1983-04-14April 14, 1983
(Regular Day Meeting)
Item No. 2.3. Letters from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation:
a) The following letter dated April 4, 1983 was received from Mr. J. H. Kesterson,
noting that the performance bond guaranteed by Albemarle County on the road in Bishop Hill
Subdivision has now been released.
"Re: Bishop Hill Subdivision Route 1807
This is to advise that the above referenced road has performed satisfactorily
for a period of one year since its acceptance into the State Secondary
Road System. Based on this performance the road can be released."
b) The following letter dated March 21, 1983, was received from Mr. John M. Wray,
Jr., Chief Engineer:
"Changes in Primary System Route 22 (Old Route 39)
Project 276-A
Changes in the Primary System made necessary by relocation and construction
on Route 22 in Albemarle County were confirmed by the Highway and
Transportation Commission on March 17, 1983, as shown on the attached sketch,
described as follows:
SECTION ABANDONED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-148 OF THE OLD 1950 CODE
OF VIRGINIA:
Section 1 - Old location of Route 22, south of the new location,
from the new location at Station 693+00 westerly 0.28 mile, being
within the property purchased by Richard D. Sullivan."
Item No. 2.4. Letter dated March 4, 1983 from Hutton & Williams regarding new
requirements for the initiation of industrial development bond financing in Virginia, was
received.
Item No. 2.5. Letter dated March 31, 1983 from Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County
Attorney, was received regarding the Federal District Court order on the case of Tiffany
v. County of Albemarle which has been dismissed and stricken from the docket of the court.
Item No. 2.6. Letter dated March 18, 1983 from State Historic Landmarks Commission,
was received regarding a meeting of the Historic Landmarks Commission to be held on April
19, 1983 to consider Spring Hill (Route 637 Ivy), Faulkner House (Old Ivy Road) and Morea
(Sprigg Lane, University of Virginia) for inclusion on the Virginia Landmarks Register.
Item No. 2.7. Letter dated March 28, 1983, from Mr. Robert R. Jacobsen, Superintendent
of Shenandoah National Park, was received, regarding the recently approved General Management
Plan/Development Concept Plan for the Shenandoah National Park.
Item No. 2.8. Letter dated March 24, 1983, was received from Mr. R. J. Gutleber,
Director of T&D Engineering Services, Virginia Electric and Power Company, regarding an
application to the State Corporation Commission for approval and certification of the
Hollymead 230 KV Line and Substation.
Item No. 2.9. The Annual Report for Columbia Gas of Virginia for 1982 was noted as
received and is on file in the Office of the Clerk for review.
Item No. 2.10. Letter dated March 28, 1983, from Mr. G. R. Curtis, District Manager
for VEPCO, was received regarding an application to the State Corporation Commission for
approval of sale and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative's purchase of a portion of the
North Anna Nuclear Facilities.
Item No. 2.11. Report dated April 11, 1983, on attendance zone changes for elementary
schools was received from the Special Committee on Attendance Zones. (Copy on file in
Clerk's Office.)
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: September 1 (Afternoon), September 2,
September 16, September 23 and October 6, 1982, and January 12, February 16 (Afternoon),
February 16 (Night) and March 7, 1983.
Miss Nash had read the minutes for January 12, 1983, and found no errors.
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes for October 6, 1982, and found no errors.
Mr. Henley had read the minutes for February 16 (Afternoon), 1983, and found no
errors. He had also read the minutes for February 16 (Night), 1983, and noted the following
correction: Page 5, eighth paragraph, delete the following words in the last line which
are duplicates "and he has been ones six years".
April 14, 1983 (R~gutar Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on April 14, 1983, at 10:30 A.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 (Arrived at 11:10 A.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present:
George R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Attorney,
The meeting was called to order at 10:35 A.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda consisting
of three items for approval and eleven items for information. He then noted that item 2.2
regarding the resolution for acceptance of Commonwealth Drive (Hydraulic Road to Northwest
Drive) into the State Secondary Highway System is not ready for Board action.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve items 2.1
and 2.3 on the consent agenda as presented by Mr. Agnor. Roll was called on the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Item No. 2.1. Statements of expenses' for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealt]
Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of March, 1983 were presented; said statements
were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.2. Resolution for acceptance of Commonwealth Drive (Hydraulic Road to
Northwest Drive) into the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Secondary
Highway System was deleted as requested by Mr. Agnor.
