1984-04-11April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
O87
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on
April 11, 1984, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Frederick R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E.
Fisher, Joseph T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development.
Agenda Item No. I.
Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Call to order.
The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M., by the
Agenda Item No. 2.
Agenda Item No. 3.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Not Docketed. Mr. Lindstrom called the Board's attention to the death of Mr. Edward H.
Bain, a former Board member, on April 10, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that flowers be sent
to the family on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr.
Bowie, to approve the consent agenda and to accept the items of information. Roll was called
and the' motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom (left at 9:12 A.M.)
Item No. 4.1. Statement of Expenses to the Compensation Board for'the DireCtor of Financ
Sheriff, and Regional Jail for the month of March, 1984.
:~.' Item No. 4.2. Street Sign - Bennington Terrace Subdivision. Request was received from
Harold Davis for a street sign to identify Biltmore Drive in Bennington Terrace Subdivision.
Mr. Davis has agreed to purchase the sign. The following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify
the following road:
Georgetown Road (State Route 656) at its intersection with
Biltmore Drive (State Route 1489) at the northeast corner;
and,
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be, and the same is hereby requested to install
and maintain the above mentioned street sign.
Item No. 4.3. Change Orders -- Phase II (#13 and #14) and Parking Lot (#1 #2 #3) -
County Office Building and Courthouse (#1). ' '
Item No. 4.4. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of February,
1984, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Bowie expressed some concern regarding the format of this report and said he is more,
interested in learning what the costs mean and who provides the costs. Mr. Bowie said he would
be willing to spend some time with the appropriate parties to examine the background of this
r~eport. Mr. Fisher commented that this suggestion would be acceptable to the Board.
Item No. 4.5. Copy of letter dated March 22, 1984, addressed to Frank L. Hereford,
PreSident of the University of Virginia, from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission
regarding the addition of the Faulkner House to the Virginia Historic Landmarks Register and
its nomination to the National Register of Historic Places.
Item No. 4.6. Annual Report for 1983 of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, dated
March 20, 1984, concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of planning within
Albemarle County. In addition to the Commission's 1983 activities the report contains objec-
tives and goals for 1984. '
Item No. 4.7. Columbia Gas of Virginia - 1983 Annual Report.
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Item No. 4.8. Copy of letter from Harold C. King, Commissioner, dated March 28, 1984,
addressed to Samuel P. Higginbotham, II, regarding requested improvements and hardsurfaCing of
Route 777 from the Orange County Line to its dead-end.
Item No. 4.9. Report of the County Executive for the month of March, 1984 was presented
in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: January 18 (Night) and February 1, 1984.
Mrs. Cooke had not read the minutes of January 18, 1984 (Night). These will be forwarded.
Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of February 1, 1984 and noted the word "a" on page 561 should be
substituted for the word "and". Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke,
to approve the minutes of February 1, 1984, with the correction as noted. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned at 9:16 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 6(a).
Highway Matters:
Statement for 1984 Preallocation Hearing.
Mr. Agnor noted that the Annual preallocation hearing for primary roads will take place in
Culpeper on April 13, 1984 at 9:00 A.M. Mr. Tucker commented that statements will be taken by
the Commission from localities in alphabetical order which means that Albemarle County will
make its presentation first. Mr. Tucker then summarized a statement prepared by County staff
to be presented at this hearing. Mr. Tucker said the statement was prepared keeping in mind
that improvements in the U.S. 29 North Corridor are the County's highest priority. Mr. Tucker
'~'~said the statement focuses on the section of Route 29 beginning at the corporate limits of
Charlottesville and extending northward to the South Fork Rivanna River, the section most in
need of improvement at this time. The statement describes accomplishments to date in attemptin~
to implement the recommendations of the 29 North Corridor Study. Mr. Tucker continued that the
clo~ing comments request the Highway Department to help Albemarle County continue this imp!e., _
mentation process by placing the recommendations of the 29 North Corridor Study as a high
priority for funding. Should this not be possible at the present time, the statement also asks
that the widening of 29 North to six lanes between the City of Charlottesville and the South
Fork Rivanna river be given the highest priority. Mr. Tucker said that while no reference was
made to the Hilton case, the statement does point out that the County has done as much as is
legally possible since that decision was handed down, and asks the Highway Department to help
continue the implementation of the 29 North Corridor Study. Both Mr. Fisher and Mrs. Cooke
expressed their appreciation to Mr. Tucker and 'staff for the work expended in preparation of
this statement.
Mr. Agnor said he had received a call from Mr. Jerry Brown, President of the Chamber of
Commerce, who told him that Mr. William Crutchfield will attend this hearing on behalf of the
Chamber and make a five-minute slide presentation on the problems and needs of the 29 North
Corridor.
Mr. Lindstrom cbmmented that the six-laning of Route 29 North is only one aspect of the
needed improvements and he wondered if mentioning this one aspect will create the impression
that six-laning 29 North will eliminate all of the County's problems. On the other hand,
Lindstrom said he recognizes the risk of providing too much detail as the Highway Department
might take the position that with so many improvements needed, it would prefer not to deal with
the problem. M-r. Tucker said his proposal is to implement the recommendations of the U.S. 29
North Corridor Study which encompasses such items as the closing of crossovers, grade-separated
interchanges, and many other improvements. In lieu of this, the request is for funding of the
six-laning of-Route 29 North as this short section of road is the highest priority in the 29
North Corridor study. Mr. Lindstrom suggested adding a sentence noting that the six-laning of
29 North is only part of the study's recommendation. This would negate the possibility of the
Highway Department taking the position that the six-laning of 29 North is all that is necessary
This sentence could detail everything included in the Study. Mr. Bowie said he agreed.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Chairman present the statement prepared by staff in that
Mr. Fisher's presence, as Chairman of the Board, will carry more weight. Mr. Bowie concurred.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be more effective if several Board members attended this
hearing with Mr. Fisher. Mr. Roosevelt explained that it could have a positive affect providin
the presentation does not require too much time. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested that all the.._ __
Board members try to attend this hearing.
Mr. Lindstrom then referred to the survey he had sent to his constituents saying that many
of the individuals replying to the survey had commented about the appalling traffic conditions
in the 29 North area. Mrs. Cooke said it might be wise for the Board members, through whose
districts 29 North runs, to attend the meeting. Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr.
Bowie agreed to attend the preallocation hearing. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that State Senator
Thomas J. Michie be requested to accompany them to this hearing and Mr. Agnor offered to
contact him. Mr. Tucker said he would also attend if the Board wished. Mr. Lindstrom felt it
would be appropriate if Mr. Tucker attended also.
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Bowie referred to the Route 250 East area, specifically the narrow, two-laned bridge
crossing the Rivanna River (commonly called Free Bridge), and asked if this is included in the
list of critical needs for Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said the 250 East improvement is a
part of the long-range plans in the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transit Service Study, but wasi-
not.included in the statement prepared by staff for presentation at the Preallocation hearing.
Mr~ ~Tucker said comments regarding Route 250 East could be included in the statement and
offered to revise the draft to include improvements to the narrow, two-laned bridge and to
include four-laning of portions of Route 250 East. Mr. Way concurred saying he has many
constituents who drive this route who have registered complaints with him. Mr. Fisher agreed
that 250 East is a problem but suggested that equal time not be given to all problems. He
feels it would be more prudent to focus on one critical need. Mr. Bowie said he did not intend
to give the 250 East problem equal weight, but feels it is sufficiently important to warrant
mentioning at this hearing.
. Agenda Item No. 6(b). Highway Matters: Request from M. B. Norford to take road off of
Route 746 into the State Secondary System (Deferred from March 14, 1984).
Mr. Roosevelt explained that Mr. Norford's request was deferred in order to allow himself
time to review the exhange of correspondence between the Highway Department and Mr. Norford
over the last several years. Mr. Roosevelt said that since the March 14 meeting, he met with
Mr. Norford at the site. He then referred to a letter dated September 17, 1976 written by Mr.
W. B. Coburn, Jr., in Mr. Roosevelt's name, as follows:
"In reference to the Resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors at
the August 11, 1976 meeting concerning Rural Additions, I have been in
touch with Mr. M. B. Norford. I advised Mr. Norford of what the applicable
State Standard for a rural addition would be, which is sixteen foot surface
of compacted 21-A's six inches deep, three foot shoulders, and proper
ditches with a forty foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminus.
Also, needed would be the replacement of a thirty inch pipe with a sixty
inch pipe to provide adequate drainage. Mr. Norford indicated that he was
unaware that such a high standard for rural additions was necessary.
In view of these standards Mr. Norford indicated that he would need to
get additional estimates for this work before deciding whether or not he
would like to complete his request. As of this date I have not received
word from Mr. Norford concerning his desires. As soon as he makes his
intentions known I will advise."
Mr. Roosevelt said he has looked at the site noting that Mr. Norford has done considerable
grading though he has failed to meet the current standard. Mr. Roosevelt discussed with Mr.
Norford what needs to be done in order to meet this standard; additional widening, and the
placing of a sixty inch pipe. Mr. Roosevelt said he advised Mr. Norford that with the work MrS.
Norford has already completed, perhaps the Road Viewers might look favorably on his request and
recommend that the remainder of the work be completed using Rural Addition funds.
~ ~ 'Mr. Roosevelt suggested that Mr. Norford make application for review under the Rural
Addition Law which Mr. Norford has agreed to do. Mr.1 Roosevelt said he is aware of one more ·
Pending request for a road to be taken into the Secondary System and he suggested that it is i
time to appoint Road Viewers for this year. After reviewing his files, he finds that there arel
three aPProved requests pending which use all Rural Addition money for FY 82-83 and half of thell
RUral Addition money available for FY 85-84; approximately ten thousand dollars remains in the
fund for use at this time. ·
Fisher said appointments to the Road Viewers will be made at a later date.
~. Agenda Item No. 6(c). Highway Matters: Work Session - Albemarle County Six Year Highway
?iai.
~ Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on March 20, 1984, acted to approve the Six-Year
Plan with all the projects contained in the original proposal, making one suggested change
wh~0h Mr. Roosevelt will explain.
APPROVED SIX YEAR PLAN 1984 THROUGH 1990
~rOVement and Total Prior Tentative Funding Structure
Description Estimated Cost Allocations 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 89/90
Hydraulic Rd. 3,200,000 2975,000 225,000 - - - ' -
Meadow Crk. Pkw. 4,000,000 251,400 485,139 710,139 631,469 580,905 545,251 545,25]
Undesignated - - 85,000 135,000 120,000 110,000 105,000 105,000
671: 609-668E 170,000 61,000 109,000 .....
618:629-2 mi W 795 365,000 -0- 113,000 222,000 30,000 - - -
640:1.20-1 mi E 20 80,000 -0- - - 80,000 - -
664:604 - 743 310,000 -0- - - 87,000 184,000 39,000
622:.619-Flu. C.L. 285,000 -0 ..... 134,000 151,000
.643:649-1 mi W 649 325,000 -0 .... ~ _ - 11,000
727:627-795 975,000 -0 ...... 10,000
686:~?600'Louisa C.L. 243,!000 -0 ...... 1,000
652: Spot Improvement . 50,000 -0- 50,000 .....
