1983-03-16 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia., was
held on March 16, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room' 7, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PreSent: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:37 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-83-5. David Lee or Mary Jean Spradlin. Request to amend
condition #9 of SP-77-83 to allow office trailer. Located on northwest side of Rt. 620,
3/4~ mile north of intersection of Routes 620 and 728 on 5..514 acres zoned RA Rural
Areas. ~County Tax Map 104, Parcel 14Fl. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 2 and March 9, 1983.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, was present and said request has been
received from the applicant dated March 8, 1983 for deferral of this petition to April.
The Planning Commission at its mee~ing on March 8, 1983 took action to defer this petition
to April 5, 1983. Therefore, Mr. Tucker .recommended the Board defer SP-83-5 to April
20, 1983. Motion to this effect was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS.:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-83-1. Innovation Chemical, Inc. Request to rezone 2.320
acres currently zoned LI Light Industrial to HI Heavy Industrial with proffer. Located
off Franklin Street in portion of existing Cardinal Recycling Center. County Tax Map
77, Parcel 40E. Scottsville District. (AdvertiSed in the Daily Progress on March 2 and
March 9, '1983.)
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-83-2. Innovation Chemical, Inc. Request to locate chemical
mixing and distribution operations on 2.320 acres currently zoned LI Light Industrial,
requested to be rezoned HI Heavy Industrial. Located off Franklin Street in portion of
existing Cardinal Recycling Center. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 40E. Scottsville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2 and March 9, 1983~.)
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 8, 19832accepted
withdrawal of these two petitions as requested by the applicant in letter dated March 7,
1983. Mr. Tucker said no action is necesssary by the Board since the Planning Commission
has-accepted the withdrawal.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-83~3. Harry D. Campbell. Request to locate mobile home on
101.61 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located west side of Route 712, ~=1 1/2+ miles south
of intersection of Routes 712 and 29 South. County'Tax Map 99, Parcel 50. Samuel
Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2 and March 9, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report:
"Request: Mobile home (5.6.2)
Aqreage_.:_ 101.61 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
L0Ca~'i~: Property, described as Tax Map 99, Parcel 50, is located
on the west side of Route 712, about one-quarter mile north of the
Southern Railroad and behind Augusta Lumber Company·
Character of the Area: Two sawmills exist in the immediate area. Due
to topography, staff does not anticipate the mobile home would be
visible from the public road or dwellings in the area.
Staff Comment: In 1978, the applicant obtained special use permit
.... approval to locate a sawmill operation on Parcels 49 and 50. SP-82-9
was recently approved for expansion of a sawmill operation for
Augusta Lumber Company on Parcel-49A. Staff understanding is that
the applicant is seeking this special use permit for an employee.
Staff is concerned about any residential use at this location for
the following reasons:
A side of the Augusta Lumber milling plant, which is open
during warmer months, is oriented toward the proposed site.
Noise generation is substantial;
Access would be over a 22-foot easement, which runs along
the northern edge of ~the Augusta Lumber property, through
areas of lumber storage, truck parking, gasoline pumps,
and the like;
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Location 150 feet from the Augusta Lumber Company site would
substantially reduce Augusta's area available for expansion
unless waivers of certain zoning regulations Were obtained.
Should the Commission and Board choose to look favorably on this
petition, staff would suggest that the applicant consider alternate'
locations on the 190+ acres (Parcels 49 and 50), so that the mobile
home woul'd: not inte--rfere with current or future operations of
either sawmill; have better access; not be visible from the public
road or dwellings in the area. Also, any approval should be conditioned
upon compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance."
Mr. Tucker said in regard to the second concern of the staff, lumber and other
materials are stored at the present time along the 22-foot easement and the staff
understands that this storage does provide a good buffer from the lumber milling operation
to the one residence. If the special permit is approved and the access is used, the
lumber and other materials will have to be moved. In regard to the third concern of
the staff, the Zoning Ordinance has supplementary regulations for sawmills stating that
a sawmill cannot be located within 600 feet of the nearest residence. Therefore, if
this request is approved, Augusta Lumber Company would be prohibited from any expansion.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 8, 1983, by a vote
of 4 to 3, recommended approval of SP-83-3 with the following two conditions: 1. Compliance
with Section 5.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; 2. Mobile home to be located
approximately 500 feet from Augusta Lumber Company.
Mr. Fisher asked if "located" approximately 500 feet from Augusta Lumber Company
meant "located" from the property line. Mr. Tucker said that was the intent. Mr.
Fisher said that would mean that an additional 100 feet on the sawmill side of the
property line could not be used for sawmill operations. Mr. Tucker said that was correct;
there would still be a 100 foot buffer around the existing sawmill. Mr. Fisher asked if
there was any other access anywhere to this parcel of property. Mr. Tucker explained
that Parcel 50 is the one that the mobile home is proposed to be located on and the
applicant also owns Parcel 49~. As indicated in the staff report, the applicant presently
has a sawmill on parcel 49 and there is a road shown on the tax map-as access into the
sawmill. Both parcels are good size tracts of land and there are good natural areas
that could be screened, etc., for a mobile home on either tract. One prohibiting factor
to access on parcel 49 is a stream which would have to be crossed.
The public hearing was then opened. The applicant, Mr. Harry D. Campbell, was
present and said he has a 22-foot deeded right-of-way that is not to be blocked at any
time. Locating the mobile home 500 feet back from the property line will put the trailer
approximately 900 to 1000 feet away from the sawmill. Mr. Fisher asked the purpose of
the mobile home. Mr. Campbell said someone living in the mobile home on this property
will serve as security for his property because last fall he had some problems with
trespassers.
Mr. Lindstrom said since Mr. Campbell is a client of his firm, he would abstain and
he left the room at this time.
Mr. Samuel Henderson, property owner on the north side of Parcel 49A, was present
and said his objection to the special use permit is the additional traffic involved and
more dust than what is presently experienced from the road. He noted that the addition
of a driveway there will cause erosion and a fence along his property line will have to
be removed. Mr. Henderson said the applicant has stated that the purpose of the mobile
home is to guard his sawmill and he felt the mobile home could be placed behind the
applicant's sawmill instead of the proposed location since there are existing driveways'
back there. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Henderson's house was the one closest to the right-
of-way on the north side and how far his house was from the property line. Mr. Henderson
said yes and it is fifty to sixty feet. Mr. Fisher asked if there is already a developed
roadbed on this 22-foot right-of-way. Mr. Henderson said the right-of-way is through
Augusta Lumber Company property where lumber is now stacked. Mr. Fisher asked if the
lumber and other materials were removed, if the roadway would have to be graded in order
to be used by vehicles. Mr. Henderson said if the lumber were moved a vehicle could be
driven over the roadway but there is no definite roadbed.
Next to speak was Mr. Earl Leake, representing the Millers, owners of parcel 41
which adjoins this subject property. Mr. Leake said the Millers' do not object to the
request.
Speaking next was Mr. Campbell who noted that the right-of-way was deeded in 1947
and was used often but is now blocked. He noted that half the length of the roadway is
asphalt and the rest is graveled. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if he knew anything about
the roadway. Mr. Tucker said the problem is that lumber and other materials are stacked
along the right-of-way and he did not have any knowledge as to whether the roadway is
gravel and asphalt.
With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Fisher said this land lies in the Samuel Miller District and he had requested,
by memo dated February 23, 1983, to the Zoning Administrator, that this petition go
through the public hearing process due to some concerns he had received from neighbors
in the subject area. He ~ersonally feels there have been enough concerns raised which
have not been answered and the Board should either deny the petition or defer action and
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
take a further look into the situation before a decision is made. He felt the home of
the Hendersons which is on adjacent property, will be significantly impacted if this
roadway should become a thoroughfare used everyday. He also was not certain about the
legal status of the right-of-way. Mr. Fisher felt if the applicant wants a mobile home
in this area, he has another parcel of land with frontage directly on a state highway
and it is a large parcel with a roadway all the way through same. Therefore, the applicant
does have another option on where to put the mobile home. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher
felt the special permit should be denied since other options for locating the mobile
home are available to the applicant.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to deny SP-83-3. Mr.