Item No. 2.3. Street Sign Request. A request dated April 6, 1983, from Mr. James E.
Treakle, Jr., attorney representing the developers of Auburn Hills Subdivision, for
streets signs to identify Auburn Drive and Villaverde Lane was received. The developers
have agreed to purchase such signs. The following resolution was approved for same:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Auburn Drive (State Route 1122) and Villaverde Lane (State
Route 1124) at the southwest corner of its northern inter-
section;
Auburn Drive (State Route 1122) and Villaverde Lane (State
Route 1124) at the southerwest corner of its southern inter-
section; and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office
of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State 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 signs.
The following were the informational items on the consent agenda:
Item No.' 2.1. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of February,
1983, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Item No. 2.2. Report of the County Executive for the month of March, 1983, was
presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance, and charged to the following funds for the month of March,
1983, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School FUnd
Cafeteria Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Grant Project Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Mental Health Fund
$ 2,974.80
708,226.96
2,091,946.86
36,910.08
682.98
78,676.23
1,664.45
199,698.94
229,145.82
$~,350,316.8g
April 14, 1983
(Regular Day Meeting)
.t0'5
Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of March 7,1983, and noted the fourth paragraph,on
page 5 should read "Mr. Fisher asked about the loss of certification for cardiac care by
the Scottsville Squad and stated his concern about the lengthy training requirements."
Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes
of October 6, 1982, January 12, February 16 (Afternoon), February 16 (Night), and March 7,
1983 with the above corrections. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Set Public Hearing on Secondary Improvement
Budget for 1983-84.
Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and noted that a letter
dated. April 4, 1983 with attachments was sent to the Clerk showing the proposed Secondary
Improvements Budget for 1983-84 (Copy on file in Clerk's Office). Mr. Roosevelt said if
there were no questions, he would request that the Board set a public hearing as required
by the Code so the budget can be adopted by July 1, 1983.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt the total amount of the budget. Mr. Roosevelt said
the exact amount is not firm but it will be approximately $1,150,000. This is about
$75,000 more than anticipated when the Six-Year Highway Plan was adopted by the Board last
spring. The six-year plan, in the second year, called for $1,096,000. Miss Nash then
asked what the three alternative improvements (Route 645, Route 715 and Route 743) mentioned
in Mr. Roosevelt's letter meant. Mr. Roosevelt said the alternatives were some roads
considered by the Planning Commission in its review. Miss Nash asked whO decided on these
three alternatives. Mr. Roosevelt said Route 645 and Route 715 are items he advised the
Planning Commission about since these roads had been brought to his attention during the
year. Route 743 was mentioned by a Planning Commission member during the meeting.
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Roosevelt to indicate the location of the proposed projects
on the map. Mr. RoOsevelt did so.
Mr. Fisher said he was willing to advertise the hearing for the proposed budget as
recommended by Mr. Roosevelt but was concerned if the road projects had been thoroughly
examined in relation to overall watershed areas and he wonders whether the projects might
stimulate development on some roads in the watersheds. He was concerned that this may be
-counter to other County goals. Mr. Henley felt hard surfacing some of the gravel roads
would prevent erosion.
After a brief discussion on possible dates for the public hearing, motion was offered
by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to advertise the Secondary Improvement Budget for
1983-84 as presented by the Resident Highway Engineer for public hearing on May 18, 1983.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None,
ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom.
Not Docketed. Mr. Roosevelt said he had indicated to the Board at it's meeting on
March 9, 1983, that a ruling was anticipated from the Attorney General's office that the
use of Secondary improvement funds were improper for the maintenance of the Hatton Ferry.