~ TOTAL - - 1067,139 1067,139 948,469 874,905 823,251 823,251
080
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Roosevelt said a revision to the original proposal, which was suggested by the
Planning Commission, concerns a spot improvement on Route 652, Old Brook Road. This plan
~lt~ates the m~ximum amount allowed to the "Undesignated'' category for the second through[the
sixth year of the Plan. To accomplish the improvement to Old Brook Road, "Undesignated" funds
for 1984-85 were reduced by $50,000. The plan also allocates funds for the anticipated over
run in cost on the Hydraulic Road project of approximately $225,000 (extension of curb and
gutter from Georgetown Road to Whitewood Road) and the addition of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Whitewood Road and Hydraulic Road. The plan allocates all remaining funds to
the project which the Board has designated as its top priority improvement, i.e., Meadow Creek
Parkway.
Mr. Fisher said it appears that it will be about four year's before advertising of the
Meadow Creek Parkway project can begin. Mr. Roosevelt said he hopes this is so, adding that
has heard some "rumblings" from the City which might be indicative of future problems concernin~l
this project. Mr. Fisher asked if the purpose of this discussion is for the purpose of setting~l
a public hearing. Mr. Roosevelt said yes, hoping that both the Board and Highway Departmento
can arrive at a plan to take to public hearing, then set a date for this public hearing.
Mr. Tucker mentioned a spot improvement on Route 652. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Rooseve~lt
how much money will be allocated for gravel road improvements this year. Mr. Roosevelt said
approximately $222,000.
Mr. Roosevelt then referred to a map showing the location of road projects which were
recommended for approval by the Planning, Commission and noted the priority listings. Mr.
Roosevelt said the proposed Six-Year Plan includes every road project where citizens have
obtained the necessary right-of-way and where the road has a traffic count of over fifty
vehicles per day. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members~e~e~'pr~a~ed to set a public hearing.
Mr. Roosevelt said a public hearing on the Six-Year Plan needs to be followed by a budget
hearing and all of this must be completed by the end of June. Mr. Fisher suggested setting an
extra meeting in May for this purpose. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mr. Bowie, to set a public hearing for May 23, 1984, at 7:30 P.M., on the Albemarle County Six-
Year Highway Plan, and on the 1984-85 Highway budget. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6(d). Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Lindstrom commented on the MetrOpolitan Planning Organization meeting he and Mrs.
Cooke attended last week· The primarY topic was the study of an eastern by-pass, a route whl,¢~
complies with the Board's resolution of December 15, 1982, disallowing any study of a by-pa,ss
running through County watersheds and subdivisions. This route would connect the Ho.llymead ....
area with the Pantops area and give people the option of getting to Interstate 64 along the~i
proposed Meadow Creek Parkway. Just before last week's meeting was to take place, a letter
from the City Planning Director, Mr. SetYendra Huja, arrived, proposing another western by-pass
(arterial highway). ESsentially, under this proposal a roadway would depart 29 North at a ~
point just south of the Hilton H0tel complex, travel across country, follow along the SPCA
road, Hydraulic Road,'Georg~tOwn Road and out.through Canterbury Hills. This is exactly
the Board's resolution was against; this proposed highway runs through the South Fork Rivanna
~atershed and major subdivisions. Mr. Lindstrom feels this is a maneuver to allow the City to.
obtain leverage of this sitUatiOn.
Mr. Lindstrom then outlined the history of this issue saying that the Board took formal
action to delete the Western Route 29 North by-pass proposal from the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Transit Service study on December 15, 1982. At the same time, the Board felt concern about
~traffic on 29 North and realized that traffic alleviation by another route would be necessary.
The Board then passed a resolution, the intent of which was that any study undertaken would not
consider any alternative running to the west of the City as any such route would inevitably run
through some very heavily developed areas and the South Fork watershed. The Board wanted to
make it clear that any study undertaken not include this as an option because the effectivene'ss
of an eastern corridor study would be diluted if people felt there was another option. Whil$:
from a transportation standpoint, a western by-pass might seem to be the better choice, there
are cost factors which the Board was not willing to impose and this was the purpose of the
resolution. The Board did not know at the time how such a study would be funded.
The staff of Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission suggested that the Metropolitan:
.g Organization be used because highway money was available which could be administared
the TJPDC. The Board went along with this suggestion and everything was progressing
· A map had been developed by the Highway Department to determine the benefits of an
by-pass when this last minute proposal was offered by Mr. Huja. At the MP0 meeting ~::~ ,,
night, Mr. Lindstrom continued, one of the City's representatives was emphatic regarding
s unwillingness to consider any road that would route traffic through the City of
sville. Mr. Lindstrom said that he and Mrs. Cooke thought they were acting at the
ion of the Board of Supervisors; the two city representatives had no authority from. City~
1 to speak to Mr. Huja's proposal, and the issue was stale-mated. Mr. Lindstrom said he
Mrs. Cooke both felt they could not approve an alternate western by-pass study given the
al position of this Board. Essentially, the MPO has been told that the City will not
~ort a study unless it includes a corridor' study along Georgetown/Hydraulic and the SPCA~ ~.
· Mr. Lindstrom feels there is little point in studying a route more in conflict with the:~:~
s position than the original western route, the study of which, the Board has already
~tated it would not support.' Mr. Lindstrom said the City's concern seems to be that an eastern
· oute as proposed would create a thoroughfare through the middle of the city for traffic going
~outh. He can appreciate the concern about having a major four-lane highway divide the City.
April, 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
'091
Mr'. Lindstrom pointed out that at the time the CATS study was adopted, there was no proposal
for-an eastern by-pass; no road proposed which would funnel traffic through the City quite the
way an eastern by-pass could. Unless the Board wishes to change its position in terms of not
placing any roads through major subdivisions and watersheds, there is little to be done. Mr.
Fisher suggested the Board not attempt to reach any decision this morning but review th'e
eastern by-pass proposal and schedule a work session to review same. A date of May 9, 1984 was
scheduled to review this proposal.
Mr. Way commented on the trash in the area of Carlton Road Extended which has become a
dumping site for furniture and other forms of trash. Mr. Way said several citizens living in
the area have complained about the situation.
Mr. Lindstrom said that he too has some comments to make regarding trash and litter along
highways, but would discuss this under Agenda Item No. 25.
Mr. Fisher told Mr. Roosevelt that a citizen had commended the Highway Department on the
improvements made to Hydraulic road saying this is one of the nicest projects he has ever seen.
~.Mr. Henley said a citizen also approached him concerning trash. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
RooSevelt to present a report regarding trash collection. Mr. Roosevelt Said after the matter
of~trash had been discussed at the previous Board meeting he met with his maintenance people
and instructed them to begin using convict labor for trash pickup on the major roads. This
process was begun and will continue at least through Garden Week (the end of April)
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: CPA-84-4. Amendment to the County Comprehensive Plan
with regard to "Map 25: Albemarle County Service Autority Project Areas 1982-2002" as it affect~
property located on the south side of Garth Road, Route 601, just north of Farmington, for
water service only (Advertised in the Daily Progress, March 27 and April '3, 1984). (Deferred
from March 21, 1984.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Amend the project areas of the Albemarle County
Service Authority to include property located on the south side of Garth Road, Rout~e 601, just
north of Farmington, for water service only (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 3
1984). ·
Mr. Fisher had suggested that both these items be discussed together since they are inter-
related. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report relative to CPA-84-4:
"At its meeting on March 21, 1984, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend "Map 25: Albemarle County Service
Authority Project Areas 1982-2002" as it affects property (Inglecress
Subdivision) located on the south side of Garth Road, Route 601, just north
of Farmington, for water service only. The Board requested that the
Planning Commission hold a public hearing and return its recommendation to
the Board prior to April 11, 1984.
Inglecress Subdivision (formerly Berta Jones Estate) was approved by the
Board of Supervisors, after appeal, on September 10, 1980. The subdivision
consists of 43 lots averaging 4.2 acres per lot.
It has been the Board of Supervisors' policy in the past to limit utility
service in those areas located outside of the County's designated growth
areas and/or those areas located within the watershed of a drinking water
impoundment. This policy is a primary tool used in discouraging intensive
development in those areas not designated for growth, as well as areas most
sensitive to development impact.
The property is not located within a growth area nor is it contiguous to the
boundaries of any of.the designated growth areas. It is also located along
the Ivy Creek, a tributary of the South Fork Rivanna River. The property
does fall within the Board's criteria for limited utility service. Inglecress
Subdivision was, however, approved for 43 lots by right.
Recently the Board of Supervisors did approve an amendment to the water
service area in Ivy based upon the number of existing development rights.
If water service is extended to this previously approved subdivision, no
additional impact from development would occur because the subdivision has
by right the same number of lots -- forty-three.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to include
the Inglecress Subdivision in Map 25: Albemarle County Service Authority
Project Areas in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, staff
recommends the approval of other categories (limited service for 43
connections)."
082
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)--
Mr. Tucker explained that the "other categories" include water only, water only to existin
structures, and limited service. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting
of April 10, 1984 recommended that C?A-84-4 not be adopted. The concern of the Planning
Commission involved setting a precedent in this area by extending utilities outside of the
growth areas and in addition, the Planning Commission felt that with no history of water well~- .
p.roblems, approval of this request was not wise.
At 10:18 A.M., the public hearing was opened. Mr. James W. Gercke, President of Inglecress
Ltd., said that the Albemarle County Service Authority water line is approximately twenty-five
feet away from this property. Mr. Gercke noted that at the March 14, 1984 meeting, the Board
expressed its feeling that people freely choose to live in the country and in so doing, accept
the lack of existing services as opposed to urban area services. Mr. Gercke said he has a
difficult time accepting this premise, particularly as it relates to fire protection for the
residents of this subdivision. He spoke with Mr. Ira Cortez, the Fire Official, who stated he
favored fire hydrants wherever residential dwellings exist. Mr. Gercke said that as a develo
he has no interest in whether there is central water service or not; this is ultimately the
interest of the residents. He feels the Planning Commission's concern regarding precedent
setting and need were wrong. He does not see any injury to the County; upholding precedent
does not seem sufficient to deprive 43 families from having fire protection for their homes.
Mr. Gercke said the Planning Commission stated that at some time when the need presents itself,
water service to this area might be reconsidered. Mr. Gercke asked if this could be interprete¢
to mean that several fires must occur before it is recognized that fire hydrants in this area
would have been desirable. He does not feel this is a compelling principle on which to deny
this application. Mr. Gercke reiterated that the water line is only 25 feet from the proper~y~
line, all expenses are being borne by Inglecress, and neither an impact on existing density nor
encouragement of future growth will take place with approval of water service to this subdi-
vision.
With no one else to address this application, the public hearing was closed at 10:25 A.M.