Henley did not feel that denial of this request could deny the applicant use of the
right-of-way but he agreed that there are other options. Mr. Henley said he has been
lenient with mobile homes in the past and could support this petition if a stronger need
was evident. Miss Nash said she seconded the motion because when the Augusta Lumber
Company petition was approved, the Board required that the lumber be placed back from
the road. Mr. Tucker said the material and lumber have been on this road for some time
and the concern of the Board about the Augusta Lumber Company petition was not having
the lumber and other materials along Route 712.
Mr. Butler said he was concerned about the legal ramifications since the applicant
has an established right-of-way and questioned whether the Board can deny the applicant
use of same. Mrs. Cooke said the motion does not deny the use of the right-of-way. Mr.
Fisher said the issue here is that there are other alternatives for location of the
mobile home where access would be from the state road and, location would not be as
disruptive to either of the property owners most affected by the use of the right-Of-way.
Mr. St. John said if there was a request for a building permit to build a house, the
building official could not deny the building permit just because of the right-of-way.
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion to deny SP-83-3 and same carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Messrs. Butler and Lindstrom.
(Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at this time.)
Agenda Item No. 6. SP-83-6. Mitchell O. Carr. Request to locate a mobile home on
1358.154 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Located at intersection of Routes 712 and 719 near
Alberene. County Tax Map 111, Parcel 8V. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on March 2 and March 9, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker said he received a call from Mr. Howard Carr, the applicant, this morning,
requesting withdrawal of SP-83-6. He informed Mr. Carr that a letter would have to be
sent in order to make the withdrawal request official, but he would deliver the message
to the Board. Mr. Carr is out of town and cannot be present this evening but indicated
that a letter stating request for withdrawal would be sent by tomorrow. Mr. Fisher said
normally unless a written request is received several days in advance of the public
hearing in order to notify persons of the request, the public hearing is conducted. Mr.
Fisher said if a written withdrawal is not received, then he felt action should be taken
to readvertise the petition. He then asked if anyone was present to speak for or against
this petition. No one was present. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded
by Miss Nash, to accept the applicant's verbal withdrawal of SP-83-6 on the condition
that the request is received in writing and if not, then the public hearing be readvertised.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
(NOTE: Letter of withdrawal was received by the Clerk of the Board on March 17,
1983, from the applicant, Mr. Howard Carr; said letter on file in the Clerk of the
Board's office.)
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: Request to abandon Route T1306 in the Town of
Scottsville. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March t and March 8, 1983.)
Mr. Fisher said this request to abandon Route T1306 from its intersection with
Route T1304 to the intersection of Route T1307 in the Town of Scottsville as a public
road was presented to the Board at its meeting on February 9, 1983. The abandonment is
being sought by the Town of Scottsville as part of the Town's flood control levee project.
The public hearing was opened. Mayor Raymon Thacker of the Town of Scottsville was
present and restated the request. He noted regret at having to close this section of
road because in the Town's original plans for the levee, the intent was to go under the
James River Bridge in order to keep this section of roadway open and to have a roadbed
on top of the levee to carry some traffic away from the Main Street of Scottsvitle.
Mayor Thacker said the Highway Department had expressed interest in the plan, in particular,
carrying the road over the levee. However, due to circumstances beyond the control of
the Town Council and due to the fact that the Highway Department did not have the funds
for the road, that idea was eliminated. Therefore, this abandonment is being requested.
The section to be abandoned is short and would make a turnaround that could perhaps be
used at some future time. Mayor Thacker said the levee itself must tie into the abutment
of the James River Bridge. Therefore, Route T1306 (Tobacco Street) must be abandoned.
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mayor Thacker noted pleasure that the levee work began this morning and he also noted
that in addition tm the $1.5 million received from the Federal Government, information
has also been received that the necessary funds for the completion of Phase II of the
levee have been granted. In conclusion, Mayor Thacker stated that he hoped the Board
would approve this proposed abandonment. Mr. Fisher asked who owns the property along
the roadway. Mayor Thacker said the Town has just recently received title to the property
from the C & 0 Railway. He then explained that this section was obtained by the C & O
Railway from the old canal business.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said letter dated
March 15, 1983, was delivered today to the Clerk's office regarding the Highway Department's
position on this request (Copy on file in Clerk's Office). He summarized the letter and
stated that the Highway Department is not opposed to the abandonment of Route T1306 and
understands the reason the Town is requesting this abandonment. However, the Board
should know that Route T1306 is part of a road system that connects one side of Route 20
to the other side of Route 20 and is really made up of three routes, T1304, T1306 and
T1307. When T1306 is eliminated, T1304 and T1307 will become dead-end roads. Mr.
Roosevelt said that in one case Route 1304 (Harrison Street) serves vacant property
belonging to the Town and in the other case, the dead-end Route 1307 (Lumber Street)
will serve some parking lots that are in back of the buildings facing Route 6. In the
case of Route T1304 which serves vacant property, he did not feel that a turnaround is
really necessary at this time. However, if the property develops in the future, a
turnaround will be needed and the cost of a turnaround shoul'd be borne by someone other
than the Highway Department. As for Route T1307 which now serves the parking lots for
the buildings facing Route 6, he felt there is a definite need for a turnaround now, and
he recommended that the turnaround be built at the dead end of Route T1307. He emphasized
that this is the Highway Department's recommendation, but the Board can take action to
abandon this section without action on the turnaround and he did not feel that the
Department would oppose that action. However, he did want the Board to realize that at
some future time Secondary Highway Funds may be needed to construct this turnaround.
Mayor Thacker said the Town agrees to build the turnaround at the end of Harrison
Street. South Street (Route 1308) which meets Lumber Street will not be disposed of and
there is a ten foot alley which goes straight back to Route 6 and a cul-de-sac will not
be needed. He said that coming down Lumber Street from Route 6, there is a ten foot
alley which will remain open back toward Route 6. The alley is not a part of the Highway
System but there will be an opening all the way around and a turnaround will not be
needed. Mayor Thacker said when the plans were being made by the engineering firm, the
Town Council knew that eventually Harrison Street would have to be closed at the lower
end. The request was for a turnaround at the lower end where it would dead end. Mr.
Fisher said it is the Highway Department's position that a turnaround is needed at the
end of Lumber Street and it should be large enough to turn around snow plows, school
buses, etc. Mr. Fisher then asked the diameter of such a turnaround. Mr. Roosevelt
said ninety feet is a normal size cul-de-sac. Mayor Thacker then renoted that there is
an alley which could handle the traffic the same as a cul-de-sac. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.
Roosevelt if he felt the alley eliminated the need for a cul~de~s, ac. Mr. Roosevelt said
the alley is not maintained by the State Highway Department and he was not aware of the
Town of Scottsville having a street maintenance system. Therefore, he did not feel the
alley could be substituted for a cul-de-sac and he did not feel State highway trucks or
school~ buses should be expected to use this alley to get back onto Route 6. He felt
that access through the alley would probably be cut off if continuously used in this
manner. In conclusion, Mr. Roosevelt felt that the cul-de-sac is needed at the end of
Lumber Street, not Harrison Street as agreed to by the Town of Scottsville.
Mayor Thacker said the culade~ac~am~d~t be located at the end of Lumber Street
because that is the area where the pumping station and the holding pond are to be built.
Mr. Harold Pillar said he has lived in Scottsville ten years and there is only one
bus stop in Scottsville; that is in front of Bruce's Drug Store on Main Street. He
said there is no reason for a State truck to even go down this roadway. In conclusion,
Mr. Pillar supported the proposed abandonment.
With no one else present to speak for or against the proposed abandonment, the
public hearing was closed.
Miss Nash said she would like some more information on this request and said that
perhaps Mayor Thacker and Mr. Roosevelt could meet to determine where the pumping stations
are to be located and the real necessity for this abandonment. Mr. Lindstrom agreed.