A ruling has now been received and a Code section has been found which allows the Highway
Department to use these improvement funds for the maintenance and operation of ferries.
In effect, the action of the Board to finance the ferry with~highway moneY was legal and
that action will remain in effect. There will be about $10,000 left on July 1, 1983. Mr.
Roosevelt said he has been advised that there is no way that the Highway Department can or
will give the money to the County for the operation of the ferry. He said the Board can
request the Highway Department to continue operating the ferry for another year in order
to spend the $10,000. Mr. Roosevelt said the purpose of bringing this to the Board's
attention is twofold. First, to notify the Board about the ruling of the Attorney General
and second, if the Board has reached a decision that the County will operate the ferry
starting July 1, 1983, a formal request can be made to the Department to begin drawing up
the necessary paper work to transfer the ferry to the County.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor his reaction to this information. Mr. Agnor said Mr.
Patrick Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, has recommended that the Highway
Department operate the ferry for another year, but at the time, it was discussed, Mr.
Roosevelt felt it was not legal. Therefore, $7,500 has been inserted into the 1983-84
County Budget for this purpose.
Miss Nash asked if the operation of the Ferry would change if the Highway Department
took over again. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department will operate the ferry as the
Board previously instructed; to be operated on Friday, Saturday and Sunday of each week
with the funds to be taken from highway secondary improvement funds. Miss Nash said she
understands a permanent committee was to be established to act with Mr. Mullaney on the
operation of the Ferry and she felt the committee would be delighted to hear this information.
Miss Nash asked if the Attorney General's decision means that these improvement funds can
always be used for the operation and maintenance of the ferry. Mr. Roosevelt said yes.
The County can take over the' operation of the Ferry on July 1, 1983 and the remaining
$10,000 of improvement funds could then be reallocated to some other improvement project,
or the Highway Department could continue maintaining the Ferry until July 1, 1984 at which
time the County would assume the responsibility, or the County could make an allocation in
future highway improvement budgets for the Highway Department to continue financing the
operation and maintenance of the Ferry.
April 14, 1~83 ~ (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said since the Highway Department can legally continue operating the ferry
then perhaps that is the best solution. Miss Nash agreed. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr.
Mullaney his reaction to this information. Mr. Mullaney said with this new ruling he
would return to his original recommendation that the Highway Department operate and maintain
the Ferry, and if that can be continued after July 1, 1984, that would be fine with him.
Mr. Mullaney said he has looked at the site and there are not a lot of things that can be
done that are not already being done, and the Highway Department has the expertise and
availability of equipment that the Parks Department does not have to operate and maintain
the ferry.
Miss Nash then offered motion, based on the recommendation of Mr. Mullaney, to request
the Highway Department to continue the operation of the Hatton Ferry from July 1, 1983,
through June 30, 1984; also, based on the Attorney General's ruling, to request the Hatton
Ferry Committee to examine the long range operation of the Ferry by the Highway Department
after June, 1984. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion.
Mr. Henley asked if a record could be kept on the usage of the Ferry. He felt that
perhaps the'ferry could be closed on Friday and only open on Saturday and Sunday. He also
felt the Ferry operations might begin too soon in the spring and continue too late in the
fall. Mr. Roosevelt said that such records could be kept. Mr. Henley said based on the
usage in the past, he felt the County is throwing away money but he would support this
operation for another year. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and sam~,~
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 4b. Report on Primary Road Hearing - Mr. Butler.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. Butler had attended the 1983 Preallocation hearing for Primary
and Interstate roads in Culpeper on March 30, on behalf of the Board. He requested that
Mr. Butler make a brief report.
Mr. Butler said he learned that if anything is to get done at the hearing, the entire
Board should attend, He noted that for two hours, representatives from Prince William
County, discussed their projects. Mr. Butler said he had made a written statement for the
County about Route 29 North and Route 20. He was impressed that Commissioner Harold King
said there are some extra funds, but was uncertain how far these funds would go due to
increased construction costs (Copy of the statement is on file in the Clerk's Office).
