests for this bus route, which she gave to the Board for its review (copies on file).
These requests come from residents of four apartment complexes, managements of four others,
and a signed petition from Eldercare Gardens. The majority of these people would use the
bus for getting back and forth to work; many would use the bus to reach the shopping areas
along the route. Ms. Runkle said the supporters of this bus route will be waiting in antici-
pation of the Board's approval.
Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director of Jefferson Area Board on Aging, wished to applaud
the County for what has been provided in the way of companion home-care services for the
elderly, primarily through the Title XX program. He informed the Board that there continues
to be an increase in the demand for these services. This increase is due to the fact that
people are living longer, and due to outreach services, more people in need of in-home
services have been located. Mr. Walker said that while the County has done an excellent job
in this area, the resources are inadequate to meet these needs. There are presently eighteen
individuals on a waiting list who require in-home services, without which institutionalization
is inevitable. Mr. Walker feels that keeping an individual at home, is a much more humane
type of care. Mr. Walker said as a tax payer, he feels this is a good way for the County to
help provide for these people. Mr. Walker said that he had recommended to Mr. Fisher in a
letter that a reserve fund of $35,000 be established which might then be drawn over the course
of the next year by either the Department of Social Services or any agency involved in
providing home-care services for this segment of the population. He further suggested that
a task force be set up in the County Department of Community Development to review this need
which Mr. Walker feels will only increase as time goes on. Mr. Walker then referred to the
Newtown Community Center saying that the JABA Board of Directors has endorsed the idea of
the County providing $7,500 to the Newtown Community Center to enable it to finish the program
(water, roof, septic system) which has been done to date. When these improvements are
completed, JABA will set up a senior nutrition program for the whole area at this site.
Mr. Donald L. Nobles, from the Newtown Community Center, said he felt Mr. Walker had
outlined the problem well. The people involved at the Center have been able to raise about
$3,800, but have now found that the waterline will have to be put under the road, so the
cost will be more than anticipated. He said that quite a few people in the neighborhood
have volunteered to work at the nutrition site once this facility is completed.
Ms. Waltine Eubanks, President of the Southside Health Center, who on behalf of the
Board of Directors, wished to thank the Board for its initial approval of $40,000 to be
included in the budget. She urged the Board to please continue the funding at this amount,
inviting members of the Board to visit the Center at any time.
Ms. Susan Dowell, a county resident and facilitator for the self-help group at the
Shelter For Help in Emergeny; thanked the Board for its support and requested the.Board's
continued support of the Shelter's efforts. Ms. Dowell said she began as a volunteer with
the Shelter in September of 1983 and has been amazed at the magnitude of the problem of
family violence in this area, a problem which extends to every social level in the County.
She commended the staff of the Shelter for the tremendous amount of time and effort they
expend in servicing the needs of citizens in the community. She asked for the Board's
continued support in funding this important service. Ms. Dowell commented that many of the
women going out for the first time on their own are faced with the problems of child care,
employment and low-income housing. She voiced her support for those areas.
Mrs. Rosa Hudson stated her support of the'So'~hside Health Center, pointing out that
for the last two years the Center has been str~ggling, on a volunteer basis, a fact which
she feels speaks well of a poor area which is trying to help itself. She asked that the
Board consider the original request of the Southside Health Center.
Mrs. Peggy King, President of the Charlottesville-PiedmOnt Chapter of the Alzheimer's
Disease and Related Disorders Association, noted the Association's appreciation to the
County for the attention beinggiven to the needs of the elderly pointing out that the
majority of Alzheimer's victims are elderly citizens. The families of these victims have a
particular need for home-care and adult day-care assistance. Mrs. King said Alzheimer's
disease is terminal; the causes are unknown; and little or no medical treatment is available.
Care of these victims places~great stress on family members in that individuals with this
disease require gradually increasing help with everyday tasks and activities and personal
care and supervision. Mrs. King said many nursing homes refuse to accept Alzheimer's victims
while others limit the number they will accept, adding that most victims are cared for by
their families. Home-care companion assistance such as that provided by the De~partment of
Social Services, can help an Alzheimer's victim remain at home at least through the early
stages of the disease. Mrs. King said she hopes the Board will continue its support of
these services, of which there is a serious shortage. She noted that the Jefferson Area
Board on Aging also provides some home-care services and home-delivered meals. By providing
these home-care services, often institutionalization is not necessary, thus saving thousands
of dollars in private and public monies. Mrs. King said the Association she represents
recommends special consideration of support for home-care services, adequate fUnding for the'
services provided by the Health Department and Region 10 Community Services, and support for
the services proposed and provided by JABA.
Mr. James Duffey again addressed the Board lending his personal support to the projects
mentioned for the Newtown Community Center. He feels this is a wonderful opportunity for
the Board to reward those who have struggled to help themselves in very meaningful ways for
their community. ~roviding water and sewer to that building will service people who are
now under-serviced.
April 4, 1984 [Regular. Night Me'eting)
Mrs. Marie Cole, a member of the Newtown Community Center, stated her support of the
project.being undertaken by the members of this Center. She hopes the Board will help with
funding.