Miss Nash then asked if immediate action is necessary. Mayor Thacker said yes since the
construction on the levee began today. Mr. Fisher said if time is of importance, then
perhaps the two men should get together immediately. Since the Board does not plan to
meet again until April 6, he invited them to attempt resolving the problem this night
with action deferred until later in the meeting. Both accepted and left the room.
(This item will be concluded later in the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Proposal to change polling place for Scotts~i!le
Precinct. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2 and March 9, 1983.)
Mr. Fisher said this public hearing was requested by Miss Nash on the question of
changing the Scottsville Precinct polling place from the Scottsville Town Hall to the-
new Scottsville Elementary School; said change was requested by the Electoral Board and
no public hearing is required by the Code on any such change.
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Burns, Chairman of the Electoral Board,
was present. He said as stated at the February 9, 1983, meeting, the Electoral Board
feels strongly from hearing the complaints of election officials working in the Scottsville
Town Hall that the facility is not adequate. The facility has no parking, bad lighting,
the restrooms are on the second floor, and the election officials have to eat in the
work area. Mr. Burns said Section 24-317 of the Virginia Code clearly states that the
governing body of the County shall provide a polling place and he felt it incumbent upon
the Electoral Board to find a suitable location and present the request to the Board.
The Scottsville District contains 3,075 voters, the Scottsville Precinct has 699 voters
and the Town of Scottsville has eighty registered voters. At the last Town election,
only 40 people voted, and it was the opinion of the Electoral Board that forty people
should not tell 699 people where to vote.
Mayor Raymon Thacker spoke next and noted a resolution adopted by the Town Council
which has been presented to the Board (Copy of the resolution is on file in the Clerk's
Office). The resolution stated that the proposed polling place change would be confusing
to the voters in the Town since those voting in County, State and National elections
would use one location, and those voting in the town elections would vote at a different
location. The Town also feels that elections would disturb activities at the school.
Therefore, the Town is opposed to the polling place change. Mayor Thacker said this
subject has been discussed a number of times and the persons complaining are never
satisifed. This facility is on ground level and is easy to get into. As for having no
parking, that is no problem because he would be happy to mark off two blocks for such
purpose on Election Day but he has not been requested to do that. Mayor Thacker said a
great number of people walk to the polls at this location and if the polling place is
moved two miles out of town, citizens will not vote. Mayor Thacker said the majority of
people voting in the Scottsville Precinct are from the area right around the Town limits.
The building has better lighting now, heating is in good shape, and there is nothing to
do about the concrete floor. In conclusion, Mayor Thacker felt this facility is the
best location for the polling place. The Mayor also noted that if the Board so desires,
he would ask for a deferral of thirty days and pack this room with persons opposed to
the move.
Speaking next was Mr. Harold Pillar who stated support of the proposed polling
place change because the School is closer to the population center of the Scottsville
Precinct. He did not feel there was any problem with having voting in the school because
for the last three or four years the schools have been closed on election days. As for
specifics, there is no parking available at the town hall and the heating fan is noisy.
For these reasons, Mr. Pillar felt the Board should support the requested polling plaoe
change. He also noted that there is overwhelming support of this request.
With no one else present to speak for or against this proposal, the public hearing
was closed.
Miss Nash said there seems to be a difference of opinion on this proposal. Even
though Mayor Thacker is the only one present opposing this move, she was aware of other
persons opposed to the move. On the other hand Mr. Pillar's comments were very specific
about why the change should be approved. She then offered motion to establish a committee
to investigate making this change. Mr. Fisher asked what sort of timetable is being
dealt with if there is to be a change before the elections in the fall. Mrs. Mary Lou
Matthews, Registrar, was present and said the Justice Department has sixty days to act
on changes submitted. After the Electoral Board receives approval from the Justice
Department the County is obliged to advertise the change twice and notify all the registered
voters involved by mail. Therefore, Mrs. Matthews said the latest that action should
be taken is by the end of April. Miss Nash felt the Committee would have enough time to
Work on this and was not concerned if the change was made by the Fall elections. Miss
Nash then included in her motion that the Committee report back to the Board by June l,
1983, and said she would submit the names for the committee at a later date. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, HenleY, Lindstr0m and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Amend Industrial Development Authority Ordinance re: Financing
certain shopping or service facilities and increase number of bond issuances. (This
ordinance amendment was deferred from the March 9, 1983, meeting in order that the
concepts and responses presented during the March 9 public hearing could be given more
thought.)
Mr. Lindstrom said he has given this matter a great deal of thought during the last
week. Regardless of how he votes, the decision tonight could possibly set a new course
in terms of the Board's approach to issuance of industrial development bonds and could
touch on some of the Board's past policy matters. Since it was mentioned at the public
hearing, he personally, was not making a decision based on anyone's personality or
personal feelings about any individual. Even after considerable thought, Mr. Lindstrom
said he cannot support the request. Even though there were excellent arguments made, he
has come to a couple of conclusions. The use of industrial revenue bonds constitutes an
increasing distortion of the money market. He is not convinced that the amount of
people looking for tax free bonds to invest in are unlimited in number and he feels that
these bonds are in competition with bonds that municipal governments issue to provide
facilities for their own programs. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not convinced that the
"Laffer curve" which has been alluded to reallY works. He does feel that these bonds
really constitute a public subsidy and ultimately reduce the amount of revenue coming
into the general treasury. He feels that everyone paying taXes actually subsidizes
these bonds and for that reason he feels there needs to be some unique public benefit
derived by the County from the issuance of these bonds. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Me~ting)
see anything in the proposed project that distinguishes it from any other enterprise
which might come into the County in terms of public benefit. Mr. Lindstrom said a
fundamental aspect of his concern is that he has resisted the argument that government
should be involved in encouraging and stimulating growth and development in order to
expand the tax base. He feels that this kind of activity is best done untrammeled by
government in this community where there is a low rate of unemployment. He believes
that any significant stimulation of development in this area will necessitate an expansion
of that employment pool by bringing more people into the County. During his term on the
Board, all the major problems have been those arising out of the rapid growth of the
County. He does not feel it is the business of this government to discourage or encourage
growth. Since he does feel that these industrial bonds will encourage growth eventually,
he cannot support the proposal. The issuance of these particular bonds and the amendment
to the ordinance will set a precedent which he feels will inevitably put the County
under pressure to use these bonds to stimulate growth and to diversify the economy in
such a way that it would be more susceptible to fluctations in the national economy.
Therefore, he felt this would ultimately be to the detriment of the people who live in
the County; that has been shown in the rate of lay-offs in the County during the last
month. Mr. Lindstrom said based on all the aforementioned concerns he cannot support
the request. Philosophically he recognizes the strength of the arguments the applicants
have made, but the arguments are still not at the heart of matters about which he is
concerned. With all due respect to the applicants and those present on behalf of the
applicants, he could not support the ordinance amendment.
Mr. Henley said amending the ordinance to add shopping and service facilities to
be eligible for industrial revenue bonds does open the door for approvals of this type
and he did not want to be obligated to approve all such requests. However, he does
support this request because of the location, but would not have supported the request
had the project been on Route 29 North because there are plenty of shopping facilities
already there. He then asked if the ordinance is amended, if the BOard will have the
option of denying future requests. Mr. St. John said the ordinance includes a provision
that shopping facilities must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Also, State
statute allows the local governing body to limit the number and type of enterprises
funded in this manner. In other words, as the law now stands, the Board can almost be
completely arbitrary in its decisions. Mr. St. John said he did not feel the Board
would be setting a carte blanche precedent if this proposal is approved.
Mr. Henley said he will support the amendment to the ordinance and the project also
because the project is in a good location, local people are involved, and he feels the
project is good for the entire County. Even though he had some reservations about this
type of financing as Mr. Lindstrom as stated, he did not know if voting against this
project will help turn the tide around, and he felt the County should take advantage of
this opportunity. Mr. Henley then offered motion to adopt an ordinance to amend and
reenact Sections 2-49 and 2-52 of the Albemarle County Code entitled Industrial Development
Authority the amended sections relating to the type and number of facilities may be
financed by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County. Mrs. Cooke seconded
the motion and stated her reasons for supporting the ordinance amendment. The area of
the County involved is growing very rapidly residentially and the people in the area do
not have the opportunity for more convenient shopping as some other areas of the County
do. She also felt that people establish shopping patterns in accordance to where they
live and work. At this time, the only convenient shopping that the people in that area
have is across the river in the City. The County needs the revenue and this project
will not only afford a convenience to the area residents but will also provide necessary
jobs for the people of that skilled labor. She felt the Board would be doing an injustice
not only to the residents in the area, but to the people who need those jobs, as well as
to the County in general if this opportunity for revenue is denied. For that reason,
plus many others, Mrs. Cooke said she supports this motion and the project itself.