~ Mr. Fisher made reference to the wording in the staff report, specifically the second
" Board of Supervisor's policy in the past to
sentence in the third paragraph which reads, ...
limit utility service to those areas located outside of the County's ~designated growth areas..~.
He wondered if this should read "in those areas". Mr. Tucker said no, it should read as it
does. Mr. Lindstrom said the wording is confusing in that it implies service is limited only
to areas outside the growth areas while the intent of the wording is to restrict service from
going into areas outside the designated growth areas. Mr. Fisher then referred to the last
sentence in the fourth paragraph which reads, "The property does fall within the Board's
criteria for limited utility service." He asked if emphasis should be on "limited", rather
than on "service." Mr. Tucker replied in the affirmative, adding that in staff's opinion, ~.his
property falls within the Board's criteria because it is outside of a growth area and does lie
within the watershed of a drinking water supply impoundment.
Mr. Fisher asked for comments from Mr. St. John regarding the implications of taking
action to include this property, and how this action would relate to other issues which might
come before the Board. Mr. St. John said he sees no direct impact on existing or immediate
potential cases, though he cannot guarantee that some judge in the future will not find the
Board's action today'significant. Mr. St. John concluded by saying the Board members need to
consider how the best interests of their respective constituents and the COunty can be served.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Bill Brent of the Albemarle County ServiCe Authority if there is a
map indicating the location of all water lines in the County. Mr. Brent said there are a
number of maps showing the water lines although there is not one specific map. Mr. Lindstrom
said there are other developments in Albemarle County which ha~e a higher density than Inglecres
and there is no possibility of those~subdivisions obtaining public water. Mr. Lindstrom feels
that if the residences were already built and the homeowners had been guaranteed public water,
that would place this situation in a different light. However,.there are no buildings on the
property at this time and no lots have been sold with the promise that public water would be
available. Mr. Lindstrom feels there are many implications to the county's planning involved
in this application, not the least of which is that this subdivision and many other subdivisions
contrary to the planning which has been done so far.
Mr. Henley said he will support CPA-84-4 for reasons he stated at the March 14''1984
.g. Mrs. Cooke commented that the waterline is easily accessible to this property,
~herefore providing fire protection to these homes seems reasonable. At this time, motion was
)ffered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt CPA-84-4. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
;ion to table Mr. Bowie's motion until a study could be done by staff of the County and the
County Service Authority to determine the number of properties similarly located
acent to existing waterlines not in a designated growth area, and to draw a map showing
areas.
Mr. Henley restated his feeling that extending water to properties is not a'stimulus to
growth. While he does feel this would be true of sewer service, he does not feel it is so with
water service. The waterline is within 25 feet of the property in question and he has no
problem granting this request of the developer. Mr. Henley added that the developers right to
develop in this case has no relationship to public water; the property will be developed in any
case. Mr. Henley feels service to this property should be limited to water only.
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. St. John stated that Mr. Lindstrom's motion takes precedence over the motion offered
by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Henley. With no second to Mr. Lindstrom's motion to table the
previous motion, the Chair ruled that the motion to table was dead. Mr. Fisher then called for
further discusson on the original motion. He asked if it was the intent of Mr. Bowie that the
motion specify the number of lots to be served. Mr. Bowie said he assumed it would be 43 lots
since that is the limit of the project; Mr. Bowie said that is the intent of the motion. Mr.
Tucker said it is not really necessary to limit the number of lots on the amendment to Map 25
in the Comprehensive Plan; limiting the number of lots is the action the Board should take on
~genda Item No. 8. Mr. Fisher then clarified that the motion stands to amend the Comprehensive
Plan with regard to Map 25 (Agenda ItemNo. 7) by showing Parcel 1 on Tax Map 60 for water
service only. Mr. Fisher stated his opposition to this motion, feeling that allowing water
service to rural areas will increase the rate at which property develops and in that sense will
encourage faster rural development. He feels this is setting a precedent which will create
problems in the future. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Fisher then referred to Agenda Item No. 8, the public hearing to amend the Albemarle
~ounty Service Authority Project Areas as it affects property located on the south side of
Garth Road (Inglecress). Mr. Tucker said the staff report for this request is identical to
the staff report which directly preceded this request. The only difference is that if the
Board chose to amend the project areas that water service be limited to 43 connections.
Mr. Fisher then called for public comments relative to this request. There being no one
~resent to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by
Mr. Way, to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority project areas as it affects the
property located on the south side of Garth Road (Ingle.cress) by adding Parcel 1 on Tax Map 60~
for~43 connections only for water service. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Bowie said that Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion asking staff to determine which properties
are adjacent to existing waterlines though not in a designated growth area is a fine idea, and
he expressed regret that he could not support Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion before the vote today.
He would, however, like to have this information provided on a map. It was suggested that Mr.
Bowie and planning staff look at the maps in the Albemarle County Service Authority offices and
indicate on county tax maps the properties that are adjacent to existing waterlines but not in
a designated growth area. Mr. Bowie and staff agreed to this suggestion. This information
will be presented to the Board at a later date for review.
Agenda Item No. 9. Proposed amendment to Albemarle County Service Authority Project
Service Area re: requests from Messrs. Seig, Kirtley and Javor on Route 250 West (Deferred from
March 14, 1984).
Mr. Fisher said the purpose of this agenda item is to decide whether to set a public
hearing on an amendment and refer same to the Planning Commisssion. Mr. Tucker said the
request before the Board is to provide sewer service to certain areas along Route 250 West.
Mr. Tuoker said that at its March 14 meeting, the Board requested staff to study the drainage
area and sewer interceptor location along Route 250 West between Route 677 and the Boar's Head
Inn. The staff was to determine which portions of the properties involved in the request drain
toward Moores Creek (away from the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed) and which portions of
the properties drain toward the reservoir, or Ivy Creek. Mr. Tucker said the engineering staff
has completed a study and indicated the land area involved in the two drainage basins on a
survey map which also illustrates the location of the Crozet sewer interceptor (both force main
and gravity line).
In referring to the map, Mr. Tucker explained that the areas colored in red represent
those portions of the properties which drain away from the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed
and 'which could be connected to sewer service by gravity force alone, requiring no pumping.
The areas in red are currently limited to water service only. (These properties are Parcels
23C, F & N Land Company; Parcel 23F (portion only), J. W. Sieg and Son; 23B (portion only),
Henry Javor; 23B(1) (portion), W. J. Kirtley, Jr.; and a very small portion along the highway
right-of-way on Parcel 23B(2) Woodvale Land Corporation; Tax Map 59.) Mr. Tucker continued
that the uncolored area indicates those portions of the properties which would require pumping
to one of the manholes where the gravity line begins. Mr. Fisher said it appears that the red
area on the Woodvale property would be totally within the scenic highway setback. He then
asked if the Planning Staff had any recommendation.
Mr. Tucker said that if the Board follows its policy, the area in red (parcels noted
above) could be defined as an area which could be served by sewer service. He does not know if
this would meet the request of the applicants, however, because some portions of these pro
could not be included for service. Mr. Tucker said that on Mr. Kirtley's property, the front
portion where the Kirtley Realty office building is currently located falls within the red area
(the property drains away from the watershed), but the back portion of the property where
Kirtley Distributing Company is located drains toward the South Fork reservoir. Should the
Board decide to allow sewer service to both existing uses, the Albemarle County Service Aut~
projects areas would have to be extended to include the part of the property that drains toward
Zvy Creek. Mr. Fisher asked, how much of these three parcels is undeveloped. Mr. Tucker said
that Mr. Javor's property 23(B) is undeveloped; Mr. Javor had site plan approval for the properi
bUt~the 'plan subsequently expired. Most of the area in red on the Sieg property (23F) is
undeveloped. Parcel 23D, Terence Y. Sieg, drains entirely toward the Reservoir, so could not
be served. Mr. Fisher noted that the Kirtley property has a larger area that could be served
than the Javor property and he asked if this is a result of the grading on the property. Mr.
Tucker said yes, adding that when this area was graded, it basically made a change in the
basin. Most of this land drained toward the reservoir until it was graded relatively flat for
the office building.
094
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)-
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer addressed the Board. Mr. Elrod said that on the Javor
property a strip about 75 feet wide, measured from the edge of the pavement can be served by
gravity. Mr. Elrod said the tax map is not perfectly to scale. The entire area appears to
have been regraded; there is no natural drainage on the three properties. Mr. Elrod said if'
the Board were to allow this property sewer service, his office staff can provide the dimensions
of the portion of property which drains specifically toward Moores Creek.
Mr. Bowie said he thought the discussion was to be on whether or not a sewer connection
could be gravity fed away from Ivy Creek. He said if the buildings are not in the red area,
the drainage would run the wrong way and require pumping. Mr. Tucker said there is some
development on the red portions of the land. Mrs. Cooke asked if developing the undeveloped
areas would affect the drainage. Mr. Tucker said the properties could be graded so that gravity
sewage disposal is feasible.
Mr. W. J. Kirtley said when the office building was constructed, the only grading done was
that necessary to dig the foundation and place the lines which run to the building's drainage
out to Route 250. Mr. Kirtley said his property lies in the area of a scenic highway; there is
a big setback. Mr. Kirtley said the reason for originally requesting sewer installation was to
eliminate pollution in the South Fork Rivanna; he feels the Board took the position at that
time to simultaneously prevent growth. He noted that the Board's position subsequently changed
in that the condominiums at the Boar's Head Inn are being permitted to hook into the sewer
line. That property is not very far from his property. Mr. Kirtley said the manhole already
on the north side of Route 250 is a gravity feed manhole, and it would not require any construc-
tion to connect his property at this manhole. Mr. Kirtley said he will not be interfering with
drainage; no more excavation will be necessary as the drainage already runs into Route 250
West.
Mr. Henry Javor said his five acres have not been graded to date, only cleared, but with
proper grading he could probably make his property drain in almost any direction. The site
plan he submitted showing individual septic systems with drainfields, only utilized 26 percent
of the land; 75~percent was still undisturbed. He said when the Board approved his previous
site plan, one of the conditions was that he hook to public sewer. However, there was no s~ch~
sewer service available. Now, sewer is available with a gravity fed line within 125 feet of
his property and he feels he should be permitted to connect to this line.
Mr. James Nulligan, representing J. W. Sieg and Company, said the company desires to hook
to the sewer system to accommodate current business needs. He asked how much of Sieg's current
office building property lies in the red area. Mr. Tucker indicated on the map the area of~.the
Sieg property draining away from the South Fork Rivanna River watershed.
Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said that over ten years ago his.~
organization opposed constructing an interceptor line to Crozet and favored instead a waste~
water treatment plant being built in Crozet. The opposition came about because of the concern
about possible linear development along the interceptor. Mr. Patterson said he has no problem
with the applicant's request providing any action by the Board can be isolated and not set a
precedent. The concern of Citizens for Albemarle is that other areas along the interceptor
which lie outside the reservoir area may also be permitted to connect to the sewer line. In
a~ition, citizens are concerned that the Board's action may set a precedent forcing the Board
to agree, in the future, to many connections along the interceptor, thereby permitting the
linear development to which many citizens in the County have been opposed, throughout the many
years over which the interceptor line has been developed.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to indicate on the map the limits of the growth area. Mr.