Mr. Fisher extended appreciation to Mr. Butler for attending on behalf of the County.
(Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 11:10 A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Parks Ordinance re: Fees for Noncounty Residents.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 29 and April 5, 1983)
This public hearing is to consider amending Section 14.11 of the Albemarle County
Code to increase all fees for entry to parks, recreational areas and swimming facilities
by noncounty residents; said amendment presented by Mr. Mullaney at the March 9, 1983,
Board meeting.
Mr. Agnor then summarized what the increase in rates would be for both daily and
seasonal fees for noncounty residents. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Multaney has stated a concern
that the word "Weekend" should be inserted for clarity purposes after "Memorial Day"
wherever same appears in the ordinance. The reason for this concern is that the parks
open for the season on the Saturday before Memorial Day and someone may challenge this if
not clarified. Mr. Agnor said with that amendment, he recommended the ordinance be adopted
as advertised.
The public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak for or against the
proposed amendment and the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following
ordinance with the above correction noted by Mr. Agnor. 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.
(The changes in the ordinance are underscored.)
ORDINANCE
TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 14.11(a)(1)
AND SECTION 14.11(a)(2)
DEALING WITH FEES FOR ENTRY TO PARKS,
RECREATIONAL AREAS AND SWIMMING FACILITIES
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that the Albemarle County Code be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows:
___%pA ril _1q _ 83
(Regular Day Meeting)
Section 14-11. Same--Fees.
(a) Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 15.1-526 of the
Code of Virginia, as amended, there is hereby imposed by the county the
following rates and charges for the entry to parks, recreational areas
and swimming facilities under the county's jurisdiction.
(1) Daily rates.
a. Adults (thirteen years and older), one dollar and
seventy-five cents per day for county residents; two dollars and
twenty-five cents per day for noncounty residents;
b. Children (four to twelve years of age), one dollar per
day for county residents; one dollar and fifty cents per day for noncounty
residents.
c. Children (under four years of age), free.
weekend.
No rates charged after Labor Day and before Memorial Day
(2) Season rates.
a. Adults (thirteen years and older), twenty-five dollars
for county residents; thirty-five dollars for noncounty residents.
b. Children (four to twelve years of age), fifteen dollars for
county residents; twenty-five dollars for noncounty residents.
c. Family (parents and children residing in the same household),
fifty dollars for county residents; seventy dollars for noncounty residents.
d. After July 15, these rates are reduced by one-half.
weekend·
No rates charged after Labor Day and before Memorial Day
(3) Picnic shelter reservation fees.
a. Groups under fifty, ten dollars per event.
b. Groups fifty to one hundred, twenty dollars per event.
event·
do
hundred fifty.
Groups one hundred to one hundred fifty, thirty dollars per
Reservations will not be made for groups in excess of one
No fee charged for picnic shelter reservation from Memorial
Day weekend through Labor Day.
first come/first served basis.
However, shelters still must be reserved on
(b) The foregoing rates may be changed from time to time by the board
of supervisors. A copy of rates shall be posted at points where such fees
are to be collected. Fees for rental of county-owned boats, and recreation
programs or activities, shall be determined by order of the county executive.
(C) rNO person shall be permitted to use facilities for which fees are
charged as aforementioned without first having paid the same; however, the
foregoing charges may be suspended by order of a county official so designated
by the county executive. No fees paid under this section shall be refunded.
Passes issued on payment of such fees shall not be transferable.
Agenda Item No. 6. Broadus Wood School Site Plan Appeal. (Broadus Wood Elementary
School Site Plan, drawn by Vickery Partnership, Architects, dated February 8, 1983, Tax
Map 31, Parcels lA and 2).
The following memorandum of appeal dated March 25, 1983, from Dr. Carlos Gutierrez,
Superintendent of Schools to Mr. Robert W.-Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was noted:
"The School Board voted unanimously on March 23, 1983 to appeal the Commission's
decision requiring approval by the Fire Marshal of a water storage system on
the Broadus Wood Elementary School site."
Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report:
"Location: Parcels lA and 2 on tax map 31, White Hall-District;
located on the west side of Route 663, northwest of Earlysville and
south of Route 664.
Acreage:_. 11.74 acres.
Zonings_ RA, Rural Areas.
~OPosal: To add 17,281 square feet to an existing 19,621 square foot
elementary school building·
Reason for Plannin.~ Commission Review: Site plan.
R~ular Da~i__Meetin~
Topography of Area: Gently rolling.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 663 currently
carries 2,829 vehicle trips per day and is considered by the ~irginia
Department of Highways and Transportation to be nontolerable.
Watershed Impoundment: Rivanna Watershed.
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soils in this
area consist of a deep, well-drained soil with rock at 60 inches. The
Soil Conservation Service noted in the comments from the Site Review
meeting that careful attention needed to be given to drainage around the
proposed athletic fields. The Soil Conservation Service also noted that
proper seeding practices should be used in these areas.
~0mp.~ensive Plan Recommendation: The property is located in Rural
Area I and in a watershed for which the Comprehensive Plan recommends a
density of one dwelling unit per ten acres.
TY_Pe Utilities: Public facilities are not available.
Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has
commented that the entrance improvements, as well as the internal
circulation shown on the site plan appear to be acceptable and desirable.
The Highway Department has noted that the drainage calculations for the
portion of the road which outlets on Route 663 should be submitted with
the permit application request. In addition, since this is a school road,
a resolution changing the state maintained school road will be required.
The County Engineer has approved the preliminary runoff control plans
and drainage plans. The planning staff requested but had not received as
of March 18, 1983 approval of sidewalk and pavement specifications.
The Fire Official (Mr. Cortez) has approved the dumpster location, fire department
access and handicapped provisions for this site plan.
The Fire Official had noted in the comments from the March 3 Site Review
meeting that a dry hydrant with adequate water from a pond would be
required. Although the applicant has objected to the dry hydrant
requirement, the Fire Official has stated that he still feels it is
necessary. Mr. Cortez has noted in a memo (copy on file in Clerk's
Office) that according to Article 32.5.18 of the Zoning Ordinance the
Fire Official may require, where public water is not available, "such
alternative provisions as deemed necessary to provide adequate fire
protection".
In reviewing fire protection for the school, Mr. Cortez found that the
school is approximately 1.4 miles from the nearest dry hydrant
(Earlysville Forest) and 3.6 miles from the hydrants at the airport.
Mr. Cortez has also conferred with Chief Huckstep of the Earlysville
Volunteer Fire Department who noted that his and other department
tankers would have to shuttle 120,000 gallons of water for a major
fire in the structure (based on required ISO fire flow of 2,000 GPM
for a one hour period). According to Mr. Cortez, it is a virtual
impossibility to shuttle 120,000 gallons given the fact that the largest
tanker of any area fire department carries approximately 2,000 gallons.
There is one tanker of approximately 4,000 gallon in Crozet.
Mr. Cortez noted that he had spoken with the Broadus Wood Elementary
School principal, Mrs. Webber, and understood her concern over the
safety hazard to children of a large pond on the property. An
alternative to a pond would be to install an enclosed supply, the
least expensive of which costs approximately $26,000.00.
With the safety problem in mind, the Fire Official highly recommends
providing an adequate, easily accessible water supply to protect
not only the school (which is almost doubling in size) but also
the rapidly developing Earlysville area.
The applicant's representatives have stated that they differ with
the Fire Official's requirement of a dry hydrant, due to the safety
hazard a pond would present to school children. The cost of such a
pond is also noted as-a basis for objection to this requirement.
The Health Department has noted that the existing septic tank system
is adequate for the proposed addition to the school.
This site plan will meet the requirements of Article 32 of the Zoning
Ordinance and staff recommends approval subject to the following:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. A building permit can be processed when the following conditions
have been met by the applicant:
Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
County Engineer approval of final drainage plans;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Ordinance;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
entrance requirements;
Fire Official approval of dry hydrant with adequate water from a
pond (as per memo March 2, 1983, site review comments);
County Engineer approval of sidewalk and pavement specifications.