Mr. Butler said this proposed shopping center is in his district and for some time
he has been concerned for the people who live on this side of the County particularly
for the lack of shopping facilities in close proximity to the area. This project is in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and local people are involved. He felt the
County should support local business people instead of always catering to outside
persons. Mr. Butler felt this atmosphere of working together to build a good community
is needed and for those reasons, he supported the amendment and the project.
Miss Nash said as stated at the March 9, 1983 meeting, she supports this project
and none of the arguments made against this proposal have really disturbed her at all.
As for the concern about the precedent that may be established, this facility is definitely
shown in the comprehensive plan in an area designated for growth and she did not see any
reason not to have commercial development. This shopping center will not only serve the
Keswick and Stony Point areas, but also the Shadwell and Milton areas. In addition,
employment is being offered. She did not feel the government will loose money because
of these bonds, but rather gain more money by the creation of the jobs.
Mr. Fisher said he fully agrees that the project is good and will serve the people
of Albemarle County and this community. However, his main concern is whether this
project could be built without this public subsidy. The applicant has stated that the
partnership cannot afford to build the project unless these bonds are used. However,
given the list of persons involved in this partnership, if this group could not find
conventional financing, then no one else in this community will be able to obtain any.
He felt that by approving this project, the County is saying that everyone will be
subsidized regardless of whether they are large or small businesses and he did not feel
that was right. Mr. Fisher said he felt this type of financing does compete with public
offerings and this has been an issue with him since the Authority was created. He said
this is evident by the fact that general obligation bonds for schools and other governmental
facilities are going to be at 9.5 percent interest. He feels the money market is so
tight because investors are looking for interest free bonds.
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
(Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below.)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTIONS 2-49
AND 2-52, ARTICLE IX OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY
CODE ENTITLED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
THE AMENDED SECTIONS RELATING TO THE TYPE AND
NUMBER OF FACILITIES WHICH MAY BE FINANCED BY
THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that Sections 2-49 and 2-52 of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted
to read as follows:
Section 2-49. Powers and duties senerally.
The public and corporate powers of the industrial development authority
of the county are solely and exclusively limited to the power to finance:
(a) industrial pollution control facilities for industries presently located
in the county; (b) industrial plant expansion for industries presently located
in the county, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs,
the substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents and
domiciles of the county; (c) new industrial facilities in the county which
new industrial facilities shall be exclusively limited to light manufacturing
industries and research-oriented industries requiring minimum local public
utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall
be filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county; (d) medical facilities
and facilities for the residence or care of the aged and handicapped in the
county; (e) multi-state, regional or national headquarters offices or
operations centers for research-oriented businesses, requiring minimum local
public utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which
shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of the county; and (f) shopping
or service facilities which the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia, finds are for the convenience of any of the aforementioned
facilities or the employees thereof and the current residents and domiciles of
the surrounding area, providing such shopping or service facilities are
compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County.
Section 2-52. Limitation on number of bond issues.
There shall be no more than eight bond issuances of the industrial
development authority of the county in existence at any one time.
Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution: Riverbend Limited Partnership. (This resolution
was deferred from the March 9, 1983 meeting, for the same reason stated for agenda item
number 9.)
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following
resolution for the Riverbend Limited Partnership as submitted to the Board on March 9,
1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom.
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
RIVERBEND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "Authority") has considered the application of Riverbend
Limited Partnership (the "Company") requesting the issuance of the
Authority's industrial development revenue bonds in an amount not to
exceed $8,700,000 (the "Bonds") to assist in the financing of the
Company's acquisition, construction and equipping of a shopping center
(the "Project") located at the intersection of Riverbend Drive and State
Route 250 East in the County of Albemarle; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on March 9, 1983, as required
by Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended
(the "Code"); and
WHEREAS, Sections 2-50 and 2-51, Chapter 2, Article IX of the
Albemarle County Code (the "Ordinance") require the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board") to approve the proposed
financing and location of any facility to be financed by the Authority;
and
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Code provides that the governmental
unit having jurisdiction over the issuer of industrial development bonds
and over the area in which any facility financed with the proceeds of
industrial development bonds is located must approve the issuance of
the bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Authority issues its bonds on behalf of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), the Project is to be located in the
County and the Board constitutes the highest elected governmental
officials of the County; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the
issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution approving the issuance
of the Bonds, subject to the terms to be agreed upon, has been filed with
the Board;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for
the benefit of the Company and the location of the Project, as required
by Sections 2-50 and 2-51 of the Ordinance and Section 103(k) of the Code,
to permit the Authority to assist in the financing of the Project.
2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by the
Ordinance and the Code, does not constitute an endorsement to a prospective
purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the
Company, and, as required by Section 15.1-1380 of the Code of Virginia
of 1950, as amended, the Bonds shall provide that neither the County nor
the Authority shall be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon
or other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and monies
pledged therefor and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power
of the Commonwealth, the County nor the Authority shall be pledged
thereto.
3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
At 9:05 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:16 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said the parties involved in agenda item number 7 regarding the request
to abandon Route T1306 in the Town of Scottsville have met and he asked for the report
on same.
Mr. Roosevelt said he and the Mayor have met and reached an agreement that a
turnaround of some type can be built at the end of Lumber Street with the details to be
worked out later. He would recommend that the Board adopt the resolution abandoning
Route T1306 providing assurance is received from the Highway Department and the Town of
Scottsville that a turnaround has been agreed to at the end of Lumber Street. With
that, he felt that he and the Mayor can get together next week and a letter be given to
the Clerk to indicate that this matter has been agreed upon. Mayor Thacker was agreeable
to the recommendation.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John for comments on the recommendation.
said the recommendation of Mr. Roosevelt is permissible.
Mr. St. John
Miss Nash then offered motion to adopt the following resolution provided the Clerk
receives in writing an agreement between the Town of Scottsvitle and the Highway Department
on the matter of the turnaround at the end of Route T1307. Mr. Butler seconded the
motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that pursuant to Virginia Code Section 33.1-151, State Route 1306 located
within the Town of Scottsville from i~s interset~on with Route 1304 to its
intersection with Route 1307, approximately 0.09 miles, is hereby abandoned.
~rovided further that~.~a turnaround is built at the end of Route 1307 (Lumber
Street) in accordance with letters of assurance from the Town of Scottsville
and the Highway Department. This abandonment is approved in order that
construction of a flood control levee may begin.
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 11. Recommendation re: School Fund Deficit.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Lindstrom has requested an opportunity to speak first.
Mr. Lindstrom said on Tuesday he saw some comments in the newspaper attributable
to the Chairman about the question of the school fund deficit. These comments brought
up a concern he has had for some time. For a long time he has been concerned about the
tendency of Mr. Fisher to not make it clear when he is speaking as to whether he is
speaking for himself or for the enitre Board. In the eyes of a number of people in the
community being Chairman does carry a significant amount of authority. This makes it
particularly important to distinguish whether he is speaking for the Board or himself
personally. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Fisher has told him that he did not intend to speak
for the Board in his comments Tuesday. Mr. Lindstrom said he accepts that. Mr. Lindstrom
then urged Mr. Fisher to avoid making future statements that could be imputed as being
for the entire Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he is personally quite sensitive about this
matter of the School fund deficit and any comment which seem to imply that the entire
Board of Supervisors is looking at this question differently than it would if this were
an election year is very distressing. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not feel that is the
case and he is very concerned about giving that impression.