Tucker~responded that the growth area is basically between the ridge line of the South Fork
Rivanna watershed, and the area that drains toward Moores Creek on the north side of Route 250
West. On the south side of Route 250 West, the growth area is limited basically to the Boar!s
Head property which lies in the Moores Creek watershed.
Mr. Fisher said the question before the Board at this time is whether to adopt a resolution
o intent to the service project areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to
~,~.,~ . amend
include sewer service for the three properties requested~ or to include portions of those
properties. ~r. Fisher said he thought the staff had recommended that the Board adopt the area
in red on the map as the area for sewer service, Nr. Tucker said such action would follow the
~olicy that the Board has adhered to in the past. Mr. Tucker said that while specific detail
.s not shown on the map, the area shown in red, draining toward Moores Creek, does lie in the
growth area. Mr. Lindstrom felt such action would be consistent with what has been done in the~_
past. His only concern is that if the Board is going to redefine the Albemarle County Service
Authority project areas to include those portions of the properties indicated in red on the
map, that this be done in such a way that people are not encouraged to regrade their property
so their land will drain differently. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the Board took action several
years ago to prohibit such activity because a grading permit cannot be issued unless a site
plan is approved first. Mr. Lindstrom said as long as any amendment made by the Board clearly
indicates that the Board does not intend to approve areas regraded specifically to change
drainage patterns, he will feel more comfortable. Mrs. Cooke wanted to clarify that her comment
regarding grading in no way implied that she thought Mr. Kirtley had intentionally regraded his
~roperty to drain away from the South Fork Rivanna watershed.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
~esolution:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the sewer service areas of
maps of the Albemarle County Service Authority to incorporate the areas shown
in red on the map displayed at this meeting.
April il, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Henley said he has some trouble with Mr. Javor's property in that at one point Mr.
Javor was told he had to hook the property to the sewer line and now is being told that he
canno~ connect to that line. Mr. Bowie said that by amending the project areas to include the
areas in red a problem may arise as to where Mr. Javor will place his building on the site so
that the drainage runs towards Moores Creek. Mr. Lindstrom asked the zoning designation on the
Javor property. Mr. Tucker answered that the designation is LI, Light Industrial. Mr. Lindsl
asked if this zoning designation was placed on this property in 1980 when the new zoning map
was adopted because there was an existing approved site plan at that time. Mr. Tucker replied
in the affirmative. Mr. Henley asked what Mr. Javor would have to do to get approval to grade
his property so it would drain toward Moores Creek. Mr. Fisher suggested that one approach
would be for Mr. Javor to submit a site plan showing how the property could be used and what
grade would be required. At that time, if the proposal seemed acceptable to the Planning
Commission, extending sewer service to the property could be considered. Mr. Lindstrom said he
did not want to create the impression that all a landowner would have to do is regrade his
property in order to receive different treatment as regards connection to public sewage facil-
ities. Mr. Henley said that is not what he said. He mere~ly suggested the possibility that Mr.
Javor might perform a small amount of grading in order to have the property drain toward Moores
Creek.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Javor can develop his property using a drainfield instead of
public sewer disposal under the LI district regulations. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Agnor said
that much of what can be done depends on the elevation of the manholes and whether the manholes
are deep enough in the ground so the Javor property will drain by gravity. The property may
not require any grading at all, depending on the elevation of the sewer line. Roll was then
called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Tucker said that ~after looking again at the area under discussion, he feels the area
i.s so small, that no change on the map in the Comprehensive Plan will be necessary. Mr. Tucker
said the Comprehensive Plan map is so generalized that the request currently before the Board
will' not affect the map at all. Since no amendment of the Comprehensive Plan is involved,
referring this request to the Planning Commission for review would serve no purpose since the
Planning Commission is not required by law to make recommendations on service areas of the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Tucker said the Board needs only to set a public
hearing to amend the actual service areas map. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set a public hearing for May 9, 1984, at 10:00 A.M., to amend the
Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas Map for sewer service to incorporate areas
shown in red on the map displayed at the meeting today. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Report on Lickinghole Creek Regional Runoff Control Basin Project.
Study dated April, 1984, and prepared by the County Engineering Department.
(Mr. Bowie left the room at 11:25 A.M., returned at 11:29 A.M.)
Mr. Tom Muncaster, (County Engineer's Office) said that since the Board members had just
been given a copy of this report on the Lickinghole Creek Impoundment Project this morning he
would merely introduce the report and return at another time for discussion. Mr. Muncaster
said the 208 Watershed Management Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir, prepared in 1982,
specifically recommended a regional sedimentation pond on Lickinghole Creek as a means of
alleviating some of the phosphorus and the sediment loading on the eutrophic South Rivanna
River Reservoir. A stated goal of the 208 Study was to select potential sites for the instal-
lation of regional sediment ponds in critical areas of the South Fork's watershed. Mr. Muncaste
referred to a map in the Study indicating three possible sites for this impoundmenv. Mr.
Muncaster said Site C is felt to be the best site, although it does require construction of a
longer impoundment.
Mr. Muncaster said it is estimated that an impoundment at Site C could remove 45 percent
of the total annual phosphorous loading on a long-term basis. The water's surface of this
impoundment would be at elevation 522 and would have a pool area of about twenty-nine acres
(two parcels) of land. Preliminary designs estimate that the one hundred year flood line would
be five feet higher causing an additional fourteen acres to be inundated. Mr. Muncaster said
the estimated cost of this project is $550,000 including land acquisition to the one hundred
year flood elevation. Construction money could come from the County's Capital Improvements
Fund, or from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, although it is anticipated that this
project would ultimately be financed by contributions from land developers as construction
takes place within the watershed; in other words, the project costs would be paid by those
creating the need. In closing Mr. Muncaster said that if this impoundment is built, the average
cost per acre will be $375, which is substantially less than the curren5 cost of on-site runoff
control measures.
Mr. Fisher explained for the new Board members that a map in the back of the report shows
thelgrowth area of Crozet, almost all of which now drains into Lickinghole Creek. The proposal
just presented, said Mr. Fisher, is staff's recommendation on how to accommodate present and
future urban run-off from expected development in the Community of Crozet. Mr. Lindstrom asked
if there was any other site recommended which would generate a higher phosphorous removal. Mr.
Muncaster said that a larger dam could conceivably trap more phosphorous and sediment, however,
the question becomes how large a structure does the Board wish to construct. In any case, his
expressed opinion is that regardless of the size of the structure, forty-five percent phos
removal is about all that can be reasonably expected. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the impoundment
at proposed Site C will trap runoff from the entire growth area. Mr. Muncaster said yes,
adding that this~project will also trap runoff from about five or six thousand acres ouside of
the 'growth area to the west of Crozet.
088
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Muncaster what action the Board should take at this time. Mr.
I[Muncaster said the Engineering staff is looking for a computer model to be used in finetuning.~
the design of this impoundment. After that, the final desig~ should be bid, with land acq~isi~
tion following in the early part of 1985. Mr. Fisher said some decision will need to be made
on where the money will come from for this project. Mr. Agnor said this project is a part of
~the Capital Improvements Program which will be setting out the sequence of events for this
project.
Agenda Item No. 11.
on special use permit.
SP-82-64.
Albemarle Baptist Church.
Request for extension of time
Mr. Tucker referred to a letter from Br. Darden B. Battle, Director of the Albemarle
Baptist Association, dated February 5, 1984, as follows:
"On December 1, 1982, the Albemarle Baptist Association was granted a
special use permit for the piece of property located at the corner of
Lambs Road and Hydraulic Road. We completed the purchase of that
property in January, 1983. This property was purchased with the
anticipation of locating a new Southern Baptist church in the area.
... Southern Baptists have a history of moving with certainty and caution.
To prevent misuse of the said property or failure to meet the guidelines
of Albemarle County and its supervisors, we are requesting a 120 day
extension for the date of beginning construction. This would change the
beginning date from May 1, 1984 to September 1, 1984 and the completion
date from December 1, 1985 to March !, 1986. We do feel that such an
extension would best serve all parties involved."
Mr. Tucker said that since the time this special use permit was granted in December of
1982, no significant changes in ordinances or policy have occurred which would affect this
special use permit. Mr. Tucker recomended that the Board grant the request for an extension of
the special use permit to September 1, 1984. Dr. Battle was present and asked only that the
Board grant this request. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie,
to approve the request for extension of SP-82-64 for Albemarle Baptist Church to September 1,
1984; Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 12.
1984).
Report on Division of Woodbrook Precinct (Deferred from March 21,
The following letter was noted as being received:
"TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Electoral Board
April 10, 1984
Division of Woodbrook Precinct, Charlottesville
Magisterial District
We have been unable to find a suitable facility in which to locate an
additional polling place for the Charlottesville Magisterial District
and do hereby withdraw the proposal made to that effect.
While we do anticipate voter registration to exceed 5000 prior to the
November 6, 1984 General Election, failure to establish an additional
polling place does not invalidate any election.
In 1980 the Woodbrook precinct had 5,683 registered voters and 4,340
(76.1%) citizens voted. In reviewing the Registrar's notes and files
from the 1980 General Election there were no difficulties encountered
as a result of high voter turnout. Voter flow was evenly spaced with
2,236 having voted by 12:15 p.m. The Officers of Election at the
precinct are well~ experienced and efficient. The polling place is
large enough to accommodate the anticipated large voter turnout. That
precinct will have the required number of Election Officials and voting
machines for the upcoming election.
We will continue to monitor the number of registered voters in that
district and continue looking, when necessary, for an additional
polling place for the Charlottesville District for the future."
Agenda Item No. 13. Request from VEPCO - Berkeley Subdivision.
Mr. Tucker said it has just been discovered that the representative for VEPCO will not'-be
able to attend the meeting today. This matter will need to be deferred to the May meeting.
Mr. Tucker added that Mr. James Cosby, representing the property owners affected by this quit
claim, is present. Mr. Fisher suggested that since this request will be heard next month there
is little need to hear any comments today. He then asked Mr. Cosby if his clients would object
to returning next month rather than discussing the matter now. Mr. Cosby said he has no
objections but wished for the Board to consider hearing his clients two requests at the next
scheduled meeting, though neither of these requests are listed on the agenda.
April 11~ 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Basically, said Mr. Cosby, VEPC0 is requesting the abandonment of a right-of-way, which
~ight-of-way would revert to VEPC0 as the owner of the fee simple title to the property con-
cerned. Mr. and Mrs. Wickline, his clients, request that this right-of-way not be abandoned
and in addition that they be given a corrected deed showing lawful access across this right-of-
way to the property they purchased. If this request could be heard simultaneously, his clients
have no objection to withholding comment until next month. With no one else present to address
this matter, and with those present agreeing to reschedule the hearing, motion was offered by
Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer the above request to May 9, 1984. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. AHIP Quarterly Report - Deferred to May 9, 1984.