Mr. Ken Ackerman, Executive Director of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency,
expressed appreciation for the Board's support of his agency. He commented on one of the
agency's funding problems regards the summer youth employment Program. Last summer MACAA
was able to place over 300 teenagers living in this planning district on various job sites.
Funding for this program this year is being cut by $120,000 which means approximately 100
fewer teenagers can be placed in work this summer. Mr. Ackerman said he is not bold enough
to suggest that the Board appropriate a portion of this lost money because he feels there is
a better solution. Last year, local businesses who hired teenagers were given a benefit
through a tax credit. Mr. Ackerman said if the Board wished to subsidize this program, he
would not object although he suggested the Board consider providing leadership to the business
community in obtaining participation in the Summer Jobs '84 campaign. Mr. Ackerman commented
that with the 1980 census data, it is now known that Albemarle County has approximately 7,000
persons at the level of income which makes them eligible for MACAA's services. Mr. Ackerman
thanked the Board for its support of MACAA, adding that he looks forward to working with the
Board in some areas such as housing, although no community development block grants have
been received from the State for the past two years.
Mrs. Marjorie Siegel, a volunteer at the Shelter for Help in Emergency, said that prior
to the Shelter's physical existence, her family provided a safe-house for women and children
passing through the system. Mrs. Siegel mentioned that one.of the services performed by the
Shelter is to perform shows at various schools to demonstrate directly to children that
there are alternate means of settling conflict other than through violence. She feels the
Board should consider this when considering funding this worthwhile agency.
With no further comments on the Human Services category, Mr. FiSher called for comments
regarding Public Safety and Justice.
Mrs. SuSan Hunt, First Lieutenant for Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad, spoke on the
matter of the Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services Council, noting that the Board had
decided not to fund the TJEMS Council for the full amount requested of $1!,000. It is her
understanding that the Board will finance this Council for the cost of renting the building
it leases from the County. She stated that the Scottsville Volunteer Rescue Squad wishes to
go on record 'in support of the Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services Council, without
which the rescue squad would not be what it is today. She mentioned the training provided
by the EMS Council and stated that much of the EMS equipment is in dire need of replacement
or updating. Mrs. Hunt stated her belief that the outlying communities need this particular
field of health care and without the EMS Council, the rescue squad ~ould not be able to
provide~the service much longer.
Mr. Larry Lawwill, captain of the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, stated his support of
the Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Services Council. He commented that the Western
Albemarle Rescue Squad Board of Directors met recently and supported full funding of the EMS
Council's request. He noted that members of the Board of Directors are comprised not only
of rescue squad members but also members of the western Albemarle community. Mr. Lawwill
wishes to go on record stating his Rescue Squad's support of TJEMS and hopes they will be
able to get the full funding they need.
With no further comments on the category of Public Safety and Justice, Mr. Fisher asked
for comments on Refunds and Revenue Sharing. After calling for comments on any of the previous
categories, and hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 9:25 P.M.
Mr. Fisher stated that State law requires it seven full days to pass before the Board
can take action on the budget. This will be discussed at the April 11, 1984 meeting. Mr.
Fisher then asked for comments from Board members.
Mr. Bowie said he had taken many notes and would consider all the comments made by members
of the public.
Mrs. Cooke wished to thank everyone for being at the hearing and for the comments they
had made. She felt that many of the comments provided food for thought and she intends to
do a great deal of thinking about all that has been said.
Mr. Fisher noted that there have been changes in the. Education budget since same was
first received by the Board. He commented that these changes involve administrators'
salaries, saying that when the Board received the budget, an eight percent level was indicated
for all administrators and non-instructional personnel. He understands this is no longer
true and he wondered where the excess funds will be used. Dr. Gutierrez said that the School
Board set the salaries' of administrative and other classified peoply at six percent rather than
the proposed~eight percent. This will leave excess dollars but as yet, the School Board has,
not resolved this issue. Mr. Fisher asked if the excess dollars are still shown in salary
categories. Mr.. Bowie asked if this information will be available by the April 11 meeting
~nd ~ondere~!wha~ the change in compensation costs will be as a result of yet unspecified
action to be taken by the School Board relative to these additional dollars. Dr. Gutierrez
said this information will be available by Monday, April 9.
A ril 4 1 84 Re ular Ni ht Meeting) .
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher commented that the State Department of Housing and Community·
Development, Office of Uniform Building Codes, together with local building, eIectrical,
plumbing, fire protection and prevention inspectors, will jointly implement a 1984 Virginia
Building Safety Week. The general theme of this observation will be "Building Safety Is No
Accident" and will be held during the week of April 8 through April 14. The broad objectives
of this cooperative effort will be to provide Albemarle County residents with a positive
awareness of important health and life safety services that are made available to them by
their professionally trained code enforcement officials. Mr. Fisher said the County wishes
to recognize the contributions made by local code enforcement officials and to support their
efforts. Mr. Fisher said he had been asked to sign a proclamation declaring next week the
1984 Virginia Building Safety Week in recognition of local code officials. He added that
people wishing to visit the County's Inspections Office next week will be invited to do so.
Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
by either the Board or the public.
There were no other matter brought
Agenda Item No. 6.
adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
CHAIRMAN