Finally, in the general sense, Mr. Lindstrom said he has some concerns about the
criticism of the school staff's approach to this problem. He does not agree with the
philosophy that the school staff should only be concerned with meeting a budget limitation.
He feels the school staff should take into consideration the revenues which have been
projected, but their primary function should be to provide the School Board with a
budget proposal that in the staff's expert opinion provides for adequate funding of the
schools in this County. Even if the budget requests are in excess of the budget guidelines,
he still feels the School Board should present their request to this Board. It is this
Board's job and Mr. Agnor's job to then respond to that budget request, determine
whether or not the budget is something that should be funded. As elected officials, it
is this Board's ultimate financial to reduce the budget in some manner to meet revenues,
if that budget request cannot be funded. He was concerned that if the school staff
feels the ultimate priority is to come within a certain budgetary guideline, then the
School Board will not know what has been cut out of the budget and if those items might
be important. Mr. Lindstrom said he personally feels that the primary responsibility
of the school staff is to provide the School Board with a budget that meets what the
school staff sees as the important needs of the County.
Mr. Agnor said on February 16, 1983, the Board requested that he recommend one of
the four alternatives presented at that meeting regarding the solution to the School
Fund deficit. Therefore, the following memorandum contains his recommendation:
"TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of Supervisors
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
March 11, 1983
Recommended Solution to School Fund Deficit
In response to your request that I recommend one of the four alternatives
listed in the February 10 memo prepared by the Superintendent of Schools
and myself on the above subject, it is my recommendation that Alternative 1
be selected, i.e., to transfer funds from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
to the School Fund. Since that alternative assumes that Congress will
reenact the Federal Revenue Sharing program, which may or may not be a correct
assumption, a fall back or second alternative for the solution is recommended
to be Alternative 3, to restore the deficit from the proceeds of the sale
of fixed assets.
Until Congressional action is known, or until the sale of assets is
scheduled, it is further recommended that the $1,039,141 advance from the
General Fund to the School Fund be authorized to be changed to a loan. Such
action will change the $1,039,141 in the audit report from an "Advance
from the General Fund" to a "Due to the General Fund". As reported to you
earlier, this will authorize the Director of Finance to disburse to the School
Fund the full amount of the FY 82-83 school appropriation from the General
Fund, less any shortfalls in General Fund revenues which are projected to occur
this fiscal year. As also reported, this action will eliminate the necessity
of the Board of Supervisors being requested annually to reapprove the advance.
The School Fund debt to the General Fund will remain as a loan until repaid.
Further action by the Board of Supervisors would not be required unless another
deficit occurs this year, or in subsequent years."
NET COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS TO SCHOOL FUND DEFICIT
ALTERNATIVE ! - Use of Federal Revenue Sharing Funds
ALTERNATIVE 2 - Appropriation from General Fund
ALTERNATIVE 3 - Sale of Fixed Assets
ALTERNATIVE 4 - Split Collection of Real Estate Taxes
$ 994,838
$1,194,838
$1,094,838
$1,194,838
SUMMARY OF COSTS - ALTERNATIVES TO SCHOOL FUND DEFICIT
ALTERNATIVE t. - Transfer funds from Federal Revenue Sharing Fund to
School Fund.
The FY 81-82 audit report shows an undesignated balance of $764,812
in the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund. Of this amount $135,396 was designated
for School Operations in FY 82-83, and the remainder, $629,416, to the Capital
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting~)
\0
Improvement Program. Therefore, any transfer to the School Fund to restore
the deficit will have to come from new revenues beginning October 1, 1983, if
authorized by Congress. Assuming current Federal Revenue Sharing funding levels
are retained after October 1, 1983, the School Fund deficit would be totally
restored on January 1, 1985. Action by the Board would be to designate Federal
Revenue Sharing funds for School Fund purposes at the annual public hearing
required to be held on the use of Federal Revenue Sharing receipts. The hearing
will be held in the fall of 1983. The costs of this alternative would make
$1,094,838 not available for the Capital Fund, less improvements in the Federal
Revenue Sharing program entitlements of $100,000, would give a net cost of
$992,838. This assumes the deficit is not being reduced by improvements in
the School Fund balance from budgetary management practices.
ALTERNATIVE 2. - Appropriate the deficit from the General Fund.
The FY 81-82 audit report shows a total deficit of the School Fund balance
to be $12094,838. This is comprised of the $1,039,141 advance from the General
Fund, plus $88,265 due to the Capital Improvement Fund, making a total School
Fund liability of $1,127,406. Cash in the School Fund on June 30, 1982, plus
measureable revenues totalled $1,817,270 which has been reduced by accounts
and warrants payable that total $1,784,702, leaving a balance of $32,568 in
assets (cash plus receivables) that can be applied against the $1,127,406 liability.
The $32,568 reduces these liabilities to a net total of $1,094,838. If an
appropriation is made from the General Fund, it should be for the $1,094,838.
Action by the Board would be after a public hearing for a budget amendment. Costs
would be $1,094,838, plus a potential loss of Federal Revenue Sharing entitle-
ments of $100,000 beginning October 1, 1983 for the first year of a renewed
program.
ALTERNATIVE 3. - Restore the deficit from the proceeds of the sale of fixed assets.
Since the early t970's, the McIntire School Building has been considered as
surplus to the school system needs. The completion of the County Office Building
in October or November 1983 will remove the administrative use of the McIntire
property and leave the Alternative Education program as the remaining use on
the property. Depending upon the outcome of the redistricting study and the
location of the Alternative Education program, this property may be considered
for disposal, with the proceeds, which are unknown, applied to the School Fund
balance. These proceeds could then be returned to the General Fund with the
cost of $1,094,838 not being available for the Capital Improvement Program,
'assuming the property was sold for at least that amount.
Since the funds would not be derived from local tax resources, there would
be no impact on Federal Revenue Sharing entitlements. Action by the Board would
be to await declaration by the School Board of the property being surplus to
school needs, and then authorizing the staff to proceed with the sale of the
property, designating the proceeds to be deposited in the School Fund.
ALTERNATIVE 4. - Restore the deficit from revenue created by split collections of real estate taxes.
This alternative could be completed in FY 84-85 by collecting one-half of
the taxes for the 1985 tax year in June 1985 and the other one-half in
December 1985. The School Fund deficit would be removed in June 1985 following
a June 5 collection date by an appropriation from the General Fund, similar to
Alternative 2. Assuming the deficit does not change from the FY 82 audited
deficit, the costs should be $1,094,838, plus the potential loss in Federal
Revenue Sharing entitlements of $100,000 beginning October 1, 1985. There are
additional administrative costs associated with twice a year tax notices and
collection expenses compared with once a year collections, but such costs
should not be added to solving of the School Fund deficit matter. Split
tax collections will aid in the funding of the Capital Improvement Program,
and additional administrative costs would be associated with that program.
CONCLUSION
The uae of General Fund resources to pay the incurred liabilities of the
School Fund (the deficit) has had an obvious impact on the loss of revenue
to the General Fund from interest earned on the fund balance. That loss of
revenue has impaired the General Fund's ability to finance increasing
operational costs, a major one being salaries. A second obvious impact is
the affect on the General Fund's ability to continue to finance capital projects.
As related in an earlier report, Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 may restore that
ability in a period of time, but will use resources that could have been used
for other needs. Alternative 2 does not restore that ability. Regardless of
the solution selected, it is important to all departments that the impact
on the Capital Improvement Program be borne first by those projects of the
Education Department that can absorb the loss of resources, and last by those
projects of other departments and agencies that are dependent upon those same
resources. A priority on deferrals, of projects can be considered in June
during the annual review of the five year capital program.
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said according to reports from Washington, the Federal Revenue
Sharing program may have a better advantage of being reenacted than originally thought.
He then asked if the program is renewed, would the renewal be for only one year or
longer. Mr. Fisher said there are proposals to reenact for three a~d five years, but
not necessarily using the same distribution formulas. Mr. Agnor did not feel the
program would be enacted for less than three years simply because of the cost of the
administration of the program which would be astronomical if only enacted for one year.