Agenda Item No. 15. Claims Against the Dog Fund. Mr. Agnor presented the following:
Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mrs. Florence Walker of North
Garden for four ewes and two lambs killed by dogs on March 22, 1984. The Dog Warden
recommends that $355.00 be allowed for this claim.
Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mr. Lewis Gentry of North Garden
for one Black Angus Calf killed by dogs on November 12, 1983. The Dog Warden
recommends that $60.00 be allowed for this calf (three weeks old).
Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mr. Gilbert G. Sullivan of
Earlysville for one Black Angus Calf killed by dogs on February 15, 1984. The Dog
Warden recommends that $60.00 be allowed for this calf (three days old).
Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mr. M. H. Birckhead of Charlottesville,
Virginia, for 57 laying hens and four turkeys k~lled by dogs on February 24, 1984. The
Dog Warden suggests that $239.50 be allowed for this claim.
Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mr. John C. Curly of Esmont, Virginia,
for 15 laying hens killed by dogs on October 10, October 11, and October 17, 1983. The
Dog Warden has suggested that $52.50 be allowed for this claim.
Mr. Agnor said that the amount to fund these claims for the FY 83/84 was only $200.00
because of the good experience in recent years. He said staff may have to ask the Board for an
additional appropriation to accommodate these claims, but at the present time, the Dog Warden's
budget has sufficient funds to pay these claims. At this time, motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to pay the five claims against the Dog Fund in the amounts
as presented by the County Executive. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Not Docketed: At 11:51 A.M. the Board recessed for lunch. The Board reconvened at 1:33
P.M, with Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, being present, but with Mr. Robert W. Tucker,
Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, being absent.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appropriation - Albemarle High School - Phase IV. Mr. Ray B. Jones,
Director of Finance, referred to his memorandum dated March 26, 1984, as follows:
"The bids on Phase IV were taken on March 11, 1984. The base bid by
R. E. Lee and Company of $484,477 (includes air conditioning) was
favorable, resulting in a project cost of $667,677 which was $390,000
less than the project estimate in the Capital Improvements Program.
The architect's recapitulation of the~project costs includes an additional
$20,000 for minor roof and walkway repairs plus some needed painting of
the corridors.
Since it is most important for the contractor to purchase considerable
mechanical equipment with a three month lead time, and in order for the
bulk of the work to be done during the summer, the staff recommends the
following appropriation:
Fr'om Capital Improvements Fund Balance $ 602,677
To Phase IV Albemarle High School $ 602,677
The requested net appropriation above is $65,000 less than the project
cost of $667,677 due to an appropriation which was made last year.
The staff recommends this appropriation from the CIP fund where funds are
available due to a reduction in project amounts ($390,000) plus the fact
that final payment from the Literary Fund for Phase III-Albemarle High
School of over $200,000 has finally been received by the County.
It is important to make this appropriation at your April meeting in order
that the contracts can be let on April 11, 1984."
April 11, 1984' (Regular Day Meeting)~.' ~
Mr. Jones then referred to a sheet indicating the base bids provided by all four contrac~
involved in the bidding. Mr. Fisher said the base bid is $484,477 with air conditioning, and
ap~proximately $325,166 without air conditioning. Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Charles Tolbert, a
member of the School Board, if he had reviewed these bids. Dr. Tolbert replied in the affirma-
tive adding that School administration, parents, teachers and the School Board prefer to ha'ye~
this project completed with airconditi~ning consideringthat the bid came in under the antieipa-
ted cost. .......
Mr. Fisher asked if the requested appropriation of $602,677 reflects the entire cost of
this project. Mr. Papenfuse replied in the affirmative. Mr. Lindstrom said that while he ·
appreciates the need for airconditioning, he has no real way of evaluating the alternatives to
airconditioning. While Mr. Lindstrom expressed some interest in saving the additional money,
he recognizes there seems to be a general feeling among the administration and parents that the
building simply is not as workable without airconditioning. At this time, motion was offered
by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $602,677 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from
the Capital Improvement Fund Balance~ and coded to:
1-9000-97000-970303 Phase IV Albemarle High School
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 17. Budget Amendment - Education. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance,
referred to his memorandum dated April 4, 1984, as follows:
"The Assistant Superintendent for Finance and Administration submitted to
the School Board mid-year budget transfers on March 6, 1984, which were
approved on March 12, 1984. The Department of Finance staff has spent
considerable time in analyzing and editing the 56 page document which sets
out the basis of the requested transfers.
The net effect of the transfers has the following changes incorporated
within:
1)
Reduces the total appropriation for Education a net of $12,742 on
top of the previous reduction of $244,315 which was approved by
the Board of Supervisors in December, 1983.
2)
3)
The School Operation will end up with a $27,460,209 adjusted
appropriation - down from the original budget of $27,716,266
reflecting a total reduction of $257,057 or~ percent.
From a revenue standpoint, the mid-year adjustments reflect the
following changes:
a)
b)
c)
Loss of State Sales Tax of $63,365 due to census impact;
Reduction of $29,700 in revenue estimates from non-education
use of Vehicular Maintenance Facility;
Reduction of $17,471 in revenue from Foster Home Children.
4)
Reflects an increase in Average Daily Membership (ADM) from 8,820
(earlier projection) to 8,878 which produces $25,867 in State
Basic Aid.
5)
Total compensation is up $88,717 over prior estimates due primarily
to the underbudgeting of the allowance for substitute teachers -
$64,810 is an increase for substitutes.
6)
The requested transfers require an additional $29,400 in local funds
(from $16,077,121 to $16,106,521) to offset the increase in fringe
costs for FICA revisions. This amount can be transferred from the
General Government Personnel-FICA Reserve which has a $30,000
appropriation since it was the original intent of this allocation
to transfer 80 percent to Education.
Since the current year's appropriation was made on the basis of twelve major
functions and the actual accounting is on the basis of 52 cost centers, it is
recommended that you take the following action:
1)
3)
Amend the 1983-84 appropriation ordinance for Education in accordance
with Attachment A (included in Mr. Jones memorandum) (designates
Column 2 revised) as officially requested by the School Board.
Amend the 1983'84 Revenue Estimates for Education in accordance with
Column 4 of Attachment B (included in Mr. Jones memorandum) designated
Mid-Year Adjustments as officially requested by the School Board.
Authorize the transfer of $29,400 from the Personnel Cost Center in
General Government to the School Fund as additional Local Share making
the total annual Local Share $16,106,521 as shown on Attachment B in
Column 4 (included in Mr. Jones memorandum).
?
April I1, 1984 (Regular Day Meetin$)
Respectfully, I request your action on the above amendments so as to provide
School Administration a means to control their expenditures within their
projected revenues for the current fiscal year."
~r. Fisher commented that the process of making adjustments to appropriations basically
every few months through the year by the School system, is its attempt to end the year with a
zero balance in every account. Mr. Fisher referred to the 56 page document supporting these
changes and asked the cost and time involved in making these transfers. Mr. Jones explained
that the first major adjustment brought before the Board in December of 1983, had approximately
840 line item transfers. The 56 page report to which Mr. Fisher refers cOntains approximately
615 line item transfers. This informatim has to be run through the computers to be sure the
money is available. Approximately seventy to eighty hours are spent editing and analyzing in
order to make these changes. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be another set of revisions for
the current fiscal year. Mr. Jones said yes, although they should not be major revisions. Mr
David Papenfuse said there will be one more change to make before the end of June. Mr. ~
Papenfuse explained that the document contains 56 pages because there are 56 separate cost
centers. The School administration is not attempting to spend every penny allocated, but
rather to look at monthly revenues, review these revenues on a quarterly basis and determine
what adjustments are necessary in order to finish the fiscal year in the black. Mr. Papenfuse
said the Board of Supervisors and the School Board wanted an accounting of where the money was
actually being spent and this is why he comes before the Board each quarter asking that monies
be changed to align expenses with current patterns and revenue estimaves. As the end of the
fiscal year approaches, revenue figures become firmer since there are more actuals to go on;
this is why there will be one more change before June.
At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the
transfers as outlined in the April 4, 1984 memorandum from Mr. Jones, entitled Mid-Year Educa$
tion Appropriation Transfers, as follows:
1)
Amendment to the 1983-84 Appropriation Ordinance for "Schools" in accordance
with Attachment A (included in Memorandum), and as officially requested by
the School Board on March 12, 1984.
2)
3)
Amendment to the Revenue Estimates for 1983-84 for "Schools" in accordance
with Column 4 of Attachment B (included in memorandum entitled "Mid-Year
Revenue Update") as officially requested by the School Board on March 12, 1984.
Authorized a transfer of $29,400 from the Personnel cost center in General
Government to the School Fund as an additional local share, making the total
local share for FY 83-84, $16,106,521 as shown (and circled on Attachment B
included with memorandum.)
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Allocation of State Funds for Emergency Medical Purposes. Mr. Agnor
referred to his memorandum dated April 6, 1984 to the Board of Supervisors as follows:
"The 1983 General Assembly amended the State code regulating passenger
vehicle registration fees by adding an additional fee of $1.00 for
emergency medical service purposes. The legislation was called the 'one
for life' law. Twenty-five percent of the fees collected were designated
in the law to be returned to the locality in which it was collected 'to
provide funding for training of emergency medical service personnel and
for the purchase of necessary equipment and supplies for use in such
locality for emergency medical and rescue services.' The remaining
75 percent is being divided by the State.
The State allocates twenty cents of each $1.00 collected to Regional
Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Councils for their needs, and eleven cents for
reimbursement of instructors and maintenance and replacement of training
equipment in community colleges for use by local instructors. Additionally,
the State allocates twenty-two cents to the Rescue Squad Assistance Fund
which is a matching grant program to rescue squads and EMS agencies to
purchase equipment. These grants are awarded on a competitive application
process.
Officers of the three rescue squads requested a meeting with me to discuss
the use of the local share of these funds, and made the following request:
1) The 25 percent local share be allocated to the three rescue squads
serving the County for the purposes quoted in the law.
2)
That these funds be considered by 'the County as a supplemental source
to the financial support provided by the County, and not as a
substitute or replacement source.
That the funds be allocated annually upon receipt from the State on
the basis that each squad would receive one-third of the total.
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
The staff agrees with this request, on the basis that the three rescue squads
are the local units Which provide emergencymedical and rescue services. The
EMS Council receives funds directly from the State share, and are regional
organizations, not local ones. The 25 percent local share is clearly intended
to be allocated for local needs.
The staff also agrees that these funds are an additional source, and should
be allocated accordingly. The division of the funds equally among the three
squads does not equate to their different needs, but in the absence of a
valid measurement of those needs, and in recognition'of the squads collective
request that the funds be so divided, the staff supports their requested
division. A letter signed by all three squads making this request is in the
files.
For FY 83-84, the State has advised that the County will receive $9,166.
the Board approves the squads' request and the staff recommendation, an
amendment to the current budget will be advertised for public hearing
allocating $3,055 to each squad, and placed on the May 9, 1984 agenda."