April 14, 1983
(Regular Day Meeting)
2. A certificate of occupancy can be issued when the following conditions
have been met:
a. Ail improvements must be constructed or.bonded;
b. Fire Official approval of fire flow and operation of dry hydrant."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 22, 1983, aPproved
this site plan with the above conditions and substituting the following for condition le:
"Fire Official approval of a fire protection storage system;" and for condition 2b: "Fire
Official approval of fire flow."
Mr. Fisher said there have beeniother schools built in rural areas without public
water and asked what was done at those schools, in particular Red Hill and Scottsville.
Mr. Tucker said he was certain that Was not a requirement for those schools. However, he
could not speak for the Fire Official on this recommendation.
Mr. Ira Cortez, Fire Official, then arrived at the meeting. Mr. Fisher said the
Board understands his recommendation:for a dry hydrant with a pond. The report referred
to the distances that this-site is from other sources of water and Mr. Fisher asked what
conditions were placed on the Scottsville and Red Hill Schools and if dry hydrants and
ponds were built at those locations. Mr. Cortez said when Red Hill and Scottsville went
through site plan review, the authority he has now was not in the Zoning Ordinance. The
ordinance at that time only referred to the building being within a reasonable distance from
public water and a hydrant could be required. Mr. Cortez noted that Chief Huckstep from
the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department feels strongly about having fire protection
close to the building because of the size of the school.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of storage system would cost the $26,000 mentioned in
the staff report. Mr. Cortez said that is a bladder type apparatus. The cost mentioned
is only for the materials but the installation, piping and excavation required is not
included in that cost. This apparatus sits on an embankment and is a sort of raised
pool. Mr. Fisher asked if the apparatus could freeze. Mr. Cortez said no. He also
noted that a lot of this type of apparatus are in place in other localities, but none in
Albemarle County. This apparatus would serve as a readily available supPly of water.
Mr. Butler asked if this would be an additional cost to the project. Mr. Cortez said
yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked the estimated cost of the project. Mr. Robert Vickery, from
the Vickery Partnership firm, was present and said the cost is estimated at one million
five dollars.
Miss Nash noted that condition l(e) of the Planning Commission differs from that of
the staff and asked why it was changed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission wanted
some wording that would give the Fire Official some discretion as to the type of fire
protection storage system that would be required.
The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Robert Vickery said his fi~m
the School Board today. He said the fire protection being required is not for the safety
of the children, but rather for the building itself. He also noted that there is not
anything in the building which will hinder the evacuation of the children in case of a
fire. Mr. Vickery then introduced Mr. Robert Moje, architect from his firm, who has been
involved in this project and is present to address this matter.
Mr. Moje said everyone agrees that a pond or some means of providing water for fire
protection is desirable but the issue of cost and liabilities involved are also a point
for discussion. This site is on a hilItop and the normal manner for fire protection to
be provided is by a pond. However, this site is restricted by the existing building and
a low area is needed to dam a stream for a pond, It is~estimated that rock formations
are only sixty inches below grade which would also make building a pond difficult. The
other issue is that the fire protection is for the building itself. Fire drills are
conducted in the school and it takes fifty seconds to evacuate the entire building. This
is long before the fire department would arrive and need the water. Mr. Moje said the
cost involved is a significant factor. The $26,000 estimate is just for a bladder type
apparatus to be constructed and a pond-like basin would also be needed. He has discussed
this apparatus with a number of people and there are problems associated with same. This
is an easiiy vandalized item since it is made of a thin rubber membrance which can easily
be cut. Another significant factor is that the three existing wells, on the site do n~
have strong rates of flow.. There is not a great deal of water available from a well
with which to fill whatever fire protection system is provided. There isa holding tank
that builds up water during the day for the building's use. However, for a fire protection
system it would have to be filled above and beyond that. Estimates are that two continuous
months of flow would be needed to fill a 120,000 gallon tank which is roughly a container
of 60 x 60 x 5 feet deep. Mr. Moje said the School Board feels that a pond would be a
safety hazard to the children and the chances of a child drowning far outweigh:the benefits
of the pond providing water for fire protection. Mr. Moje said some preliminary investigation
have been done on the best kind of container to have and Mr. Sam Saunders from the firm
of Gtoeckner, Lincoln and Osborne, civil engineers, has examined this. Mr. Saunders'
recommendation is for an above ground storage tank capable of handling 120,000 gallons of
water. The estimate for that tank is $80,000. Mr. Fisher asked the location for such a
tank. Mr. Moje said it would be placed to the left side of the school building, and be
adjacent to the existing storage tank. Mr. Moje said funding for the addition to the
School is to be from Literary Funds and this item does not qualify for that. funding. Mr.