Mr. Fisher said if the formulas are changed very much, then there may not be any funds
distributed for a considerable amount of time while the new rules and regulations are
being worked out. Mr. Agnor said he recommends that the deficit payoff date be January
1, 1985, if alternative 1 is selected by the Board and that assumption is based on
existing funding formulas.
Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Agnor's recommendation is one that could potentially
enhance the County's position by several hundred thousand dollars if revenue sharing is
continued. He then offered motion to accept the recommendation of Mr. Agnor to accept
Alternative #1 to transfer funds from Federal Revenue Sharing Fund to School Fund. ~
M~ss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion also included the recommendatior
that this deficit be changed from an "advance from the General Fund" to a "due to the
General Fund." Mr. Lindstrom said there have been questions in the past about loans
and asked if this situation is different. Mr. St. John said he did not want to say
that this is not a loan but the County is not borrowing money from anybody but rather
is loaning funds from one County fund to another County fund. Legally this is not the
kind of loan prohibited by the State Constitution. Mr. Lindstrom said that he would
then include that recommendation in his motion which was as follows:
The $1,039,141 which is now carried as an advance from the
General Fund to the School Fund shall be changed and shown
as a loan to the School Fund - or a "Due to the General Fund
from the School Fund" category.
2)
The $1,094,838 loan (inclusive of the above amount plus
an existing loan from the Capital Improvement Fund) shall
be eliminated by transferring future Federal Revenue Sharing
Funds to the School Fund as new Federal Revenue Sharing
funds become available beginning October 1, 1983. This
solution assumes that Congress will authorize an extension
of Federal Revenue Sharing legislation which expires on
September 30, 1983. If this legislation is extended, and
these revenues are used for this purpose, the current deficit
should be eliminated by January 31, 1985."
Mr. Fisher then asked what effect this motion would have on other funds in the
county; specifically where would the revenue sharing funds have been used otherwise.
Mr. Agnor said revenue sharing funds have been used in the past to finance the capital
improvements program. Through an accounting process, Revenue Sharing funds have been
shown as flowing into the School Operating fund and an equal amount of money from
general tax funds has been put into the capital program. This was done so that when
Federal Revenue Sharing funds are no longer available the County will not be in financial
troubles by depending on these monies. Since it will take approximately fifteen months
to recover these funds from Revenue Sharing funds, the Capital Improvement Fund will be
impacted by not having those funds available to finance caPital projects. Mr. Fisher
asked if this will include the schools. Mr. Agnor said yes. Part of his recommendation
is that regardless of which alternative is selected, the impact from the loss of Revenue
Sharing funds be borne first by school projects and then by other projects of departments
and agencies that have not been involved in the creation of the deficit.
Mr. Agnor said that in the present Five-Year Capital Improvement program adopted
last summer, there were four school projects scheduled for FY 1983-84 that involved
$919,675 in local monies. That is about $75,000 short of offsetting the deficit. In
his opinion, one of those projects cannot be delayed; that is the repair project for
the Brownsville/Henley Schools which has been partially funded by Literary Fund monies
and partially with local monies. Since these projects will have to be funded anyway,
about $300,000 will have to be taken from other projects other than those for Education.
Mr. Lindstrom said that for clarity, his motion does not include that part of Mr.
Agnor's recommendation. The intent of his motion is not to make one particular area of
the Capital Improvements Program suffer because of this transaction. He felt if schools
are needed to serve the public in the future, that need should not be precluded. Mr.
Fisher said if this alternative is selected, it means that there will be less money for
the capital improvement program. Mr. Lindstrom asked what will happen to the money
taken out of the Capital Improvements Fund. Mr. Agnor said the funds have already been
spent so, as the new funds are received, these funds will be transferred back to the
General Fund to be used for operating capital.
Mr. Lindstrom said it has been implied that the School Board is at fault for this
deficit but he does not believe that to be true. He feels that if this Board had known
about the expenses which necessitated these advances the Board would have appropriated
the funds from someplace in order that the money would have been available; perhaps
that action would have been to have a tax increase. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that
possibly the County is getting a $200,000 benefit out of this alternative. Mr. Agnor
said funds from the General Fund Carry-Over balance are shown as being used by the
capital program. When the School Fund deficit reached the amount it did last year, the
capital fund did not receive any funds from the general fund balance. This fact has
been projected into the latter years of the five year program because the County has
been using some general funds to fund projects. He said the impact of this deficit has
been felt and will be felt further in the five year program because monies will not be
available from the General Fund balance.
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Agnor said the conclusion of his memo may be considered philosophical, but
that is not the intent. He noted that a number of agencies, other than Education,
with projects in the capital improvement program have asked about the availability of
funds for their projects. He has responded that without any knowledge as to what would
happen with this school fund deficit, some of those projects may have to be deferred in
order to get the operating cash fund balance manageable. These agencies are concerned
as to why they should suffer when they have cut expenses to help get the general fund
balance improved. Mr. Agnor said he feels that any capital improvement project which
can be deferred should be deferred. He is also recommending that projects be prioritized
in the Capital Improvements Program this next year.
Mr. Lindstrom said that speaking of the General County government and the School
System as two different types of government bothers him because one group of people,
the County taxpayers, are served and pay the taxes.
Mr. Fisher said every agency receiving County funds has a responsibility to expend
those funds within the constraints imposed by the County's appropriation ordinance. He
had hoped that the School Fund would be in the black for this fiscal year. However,
this afternoon the Board was informed that the School Fund will be one-quarter million
dollars in the red at the end of the current fiscal year. He does not feel the School
fund is under control. His answer to this problem would not have been the same as Mr.
Agnor's recommendation and he would not recommend asking for a tax increase. If it is
assumed that the various departments do not have a real obligation to follow the guidelines
in the appropria-tion ordinance, then he does not feel the County will get very far in
managing its funds. Mr. Fisher said even though he would like the matter of the deficit
resolved, and perhaps the recommendation is the correct way to do this, he personally
does not feel there has been an indication that the situation is under control and he
could not support the motion. Miss Nash asked what he meant by the situation not being
under control. Mr. Fisher said that the School Fund being another one-quarter of a
million dollars in the red for this fiscal year is not being under control. Miss Nash
did not feel that was pertinent to the question under discussion. Mr. Fisher said it
might not be, but in his mind if the past problem is wiped out then he would like to
feel that there will not be any future problems.
Mr. Henley said the reason for the deficit was originally stated to be caused by
the increase in cost of fuel. However, the price of fUel has decreased substantially
this year, and there is still a problem. He said he would like to see this matter
resolved and supported the motion, but hoped that the current debt can be resolved as
well.
Mrs. Cooke said that even with all the explanations and information given the
Board, she is not sure She will ever understand how this deficit came about. However,
she is sick and tired of the Board of Supervisors and the School Board fighting. In
her opinion, that is not the way to have quality education. At some point, there has
to be a meeting of the minds in order to have quality education. With this problem
hanging over the heads of the two boards, that will never happen. Mrs. Cooke said she
is willing to accept the recommendation of Mr. Agnor with the facts and figures he has
presented. In conclusion, she supported the motion because she wants the matter resolved
and wants quality education in the community.
Mr. Butler said he also has been confused about this problem. He thought that
last year the Board understood how the problem occurred and was on the way to resolving
same. He said it is unreasonable that departments cannot stay within their budget
guidelines and he is disgusted to find out that there will be another deficit this
year. In conclusion, Mr. Butler said he supports educating the County residents but
did not feel there should be a department that cannot operate within its money.
Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor if he wanted to continue with the budget work
session from this afternoon with the recommendation that the $68,557 in additional
revenues be allocated in the Capital Improvements Program.
Mr. Agnor said before commenting on that, he had indicated this afternoon that he
had not received any information from the Schools on the Self-Sustaining Funds. However,
he was not aware that the budget received did contain that information. He said there
is $593,213 in Federal revenue which will be divided among five projects, a School
Lunch Program of $1,284,552 funded by the state and receipts of lunch operations, and a
Textbook Program of $205,000. These items need to be included in the authorization for
advertising the public hearing on the budget.