If
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded'by Mr. Bowie, to Set a public hearing
for May 9, 1984 to amend the current budget in order to allocate $3,055 to each of the thre?
rescue squads. Roll was called and the motion carried-by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Agnor referred to his memorandum
Agenda Item No. 19. Budget, 1984-1985 - Discussion.
dated April 10, 1984, as follows:
"You were advised on March 19, prior to completing budget work sessions, that
changes in the FY 84-85 Education budget resulted in a net deficit of $16,574
in revenues compared to expenditures, as follows:
Remedial Aid
Community Education
Foster Home Payments
FICA Error
Total Revenue Change
- $ 40,799
- 20,000
+ 26,857
- 21,771
- $ 55,713
Revenues:
- $ 39,1}9
Expenditures: FICA Error
- $ 16,574
Net Budgetary Shortfall
The allocation of a minimum six percent salary increase for administrative
employees recently adopted by the School Board resulted in a net reduction
of $95,518 in expenditure needs. The School Board has allocated the $16,574
shortfall to be absorbed from the salary reductions, leaving $78,944 to be
allocated as follows:
8,000
54,000
!1,000.
73,000
1. Greenwood School Inactivated Maintenance $
2. Purchase of two additional school buses
3. Refinishing 1,500 desks
TOTAL $
$ 5,944
Unallocated remaining balance
($78,944 less $73,000)
The total school budget is therefore requested to be changed as follows:
Original Revised
Request .... Request Difference
Compensation $ 22,585,772 $ 22,451,115 - $ 134,657
Operating 4,174,447 4,193,447 + 19,000
Capital Outlay 400,099 454,099 + 54,000
Debt Service 2,018,342 2,018,342 -0-
TOTAL $ 29,178,660' $ 29,117,003 - $ 61,~'~'~'
- $ 55,713.
School Fund Revenues $ 10,95~,,~? $ 10,896,656
Local Funds Needed $ 19,226,291 $ 18,220,347 - $ 5,944"
!O!
April 11~ 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
~ Mr. Agnor said that $5,944 in a $29 million budget is not very much money, and could be
withheld from the local share or could be left in the school budget as an unallocated amount of
money for other needs which may arise. Mr. Agnor suggested that this amount of money be left
in the school budget for use in a merit pay plan which is to be initiated July 1 of either the
current or the next fiscal year. Funding for this merit plan is partially included in this
school budget (a plan for classified employees and initiation of a plan for administrative
staff of the school system). There is no way of knowing how much money will be needed until
there has been some experience with such a plan. Mr. Agnor recommended that the $5,944 be
considered for this purpose.
Mr. Agnor then noted changes to be made in the advertised budget. As a result of the
General Assembly's action on salaries for state employees, the request by the VPI-SU Extension
Service has been reduced by $860. In addition, due to the General Assembly passing Senate Bill
96,~the request for the Forest Fire Extinction category has been increased from $3,020 to
$9~,06~0. Mr. Agnor said this amount is calculated on the number of acres of forest lands in
Albemarle County and has been assessed by State law at one cent per acre since 1945. This
year, effective July 1, 1984, the assessment will change to three cents per acre. Effective
July 1, 1986, this assessment will increase to five cents per acre.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to make a suggestion for the Board's consideration. He
said he was under the impression when the Board first looked at the School budget, that the
eight percent shown for an increase in salaries of administrative personnel was actually a five
percent cost-of-living increase, and that three percent was an aggregate amount being set aside
for a merit pay system which would be implemented in the near future. He did not understand at
the time that this was a minimum eight percent increase for all school administrative personnel
in lieu of a merit pay system for another year. After the work session with the Board of
Supervisors, the School Board reduced the eight percent increase to six percent, and held back
one percent for an aggregate merit pool. This reflects the fact that not seventy-five percent
of the employees are anticipated to receive a merit, but more like thirty-three percent, and
this seemed to be reasonable. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands the situation differently now,
but still feels that with the exception of instructional personnel, the other school employees
shauld be on an equal basis with the general government employees. Mr. Lindstrom said he is
not opposed to paying administrators more if there is a bonafide merit system in existence, but
he' is opposed to giving a six percent increase, which is one percent higher than that proposed
for general government employees.
Mr. Bowie said he believes that less than one percent is set aside in the general county
budget for the merit program. He asked if Mr. Lindstrom was suggesting that one percent of the
total amount for school administrative personnel salaries be held back to be made available
whenever the School Board has adopted a merit plan to equitably distribute this money. Mr.
~ndStrom said he understands that such a plan would normally go into effect, and merit increase
would be given on the anniversary date of the signing of a contract, but that during the first
year of such a plan, merit increases might have to be made retroactive to the beginning of the
fiscal year. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with that idea, and he would be glad to
assist the School Board in any way possible in establishing this merit pay plan. Mr. Bowie
~greed.
Mr. Agnor commented that for general government employees, there is an allocation of funds
in the Personnel Department's budget for a merit pool. The amount of this allocation is
calculated on experience of the merit plan. At this time, the allocation is eight-tenths of
one percent of the total general government payroll. This amount does not really indicate the
cost of the merit system since department heads often cover merit increases out of funds not
used for regular payroll costs because of changes in personnel in that department during the
fiscal year. Mr. Agnor said this is also a transitional year for the general government merit
plan; this is the first year that the plan has carried a two-step merit increase. Statistics
'dh thi's new plan are beginning to worry Mr. Agnor, who said that yesterday he had talked with
the Director of Personnel, Dr. Carole Hastings, and found that through March, 1984, fifty
percent of the general government employees had received a merit increase; fifty percent of
that number received a two and one-half percent increase, and fifty percent received a five
perc'ent 'increase. A group of department heads have been appointed to examine the merit plan
and Will be making a recommendation to the Board, probably in June, on whether or not the plan
should be modified. Mr. Agnor said that at this time he believes it will have to be modified.
Mr. Agnor continued that there is no way to determine the cost of a merit pool for the adminis-
trative employees of the School Board, and that is why he suggested the $5,944 be left in the
school budget to be used for a merit pay plan when same has been adopted.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not understand until recently that the general government pay
plan was not limited to the amount of the merit pool funds set aside. Mr. Lindstrom said he
would feel better if both the general government and the School Board would set aside a certain
amount .of funds for use as a merit pool, and that would be the only source of merit funds. He
said that this one source would be much easier to check. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested giving
five percent as the salary increase for administrative employees and setting aside some portion
of the three percent for a merit pool which would be available for use if a merit plan is
adopted by the School Board.
Mr. Bowie said he would like to address some other parts of Mr. Agnor's memo. The fiscal
year has not even begun and already there is a prediction of a $16,000+ shortfall in revenues
for the' School budget. Mr. Bowie said he spoke with an education group last night whose only
real concern regarding this school budget concerns school buses. He noted that $11,000 is
proposed to be spent'to refinish desks and he finds it difficult to believe that in the course
of the' normal development of a budget, maintenance for desks is not provided; $!1,000 is one-
half of a school bus. Mr. Bowie said he feels that in January of next year, the School Board
will be coming back to the Board because there is a shortage of funds in some other area. He
would rather see the money held until a more critical, needs list is developed and have the
money-allocated on that basis.
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said that Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion could serve two purposes.
First, it would
maintain equity of salaries with general, government employees; and, second, it would provide a
~nancial incentive for school administrators to design a merit system. Mr. Agnor pointed ~Ut
that without a merit system for school administrators, there is no equity. Mr. Lindstrom sa~d
there is no way there can be equity if an extra one to three percent is added to a base increase
and considered as a minimum. ~_
Dr. Charles Tolbert commented that not having a merit plan in the school system at the
present time has created a problem. He noted that the Director of Personnel has promised the
School Board that there will be a merit pay plan available for implementation beginning the
first of July, 1984. A problem arises in that the first year a merit pay plan is implemented
those for whom the plan is provided would be told what is required in order to achieve merit.
Normally meritorious performance would not be awarded until the end of the year in which t~e
employee was made aware of the requirements for merit. Dr. Tolbert said he is not comfortable
with holding back a percentage of funds to implement the merit pay plan, when it will be near
the end of the next fiscal year before administrators could be made aware of meritorious
performance. Dr. Tolbert said he expects a merit pay plan to be in effect by budget time next
year, so a pay scale for administrators will be included in that budget based on the merit plan
in effect at that date. Dr. Tolbert said there is a difference between nonteaching personnel
in the school system and the general government employees, in that nonteaching personnel have...
for some time been on a psuedo-teaching pay scale. Each time the teacher's salaries were
adjusted, so were the administrators. This year an attempt was made by the School Board to
identify a grade level for each of the administrators in much the same way as grade levels
exist for general government employees. This created a very large increase for some employees
whose pay was too low, and also froze the salary of some other employees. In light of this, he
feels it is reasonable to continue with a flat pay increase with the full intention of having a
merit pay plan, preferably tied to the county's system. Dr. Tolbert stated his personal
preference for a six percent flat increase as opposed to five percent, saying he felt this
should come before the School Board for a vote. Mr. Lindstrom stated he is not convinced that
a six percent flat increase is correct under any circumstances because he feels there is no
basis to distinguish between general government employees and school employees at the administ:r~
rive level.
Dr. Tolbert said he understands the concern regarding a flat pay increase because not
every employee performs equally, however, he does not feel it is fair to differentiate between
employees when the individuals are unaware of the basis on which their pay is differentiated.
While he agrees that a merit pay plan should be instituted, he does not feel it should be
started prior to there being a merit plan in existence. Mr. Lindstrom said he suggested the
merit pool as a way of emphasizing the Board's desire that there be a merit system for admini-'
strators and the Board's wish to establish equity between the different divisions. Dr. ToIber~
said there is a serious morale problem in the system already because of the projected six
percent increase. The School Board, in Dr. Tolbert's opinion, would prefer something closer to
an eight percent increase especially in the case of school principals who, due to the change in
the mode of teacher evaluations, are being asked to increase his/her administrative duties.
Mr. Fisher noted that there has been talk about a merit system for administrators for ove'r
three years. Dr. Tolbert said that is correct, and the School Board has also been asking its
personnel for same. Mr. Fisher suggested that perhaps the school administrators do not want a
merit pay plan. Dr. Tolbert disagreed saying the delay has come about because there were no
people available to work up such a plan. Since organization of the Personnel Department, there
can be a plan drafted for evaluation of teachers. He stated his desire to see county school
administrators on the same pay scale as general government administrators and on the same ~merit
plan and feels this is the intent of the School Board.
Mr. Bowie asked if the School Board could not give a greater percent increase to princi
than to other classes of school administrators; maybe eight percent for principals and four ~-
percent to others. Mr. Agnor replied that this could be done. Mr. Fisher said it only takes
a little courage. Dr. Tolbert commented that not all principals are equally meritorious nor
are all non-principals slightly unmeritorious. Dr. Tolbert said there is no announced met~hod
for making evaluations and the School Board does not feel it is fair to evaluate individuals
who have no awareness of the requirements for merit. Mr. Bowie feels it is imperative that the'
school system obtain a method in the very near future.