Fisher then asked what the insurance costs would be with and without a fire protection
system for the building. Mr. Moje said Mr. John Massie, Director of Construction,
Maintenance and Operation, is more familiar with that but has estimated that at the most
a $1,000 a year savings might be realized.
April 14, 1983
(Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Lindstrom asked if this proposal would be part of a sprinkler system in the
building or just be a system for a tanker to hook to. Mr. Moje said the idea is to have
some type of apparatus which holds 120,000 gallons of water which could be pumped to a
dry hydrant. In other words, the container must be of a type that a tanker could pull up
to and pump the water out of the storage system. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. MoJe if his
recommendation is for the above storage tank. Mr. Moje said yes, but the tank is an
eyesore to adjacent properties. Mr. Fisher asked the height of this tank. Mr. Saunders
said the container is approximately thirty feet in diameter and twenty-eight feet high.
Mr. Moje said to conclude, he feels that the cost of a fire protection system for just
the building is great.
Mr. Vickery said his firm feels that the tank is the most feasible of available
alternatives, and he would support a waterline from the Airport to Earlysville as the
best alternative.
Next to speak was Mrs. Marjorie Webber, principal of Broadus Wood School. She said
even though she is an adjacent property owner, she will be speaking on behalf of the
school. She noted that the Planning Commission agreed that a pond is not a good thing to
put on school property due to the hazard to children before and after school. A storage
tank would be less hazardous but it would be a nuisance in that when fire trucks filled
their pumpers (for locations other than the school) the children would be disturbed since
children are attracted to fire engines. Mrs. Webber said the school conducts fire drills
regularly and fifty to fifty-five seconds are involved to evacuate the building. Mrs.
Webber said she did not feel that having additional water on the site would protect the
children, but rather the opposite. Rather than spending $80,000, Mrs. Webber agreed with
the alternative of Mr. Vickery for a waterline to be extended to the Earlysvilte area.
This is a need for the development of the community and would solve the lack of water for
the school.
Speaking next was Mrs. Barbara Herath on behalf of the concerned parents of Broadus
Wood School. The parents do not feel that the fire protection requirement is necessary
but that decision is really up to the Board's judgment. However, the parents are concerned
that this requirement will require additional funds. With this requirement, and the lack
of funds necessary to provide the system, the project will be delayed. This delay will
endanger the entire plan of developing quality education in the County. Mrs. Herath said
the group would ask that i.f the Board deems this requirement necesarry, that the funds be
provided at the same time. Mrs. Herath then noted a petition from thirty-five parents
and the gist of the petition is to urge that the project move ahead (Copy of the petition
is on file in Clerk's Office).
With no one else present to speak for against this appeal, the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Fisher felt the Board should use the same standards in this appeal pro~ess as it
would if the appeal were for a private project. He noted that he had voted against the
approval of planning funds for this project until the overall school redistricting plan
was completed. The redistricting recommendations were received by the Board this morning.
Therefore, the primary interest he has is that the site plan serve the public in the best
way possible.
Mr. Butler said the feasible alternative seems to be extending the waterline from
the Airport to Earlysville and he wished there was a way to move ahead with that project.