Mr. Agnor said he just received a notice from the State Compensation Board that
effective July 1, 1983, the Compensation Board's budget will be reduced by five percent
on items other than salaries for constitutional officers. Rather than trying to change
the revenues and expenditures at this time he recommended that when the Compensation
Board has given final approval to those budgets (Commonwealth's Attorney, Clerk of the
Court, Sheriff, and Finance Department) that this be brought back to the Board before
July 1 and the expenditures and revenues be changed in accordance with final reduction
figures.
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom said there has been some discussion about the County exercising its
authority to establish a police department for the enforcement of law in the County. The
consultant's study on this question was aimed at consolidation of the County Sheriff and
the City Police Department into one law enforcement agency, but he is not now speaking
about any consolidation. He said this might be a good time for the County to make a
conversion to a police department without incurring any significant expense this year.
The General Assembly has only given the County until July 1 to make this conversion under
existing legislation. He felt the County is going to need a professionally operated
police department as a department of the county government. The report of the the consultant
indicated that a significant tax burden might be created, but he thought that was only if
there was a considerable expansion of department size and that is not what he is proposing.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board think about a transition in terms of the structure
and authority needed to sever the law enforcement function within the Sheriff's Office
and establish same as an independent branch under the County Executive with a police
chief in charge. Mr. Lindstrom felt the $68,557 might be allocated for this purpose.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Sheriff's budget for FY 83-84 amounts to $1,306,515 which
includes the hiring of two additional deputies. Mr. Agnor said that is correct. Of this
amount, $787,535 will come from the State Compensation Board leaving $519,000 in locat
funds to fund the Sheriff's Department as it presently exists. If the Sheriff's operation
(court security and serving of court papers) were divided out (estimating that there
would be one sheriff, eight deputies, and an office secretary) the State Compensation
Board would fund $200,000 of that operation leaving $40,000 for local funding. If the
total of the Sheriff's budget remains at $1,306,515, that would leave $1,060,000 for a
law enforcement function, and funding under House Bill 599 would be applied for. It is
calculated that funding from House Bill 599 would be between $400,000 and $500~000, thus
leaving from $560,000 to $660,000 in local funding necessary to operate the existing
Sheriff's department. This would place the two new deputies who will be funded entirely
with local funds in the law enforcement department. Mr. Lindstrom asked what would
happen if hiring of the two deputies were to be deferred. Mr. Agnor said that would
reduce the overall budget by $62,000 ($41,000 in repetitive costs and $20,500 in capital
outlay for equipment).
Mr. Lindstrom then asked if there would be any other savings from this transition.
Mr. Agnor said yes, an analysis of the car fleet operation was made. Currently vehicles
are assigned to a deputy and no one else drives that car. In most police departments in
Virginia,~ the vehicles are put into a motor pool. If a motor pool were used for the law
enforcement department, and that would be his recommendation, then there could be a
$92,000 savings in vehicle replacement cost for FY 83-84 year. However, in FY 84-85, the
cycle of car replacements would have to be picked up again and continued.
Miss Nash asked exactly how much local money would have to be i~cluded in the
budget to fund the two departments. Mr. Agnor said that $520,000 in local funds is
already proposed for the existing Sheriff's Department. If the operation is divided,
local funds could run as high as $700,000.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the amount of funds to be derived from H.B. 599 is determined.
Mr. Agnor said there is a formula with a number of factors involved. As for getting an
answer from the State Department of Finance on the amount that Albemarle County could
receive, it would take a couple of months.
Mr. Lindstrom felt that the public needs to be involved in discussing this proposal
and he suggested that this be done at the budget public hearing on April 6; in other
words, he suggested earmarking the $68,557 as funds for the establishment of a law
enforcement department. Mr. Fisher said this suggestion is based on the assumption that
the $68,557, coupled with the other cost savings mentioned by Mr. Agnor, would more than
cover the worse case of local funds needed. Mr. Lindstrom said that was correct.
Mr. Henley said he thought Mr. Lindstrom was the one that asked Sheriff Bailey why
he had dropped his request for deputies from four to two deputies, and now Mr. Lindstrom
is suggesting that all four be deleted. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the County could do
just as well with the men presently employed if there was a law enforcement department.
He also noted .that several months ago the Sheriff told him that he was not opposed to the
suggestion of having a law enforcement department.
Mr. Fisher felt the staff should put together a proposed budget for the whole
operation of such a department for the public hearing in order to know what the costs
would be. Mr. Fisher asked if that could be done for a department to be created in the
month of June, 1983. Mr. Agnor said for public hearing purposes, the $68,557 can be
allocated for public safety and a revised budget for a law enforcement operation and the
Sheriff's operation could be done by April 6.
Mr. Butler asked how this would impact other departments in future budget periods if
the County decides on a law enforcement department. Mr. Agnor said the general assumption
is that it will cost more to operate a police department simply because it will require
more local funds. During the first few years, there would be more local funds required,
because the only state funds to be received would be from House Bill 599'. Mr. Butler
said his concern is that with more money being demanded for a police department, the
County's ability may be affected on such things as the education department for. new
buildings and teacher salaries. Mr. Agnor said the County is already in a position where
more local money is being put into the Sheriff's operation each year. The request for
two additional deputies to be funded from local funds is an example of that. With this
department as part of the County government, the Board would have more control over the
funds of the department.
March 16,'1983 (Re~u~lar Ni~ght Meetin~
Mrs. Cooke asked if state funds would still be available for the Sheriff's department
even if a police department is established. Mr. Agnor said that is correct; the Sheriff's
department operation would still be funded by the State, with only a small portion coming
from the locality.
Mr. Fisher asked about the office space needed for a law enforcement department.
Mr. Agnor said because of easy vehicular access, the patrol division of the Sheriff's
Department is to be moved to the County Office Building when the renovations are completed.
later this year. The court services division (baliffs and process servers) is to remain
in the County Office Building on Court Square. This separation lends itself to setting up
a separate law enforcement department.
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present. He said that March t was the deadline
for applying for State Compensation Board funds. He did not know the deadline for applying
for House Bill 599 funds and felt the first thing to do was to determine if the County is
too late to apply for funding this year.
Mr. Lindstrom said including an amount in the budget for public hearing purposes does
not commit the County to do anything. He then offered motion to include $68,557 in the
category of public safety for the public hearing on the budget. Hopefully a sample budget
for a police department can be formulated and information on House Bill 599 funding can be
obtained by April 6, 1983. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Butler then asked for an explanation of House Bill 599. Mr. Agnor explained that
House Bill 599 was formulated basically to discourage annexation by providing funds for
law enforcement operations to cities and towns and those counties that had police departments.
Charlottesville, as an example, then started receiving money for their police department
that they had never before received and that was supposed to discourage them-from wanting
to annex territory. It was called anti-annexation legislation.
Mr. Henley said he will not support the motion and felt a mistake was made when that
"damn Yankee" was hired to do the study of a possible consolidation of law enforcement
functions. Now the County is rushing into something like this. This could cost a million
dollars and he felt more t'ime is needed to look at this.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board does not have the time to do that and needs to be in a
position to think about the matter and if the Board does not get the ball rolling, it will
not even be in a position to think about it.
Miss Nash said she agreed with Mr. Henley that it might be a little precipitous but
due to the circumstances maybe the Board has to start or it will get no place. The time
element is negative so the whole idea may be out the window. Also, if the Board runs into
problems with the School budget, it may not want to spend this extra money.
Mrs. Cooke said she felt there is a possibility that the idea may get no where, but
she feels that in a very short time there will be a need for higher.level of law enforcement
services, particularly in the urban area. Therefore, she supported the motion and felt if
this is not started now, it may never be started.
Mr. Lindstrom said he has been thinking about this question for over a year. He has
some concerns that the Sheriff as a constitutional officer is elected, so the citizens can
determine if they like the operation of the office or not. Mr. Lindstrom said he has come
to the conclusion that given the position the General Assembly has put the Board in (probably
because of the Sheriff's Association lobby), that the Board does not have the luxury of
the debate that the Board might normally have. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that the Board
members were elected to exercise his/her judgment, and the Board members are in a position
to see the broader issues involved. In this instance he has decided to exercise his
judgment, and support this idea. He thinks this might be the most opportune time for the
County to separate these functions.