Mr. Lindstrom made reference to the negative signals and morale problems Dr. Tolbert
mentioned adding that similar signals could be said to apply to general government employees.
Once again teachers have received a ten percent increase plus a grade step; in addition there
is a different percentage being recommended for administrators while general government emp
are to receive only a flat five percent increase.
Mr. Henley asked if the Board must take action on this budget today. Mr. Fisher said the
Board needs to adopt a resolution approving the operations part of the 1984-85 budget~ and set
appropriation totals so the staff can prepare the Annual Appropriation Ordinance for adoption
at a later date. This action will allow the School Board to proceed with the issuing of
teacher contracts, thus meeting requirements of State Code.
Mr. Henley said he would like to-see the School Board limit the increase for administrators
to five percent, and set aside about eight-tenths of one percent for a merit pool. Mr. Bowie
said he could go along with five percent, plus one percent for the merit pool.
Mr. Henley called attention to the proposed category entitled "Greenwood School Inactivated
Maintenance with a cost of $8,000 to be incorporated into the budget. Mr. Henley said that
until today, he was not aware there would be enough funds available to even close the school.
He still thinks that should the School Board reverse its decision to close Greenwood School,
the Board would find the funds necessary to keep it open. Mr. Henley said by voting for this .~
~budget it does not negate his hope that one day the School Board will reverse its decision.
April 11, 1984 (Regula~ Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said there are not many people who are pleased with the overall redistrictin
plan, and he is concerned about the disruption caused by implementation of the plan. He had
expected that the redistricting of schools would generate a greater savings of funds than has
occurred. However, Mr. Lindstrom said he does not feel the Board of Supervisors has any legal
authority to veto the School Board's decision. Mr. Lindstrom added that there is no way for
him to know the things the School Board knows which brought forth this redistricting decision.
It is out of respect for the people making these decisions that he supports this decision.
Mrs. Cooke said she has been concerned about the closing of Greenwood School but she
cannot support anything that will reopen the redistricting issue for only one magisterial
district because of the implications which would be created. Mrs. Cooke feels the decisions
made on the redistricting issue were the School Board's attempt to speak to the desire of the
Board of Supervisors for a cost-effective school system. Mrs. Cooke said she has great confi-
dence in her appointee to the School Board and feels the School Board is trying to do the job
for which they were appointed.
Mr. Way said he has felt all along that the closing of Greenwood school is a mistake. He
is completely opposed to the closing of community schools because this takes children further
away from home and gives the parents less control over the schools in which their children are
located. He hopes there will be no attempt to close any other community school in the future.
Mr. Way said he recognizes the process that went into this decision, but does disagree with the
conclusions reached by those who made the decision. He recognizes that rightfully it was the
decision of the School Board to make. Mrs. Cooke said that while she too is opposed to the
closing of neighborhood school, she recognizes it is not the responsibility of the Board of
Supervisors nor is it legally within the right of said Board to reverse this decision. Mrs.
Cooke said if the Board is so concerned at this time, it should have gotten in the fight
sooner. Mr. Fisher said he feels that members of the Board of Supervisors do have a right to
express an opinion about the decisions made by the people they appoint. Mr. Bowie said that he
was critical of the whole redistricting project during his campaign for election last year,
however, redistricting has now taken place and there is nothing to be done about this decision
now. He wants it understood that he will not support the closing of neighborhood schools in
the future, cost-effective or not. Mrs. Cooke said the next time the Board sends a signal to
the School Board, it better be sure of the ramifications of that signal. Mr. Fisher suggested
that the closing of Greenwood School could mean that in a few years the School Board will
return with a request for construction of a new school building at Crozet or Brownsville.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion on the Education budget for 1984-85 to adjust
the categories which contain administrative employee salaries to reflect a five percent minimum
increase for administrative employees, and that the Board suggest that the one percent realized
from this reduction be set aside as a merit pool to be employeed during the coming fiscai year
at such time as the School Board shall have adopted a merit pay system for administrative
personnel. Mr. Lindstrom said if the School Board wants to have a six month evaluation of the
plan and then make the plan retroactive based on that evaluation, this is within his sense as
the person making the motion. In addition, the $5,944 realized from the revisions shown in Mr.
Agnor's memo set out at the beginning of these minutes, be part of the money retained for a
merit pool, and the following three items recommended by the School Board be incorporated into
the budget:
1. Greenwood School Inactivated Maintenance
2. Purchase of 2 additional school buses
3. Refinishing 1500 desks
$ 8,000
$54,000
$11r000
TOTAL $73,000
-The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Agnor commented that if the five
p~ent administrative adjustment is accepted by the School Board, this will leave approxi-
mately $47,700 in the budget over and above the $73,000 requested today and over and above the
$5,944 left from the revisions. This is approximately $54,000 in unallocated money. Mr. Agnor
asked if Mr. Lindstrom intended to leave the gross total of the School budget alone. Mr.
Lindstrom said yes. Mrs. Cooke asked if the word "suggestion" is a part of the motion she
seconded. Mr. Lindstrom said yes. 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. Bowie said he would like to make some comments on the Region 10 Community Services
budget. He is concerned with the way the in-kind line was handled and had gone so far as to
prepare a memorandum to be distributed to the Board indicating how an in-kind line can be used
to manipulate financial requests. He discussed this budget with County staff members and some
of the people from Region 10. He is convinced that Region 10 did not attempt to manipulate the
budget. Mr. Bowie said he intends to make his memorandum on how to use the in-kind category to
manipulate a budget available to staff for use in preparing the next budget. Mr. Bowie said he
strongly recommends removal of this item from the budget as it is a very easy way to manipulate
funds.
Mr. Bowie then referred to the category entitled Urban Bus Service. Mr. Bowie said he
thinks the County should provide service where it is needed and at the least expenditure of
funds. He recommended that the staff work with the Charlottesville Transit Service to implemenl
the recommendations posed by Mr. John Carter when this subject was discussed recently. Mr.
Bowie recommended that money be allocated for the Route 29 North Route, and keep the $2,826
requested for the Georgetown/Hydraulic Route in reserve. Mr. Bowie explained that Mr. Carter's
proposal is an expansion of the original 29 North route and will increase revenues and reduce
costs. Mr. Bowie said Mr. Carter's suggestion should be tried to determine its merit since he
understands the route will give better service at less cost, if it works. Mr. Tucker said
that Mr. Carter made this new presentation at the budget public hearing on April 4, 1984. '~
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs. Helen Poore, Director of the Charlottesville Transit Service, indicated the route
proposed by Mr. Carter is longer than the present Greenbriar/Four Seasons route and Charlottes-
ville Transit Service does not feel it can maintain the thirty minute headways which Mr. Carter
~oses could be met. Mr. Carter had also suggested an additional bus, one that would start~
at the north end of the route, loop around the Rio/29 North area and one that would begin
downtown. These buses would pass each other and thus maintain the thirty minutes headways.
However, Mrs. Poore said this proposal would impact the City's route as it presently runs.~
Mr. Tucker said the Charlottesville Transit Service route which would serve the Hydraulic/Fou~'
Seasons area is proposed to also serve portions of the City and the University. Mr. Carter's
proposed route would serve 29 North and just the Hydraulic Road loop area. Mrs. Poore said
that Route #7, the route the Board of Supervisors is currently purchasing, is the one Mr.
Carter is proposing to alter. Currently, this route is 12.6 miles long and is on a very tight~
schedule. At the present time it is necessary to run a third bus every Friday afternoon; Mr.
Carter's proposal would hinder the integrity of the schedule. The current route is intended to
be a trunk route serving all the major generators downtown, the University, the 29 North
corridor, and Barracks Road Shopping Center. Given the congestion in that area, there is no
way to add additional mileage to that route. Mr. Agnor said that he and Mr. Tucker had discuss,
this proposal yesterday and both feel that the staff and Mr. Carter need to discuss the pro]
in more detail. To alleviate all concerns, Mr. Agnor recommended that the $2,826 be placed in
the Board of Supervisors Contingency Fund until the staff has time to sit down with Mr. Carter
and discuss this route in more detail, then come back with a report to the Board.
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to transfer $2,826 from the Urban Bus Service category to
the Board of Supervisors Contingency Fund to allow staff and Mr. Carter time to come up with a
suitable route for the proposed Hydraulic/Rio/Four Seasons loop, at which time these funds can
be reallocated. Mr. Bowie said his main concern is that Mr. Carter's proposal be tracked and
implemented before it is decided that this proposal will not work. The motion was seconded by~
Mr. Lindstrom who suggested that when this proposal is studied that additional service be
considered for the Four Seasons area. Roll was then 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 referred to the category of "Outreach Counseling Service" whose request for
$10,000 was denied based on the staff's recommendation. The staff~ was concerned that
Counseling was requesting funds from the County without providing any correlation between ~he
amount of money requested and the actual numbers of County people who would be served. Mr.
Lindstrom spoke with a gentleman from Outreach Counseling who suggested that the $10,000 be
appropriated as a line of credit from which Outreach could draw $39.00 per hour on a case-by-.
case basis for County residents. Mr. Lindstrom said Outreach Counseling doest appear~r~ to be~a
cost-effective way of dealing with problems which will become more expensive if allowed to
continue. Mr. Lindstrom feels that dealing with the entire family is a more effective way of
dealing with juvenile problems. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered mo~ion to fund Outreach
Counseling at the amount requested ($10,000); that the funds come from the Board of Supervisors
Contingency fUnd with the stipulation that the money be drawn only on a case-by-case basis, as
Outreach Counseling actually serves Albemarle County citizens. Mrs. Cooke said she would
second the motion with the understanding that a definitive report be provided to the Board
before the end of the fiscal year as to the results of this counseling service to Albemarle
County citizens. Mrs. Cooke added she has often been concerned with requests of this kind in
that there is often insufficient documentation of the results of the many services coming
before the Board requesting funds. Mr. Fisher asked how this recommendation differs from the
understanding staff had when it recommended denial of this request. Mr. Tucker said that at
the time the staff recommended denial, information relative to the funding approach based on
the number of people being served in Albemarle County had not been received. It was not
the work session that the correction was made, Roll was then called and the motion carrie~
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were any other budget items to be considered. There being none,
motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year
beginning July 1, 1984, be approved as follows:
General Management and Support
Human Development
Public Safety and Justice
Refunds
Education
Debt Service
Capital Improvements
County/City Revenue Sharing
$ 4,183,171
3,300,854
3,587,008
2,251,010
27,160,318
2,018,342
1,000,000
1~579~753
TOTAL
$45,080,456
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County School Board has
permission to issue contracts to personnel in advance of the 1984-85
school year.
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.
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
!05
Agenda Item No. 20.
Pay)..
Discussion:
Section 15-3 of the Code of Albemarle (Equalization of
Mr. Fisher referred to the memorandum dated March 26, 1984 from the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors outlining the above ordinance (information requested by the Chairman at an earlier
meeting), its subsequent amendments and current status relative to payments received by ~
serving on boards and commissions. Mr. Agnor said he, Bob Tucker and Ray Jones have discussed
this ordinance and plan to summarize the meeting schedules of the various board and commissio~
whether members are being paid, the average length of each meeting, and the frequency of
meetings. This report is not ready at the present time, but will be available soon. Mr.