Miss Nash said she understands that not only does the new legislation on this subject
require a referendum but another action by the General Assembly. Mr. Fisher said as he
remembers the legislation, it also requires a special act of the General Assembly to
create a police department on July 1, 1983, or thereafter. Miss Nash said if a referendum
were held, it would delay this for another year. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel the
General Assembly would particularly know anything about Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher said
the County's attempt to have legislation enacted which would save the funding in order to
allow such a department to be created at a later date without the loss of state revenues
was treated badly by the General Assembly. General Assembly may not authorize any changes
for some period of time no matter what the circumstances are, thereby taking away the
ability of the local government to make that transition when it needs to. He feels the
question is not whether to create a police department, but when.
Mr. Butler agreed with Mr; Fisher. He noted that in discussions with his constituents,
they do not want to pay additional taxes and feel that this department should be taxed to
the urban area. Mr. Butler then noted that he will support the motion, but was not
certain if he will vote for a police department because he has some strong reservations
about same and has not received any strong support of this idea from his constituents.
Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Henley (prefaced his vote by stating that he did not feel there.was time to
prepare the necessary information for the public hearing).
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
At 10:30 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:45 P.M.
Mr. Fisher said the next question is what the Board wants to do with the rest of the
budget, in particular, the salary increase. -
Mr. Henley said he would like to talk about the suggestion made by Mr. Agnor this
afternoon which was to grant a five percent increase across the Board. He was not sure
how to handle this and said that. perhaps the Board should meet with the School Board.
However, he did support the suggestion of Mr. Agnor.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor to restate his suggestion. Mr. Agnor said essentially
that all employees would receive a five percent increase. He felt that five percent for
the general government classified employees is adequate considering the economic conditions
and the competiti~n for salaries for those positions. As for teaching salary scales,
Albemarle County is ahead of its closest competitor, .Charlottesville, by slightly over one
percent. The City is proposing a six percent salary scale adjustment and with a five
percent increase for the County, the two would then be equal. As he had commented during
the work session this afternoon, if it were agreed that salaries be moved in the range of
five or six percent,, several hundred thousand dollars would be saved on the School budget
requested. In January 1981, the School System received $130,000 in funding for a merit
plan for non-professional employees. However, the plan is still not in effect. If the
merit plan were added back, about $50,000 would be required for the classified employees
in the school system. Mr. Agnor said he had discussed with the general government employees
the idea of freezing the merit plan so that only salary scales would be adjusted this
year. However, he hesitates recommending that because from the employee's perspective,
the merit plan does have a meaning. It is something the employee works for and earns in
terms of performance. Freezing or discarding the merit plan even for a year would have an
impact on the efforts of employees.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to suggest another idea for the Board's consideration
for the public hearing and that is an increase in the real estate tax rate of two cents to
cover the School Board's budget request. He felt that if the School Board has to cut its
budget any more, the cuts will affect programs as well as operations. Therefore, he did
not feel it was inappropriate to go to public hearing with a budget that provides the
additional $270,000 requested in the school budget and a two cent increase in the tax
rate. He realized that the public is already facing a tax increase this year because of
the reassessment, but a number of his constituents have informed him that'they do not want
school programs cut. He felt that these people, as well as those who would be against a
tax increase, should be allowed the opportunity to address this issue at the public hearing.
If an increase is not advertised for the public hearing, then the Board cannot increase
the tax rate later without readvertising.
Mrs, Cooke said she did not have any problem with that suggestion and noted receiving
a number of calls regarding the school budget. Parents have almost been pleading to have
their taxes increased in order to maintain the current level of education. As stated by
Mr. Lindstrom, Mrs. Cooke felt the only way to find out the feelings of the public is
through the public hearing process and perhaps Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion is the best way
to get those feelings.
Miss Nash said she could not support the suggestion because she felt a public hearing
gets very emotional and does not provide the truth. Secondly, she did not feel that
persons other than ones lobbying will participate in the public hearing. Miss Nash said
she has not received any requests to increase the taxes to help the schools. Miss Nash
concluded by stating that she preferred Mr. Agnor's suggestion.
Mr. Butler said there are two arguments here. He has a tremendous amount of people
that approach him every day to not increase the taxes and then persons involved in schools
want an increase in order to get what is desired for schools. He definitely supports good
education and feels that it is the key to having a good community. In conclusion, Mr.
Butler said he would continue to find out the feelings of his constituents and vote his
conscience.
Mr. Henley said there are not many people that get everything they want. He felt the
Board gave the teachers a good increase in salary last year. He noted that several of the
agencies requesting funds this year noted that their salaries are frozen. Mr. Henley felt
it is reasonable to ask the schools to agree with the five percent increase proposed for
general government employees so all would receive the same increase.
Mrs. Cooke said she has never been in favor of increasing taxes just to increase
taxes. However, people in her district have informed her that they desire to have an
increase in taxes in order to fund the school budget. This shocked her but regardless of
whether she agrees with increasing taxes or not, this is what the people in her district
want and she will support that. Therefore, Mrs. Cooke supported Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion
and felt this was a way of determining the level of services people desire and what people
are.willing to pay for.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to advertise for public hearing purposes a two cent
increase on the real estate tax rate. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Henley asked if the Board could go to public hearing with the current tax rate
and then lower the rate to make up for the proposed decrease in salaries. Mr. Agnor said
the rates could be decreased but not increased without further advertising. Mr.'Henley
said he would support advertising for public hearing thle budget the Board has worked out
which includes a shortfall in the School Budget of $273,000. He is willing to do this
March 16, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting)
based on working out some agreement with the School Board that the salaries will be decreased
to a five percent increase. In that way everyone will receive the same salary increase.
He certainly will not vote for an increase on the tax rate.
Mr. Fisher restated the motion and noted that the tax increase is on real property.
Roll was then called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash.
Mr. Henley said he would like to put his thoughts into a motion but needed some help
with the wording. Mr.' Agnor said if all employees received a five percent increase that
would take approximately $400,000 out of the school board's request. If the $400,000 was
removed, with the deficit of $273,000 now in the School Budget, there would be an additional
$127,000, or a little less than one cent on the tax rate. Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board
made this adjustment, it will not leave the School Board any role in this matter. Mr.
Henley said he would like to work it out with the School Board.
Mr. Fisher said if it were Mr. Henley's desire to go to public hearing with the
current tax rate, that should be the motion. Mr. Agnor said the budget is now balanced
with the existing tax rates.
Mr. Henley then offered motion to advertise for public hearing the same tax rates in
effect for the current fiscal year. Miss Nash seconded the motion. She then asked what
will happen to the $273,000 deficit in the School Budget. Mr. Henley said if an agreement
can be worked out with the School Board about salaries, the Board could decrease the tax
rate to whatever rate is necessary to take care of same. Mr. Fisher said if this motion
passes, the simplest thing to do would be to go to public hearing with Mr. Agnor's recommendat
and that is a balanced budget but short of the School Board's request. If desired, a
motion could be made that all salaried categories will be limited to a five percent increase
but then the remainder of the budget would have to be adjusted accordingly. Mr. Henley
said personnel is under a number of different categories and some time would be involved
to figure out those changes. Mr. Henley said he supported resolving the one million plus
deficit of the School Fund and he hoped that the School Board will try to work with the
Board on this shortfall this year. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to advertise the
public hearing for the 1983-84 County Budget as proposed by the County Executive and as
modified by the Board's action during the last few weeks for April 6, 1983, at 7:30 P.M.
in the County Office Building Auditorium. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and MiSs Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher said this budget is now the Board of Supervisors' recommendation to the
people of Albemarle County. Mr. Henley said he would like for the Board to meet with the
School Board to determine what can be done on this matter. Mr. Fisher said he shared Mr.
Henley's concern about the salaries and felt a reduction should be made in the salary
categories.
Agenda Item No. 15. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 P.M.
.on