Fisher said he would like to consider the report before the end of the fiscal year.
Agenda Item No. 21. Discussion: Water Service for the Village of Earlysville.
referred to his memorandum dated April 4, 1984 as follows:
Mr. Bowie
"During the past several months, I have received complaints and/or inquiries
from citizens in Earlysville, concerning the water situation there.
Particularly in Earlysville Heights, some residents state that they experience
low well pressure in the summer months which diminshes their quality of life
and causes concern about fire protection.
The Comprehensive Plan designates Earlysville as a growth area, calling for
both residential and commercial development. Concern for adequate water for
both quality of life and fire protection has been expressed by the Earlysville
Volunteer Fire Department, parents at Broadus Wood School, business persons
presently there or considering moving there, and residents. The possibility
of providing water service to Eariysville has been discussed by the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, Albemarle County Service Authority and various
members of the Board of Supervisors for about ten years, but as of this date
we have neither a cost estimate or engineering feasibility study for extending
the waterline.
I have been assured by the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority that they can provide these studies with present staff and without
cost to the County. Their Board meets next on April 19, 1984, and would take
action on a request at that time.
I therefore request that this item be placed on the agenda for the April 11,
1984 day meeting, and that the Albemarle County Service Authority be requested
to provide the Board of Supervisors with a cost estimate and engineering
feasibility study for the extension of the waterline to Earlysville."
Mr. Bowie then offered motion to request the Albemarle County Service Authority to provide
the Board of Supervisors with a cost estimate and engineering feasibility study for the exten-
sion of a waterline to Earlysville. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Fisher asked
if the idea of obtaining a cost estimate is to determine how much it would cost the county to
put in the waterline or to determine the cost to the developers in Earlysville. Mr. BOwie said
a cost estimate is necessary before any method of funding can be determined. Mr. Fisher said
that before he supports this request it must be made.clear to the Service Authority that the
Board of Supervisors is in no way commiting itself to pay for extension of any waterline. Mr.
Bowie assured Mr. Fisher that the Service Authority is well aware of this fact. Mr. Fisher
then asked if the Service Authority is aware of just what area is defined as Earlysville. Mr.
Bowie clarified that the area in question is Earlysville as shown in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Fisher said he has no objection to asking the Service Authority to provide this information
though he does not want to commit the Board to pay for anything, nor is he sure he wants to
make the changes necessary to ex~end water service to this area. Mr. Lindstrom expressed
concern regarding extending water service to Earlysville speculating about the potential for
linear development along such a waterline. He cannot see the wisdom of studying something he
would no~ be willing to do regardless of the cost. At this time, roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, and Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 22. Reaffirm employment of Price Waterhouse as auditors for FY 1984.
nor referred to his memorandum dated April 5, 1984, as follows:
"Attached to this memorandum is a copy of the contract with Price Waterhouse
to audit the accounts of the County for FY 82-83. This contract provides
for extension of the contract for two additional fiscal years upon official
notice by the County and favorable prior year's service. The contract also
provides for a maximum fee increase of eight percent over the initial maximum
fee of $25,000. That increase has been provided for in the Board's FY 84-85
budget.
It is recommended that the extension for one year to audit the accounts for
FY 83-84 be approved, and that the Board's Audit Committee schedule a
conference with the auditors prior to their commencing work, to discuss any
matters which the. Board desires to be considered in the audit."
Mr.
Motion. was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded, by Mr. Bowie, to employ the auditing firm of
Price Waterhouse for FY 83-84, extending the contract dated July 15, 1983 for an additional~.~;.
fiscal year. 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.
Agenda Item No. 23. Request re: Youth Commission.
Mr. Fisher noted' that since the Board has finalized the 1984-85 County budget and did:.not
fund the Youth Service Center for the next fiscal year, the request from Ms. Amy Melville,
Director of the Youth Service Center, asking the Board of Supervisors to adopt a revised
resolution increasing the membership of the YouCh Commission is considered to be moot.
Agenda Item No. 24(a).
position.
Appointment: Question about advertising at-large School Board
Mr. Fisher noted that the term of the members serving at-large on the School Board will
expire June 30, 1984. Since appointing a new member may take considerable time, Mr. Fisher
asked if the Board wished to advertise this opening with a May 1 or May 10 deadline in order to
begin interviews for an. appointment in June. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded
by Mr. Way, to this effect. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to appoint Mr. Thomas A. Allison as
a member of the Equalization Board for the calendar year 1984. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to concur with City Council
and reappoint Mrs. Treva ~om~wetl as Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; said
term to expire on May 1, 1985. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorde¢
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mrs. Vera A.
Carver to serve as a member of the Beautification Committee. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to reappoint Mr. James R.
Butler to the Employment Research Committee. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to reappoint Mr. James M.
Heilman to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, said term to expire on March 30, 1986. 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.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Way, to reappoint Mr. James M.
Heilman as the County representative to the Health Systems Agency. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Mr. Fisher referred to the Library Board of Directors and the letter from Mrs. Margaret
Melcher expressing her desire to resign from this Board. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Bowie to look
for an individual from his district for appointment to the position being vacated by Mrs.
Melcher. Mr. Bowie said he would be happy to do so.
April 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked about the 314 Committee. Mr. Agnor explained that the 314 Committee is
part of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Agnor said that in December a letter was
received asking that a member be appointed to a committee conducting non-point source water
pollution control programs in the Mechum River sub-basin; this is being administered by the
Soil Conservation Service and the Albemarle County Service Authority. This committee is
comprised of a citizen representative from the County, one from the City, one appointed by the
Albemarle County Service Authority, one by the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation
District, and one person named by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. This committee has
already been formed and held a meeting; a county representative is needed. Mr. Fisher asked
Mr. Henley to find someone from his district to serve on this committee.
Mr. Fisher noted that Mrs. Karen Hayden's term as a member of the Library Board expires on
June 30, 1984 and she has sent a letter stating that she no longer wishes to serve.
Mrs. Cooke referred to the Transportation Safety Committee commenting that Mr. Edward Lang
has not attended a meeting for over one year, and has not responded to any attempt at contact.
Mrs. Cooke said another member is needed as soon as possible and she requested that Mr. Lang be
contacted informing him of the Board's appreciation for his past service.
Agenda Item No. 24.1. Resolution - Clean Community Commission. Mr. Agnor explained that
before the State will accept applications for Litter Control funds, a resoiuti6n for a co-
operative program must be adopted. Charlottesville and Albemarle participate in this coopera-
tive program. Motion was then offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the follow-
ing resolution:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
recognizes the existence of a litter problem within the boundaries of
Albemarle County; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Litter Control Act of 1976 provides, through
the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of
Litter Control, for the allocation of public funds in the form of Grants
for the purpose of enhancing local litter control programs; and
WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulations and the
Application covering administration and use of said funds;
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia:
Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of
Charlottesville in a mutually agreed upon and Cooperative Program,
contingent upon approval of the Application by the Department of
Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, and
contingent upon receipt of funds; and
Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
CommissiOn (CAC3) to plan and budget for a cooperative litter control
program, which shall represent said Program for all localities named in
this resolution; and
Further authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community
Commission to apply on behalf of all of the above named localities for a
Grant, and to be responsible for the administration, implementation, and
completion of the Program as it is described in the attached Application
Form LC-G-i; and
Further accepts responsibility jointly with the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Clean Community Commission and the City of Charlottesville for
all phases of the Program; and
Further accepts liability for its pro rata share of any funds not
properly used or accounted for pursuant to the Regulations and the
Application; and
That said funds, when received, will be transferred immediately to
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission or if coordinated
by the Planning District Commission, said funds will be sent directly to
the Planning District Commission by the Department. Ail funds will be used
in the Cooperative Program to which we give our endorsement and support.
Hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Development,
Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve the Application and
Program, said Program being in accordance with Regulations governing use and
expenditure of said funds'. ' ·
Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the folloWing recorded vote:
~YES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, LindStrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
April. 11, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 24.2. Resolution of Appreciation. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution reflecting appreciation of Judge
David F. Berry's years of service upon his coming retirement:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that;
WHEREAS, the Honorable David F. Berry has served with distinction
as Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of the Commonwealth of Virginia
which Circuit includes Albemarle County from Nineteen Hundred and Seventy
to Nineteen Hundred and Eighty-Four;
NOW, THEREFORE, upon his retirement from the Bench, this Board, on
behalf of the citizens of Albemarle County, hereby extend to Judge Berry
our sincere appreciation for his past service to this County and its citizens
and our best wishes ~o him for the future.
Roll. was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None.
Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Mr. Bowie called attention to the problem of drUnk drivers noting that the Albemarle
County Sheriff's Department, using probable cause and observation, arrested 47 individuals for
driving under the influence of alcohol during the first two months of the 1984 calendar year.
Mr. Bowie wanted it recognized that good police work is very effective. Mrs. Cooke commented
that any measures taken to combat drunk driving are positive measures.
Mr. Lindstrom broached the subject of trash and litter along the highways, a large percent~
of which seems to be created by trucks carrying trash to the landfill in violation of a county
ordinance which demands that trash be covered during transport. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that
the Board as individual members, set aside one afternoon to pick up trash along the highways
thus focusing attention to the problem. Mr. Lindstrom hopes this will set an example and
stimulate participation by volunteer groups. Mr. Bowie agreed that much of the problem is
created by the uncovered vehicles transporting trash. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to
request the Sheriff to post a deputy at the Ivy landfill for two weeks, and have that.deputy
cite anyone coming to the landfill with an uncovered truck, and in addition, that all deputies
cite vehicles spotted along the highways without a proper cover during transit. The motion was
seconded by Mro Bowie. 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.
Mr. Lindstrom further suggested 1that Mr. Agnor contact Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of the
Department of Parks and Recreation, in an attempt to coordinate a program using volunteers from
various agencies to remove trash from along the highways.
Mr. Agnor said a refund check has been received from the Thomas Jefferson Health Departmen~
on Rose Hill Drive in the amount of $18,725 for FY 82-83. This is approximately $5,000 more
than last year's refund. Mr. Agnor said this refund is normally accompanied by a request for
use of a portion of the funds, but this year the refundarrived without such a request.
Mr. Agnor informed the Board that tomorrow,A~il 12, 1984, a Health and Fitness Day is
being held for employees in the Albemarle County Office Building. Mr. Agnor explained that .a
health risk questionnaire was given to participating employees earlier, and tomorrow, these
employees will learn the results of this health evaluation. Along with the results, employees
will be given a report to aid him/her in achieving and maintaining good health.
Agenda Item No. 26. Adjourn. At 4:10 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded
by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn to Wednesday, April 18, 1984, at 4:00 P.M. in Meeting Room 12 (Phase
II - County Office Building) for a joint meeting with the School Board. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
iAYS:
Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way.'
None.
~e
CHAIRMAN