Mr. Fisher said he did not think public water has ever been contemplated for this area of
the County. The School property is in the South Fork Rivanna watershed in which the
County is trying to prohibit development. He personally has serious reservations about
whether the addition to this School should be allowed. He then asked Mr. Tucker to
comment on the service areas of the Service Authority. Mr. Tucker said the service
boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority would have to be amended to include
this area. The last time this was discussed, the cost of extending the waterline was
great. Mr. Fisher said that under the County's current Comprehensive plan, the area is
not designated for growth, and no public water is proposed.
Mrs. Cooke then asked what type of insurance coverage is purchased when there is
inadequate water for fire protection. Mr. David Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for
Finance, said there is a blanket policy issued for all schools, and at present the policy
on the school does not show a water supply for fire protection.
Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has been very consistent in applying County restrictions
to County projects as well as to all citizens. If this were a private development, he
did not feel there would be any question that the recommendations of the Fire Official
would stand. This project is important because of the investment by the genergt public.
Mr. Lindstrom said the statement about the tank being an eyesore and a disruption to the
children is very disturbing since the tank could protect the entire Earlysville community..
Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board should follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission
and did not feel any reason had been presented to change the conditions. He said the
condition is very openly worded and the Fire Official has the leverage to require whatever
he feels is best. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Cortez what he would accept for this condition.
Mr. Cortez said for fire protection, a storage facility containing 120,000 gallons of
water is necessary for the area within 800 feet of the building. A hydrant could possibly
be placed where the children would not see the fire trucks replenishing their water
supply, et cetera. He personally wanted the condition openly worded in order that other
alternatives such as a pond on adjacent property that could supply that amount of water,
or whatever other alternatives might be found, could be selected. Mr. Fisher asked if
Mr. Cortez objected to the tank which hsd been suggested earlier. Mr. Cortez said no.
Mr. Fisher said he shared the concerns of the architect about the bladder apparatus being
an item easily vandalized.
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Moje said the important point is that this requirement will help the entire
Earlysville area and he did not feel it is compatible with the school project. Therefore,
this condition should be separated from the school project.
Mr. Lindstrom felt the Planning Commission's action should stand and agreed with Mr.
Fisher about the bladder apparatus.
Mr. Henley said the insurance to protect this building, with or without water, would
cost approximately the same amount. The amount of money needed to provide the 120,000
gallons of water is great. Mr. Fisher said that is an assumption that has not been borne
out by any real data. Mr. Fisher felt that if this project is to go forward, a water
source should be available, and the funds found for that expense.
Miss Nash asked if the 120,000 gallons is required just for the school. Mr. Cortez
said yes.
Mr. Lindstrom said even though Mr. Henley has a good point about the insurance, he
is not sure he preferred choosing the alternative of letting insurance money pay for a
building burned down as opposed to installing the fire protection necessary under this
condition. Mr. Henley said he would be interested to know how many schools in the State
have burned down in the last ten years. Mr. Henley said he felt something could be
worked out between the school staff, the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department, Mr. Cortez
and some neighbor who perhaps has a pond to supply water to the fire trucks. He then
offered motion to delete condition l(e) and ask the Fire Official and the School Admini-
stration to continue searching for a source of water that is convenient for the purpose of
fire protection. Miss Nash felt that condition l(e) does that and she did not see any
reason to delete the condition. Mr. Henley felt the condition may cause a delay in the
project. Mrs. Cooke asked if the motion meant that until the water source is found the
project cannot go forward. Mr. Henley said that is what he wants to prevent. Mr. Butler
then seconded the motion.
Mr. Fisher said deleting this condition means that the Fire Official will have no
authority to require anything on this site plan. Mr. Tucker said prior to issuance of a
building permit that is true but under condition 2(b) the fire flow must be approved
before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Mr. Fisher said deleting this condition
could result in constructing a building that cannot be used. Mr. Henley felt the Fire
Official has done what he should, but he did not feel a reservoir is all that necessary
with the building insured. Mr. Lindstrom then noted that condition 2(b) needs to be
deleted as well in order for the motion to be effective. Mr. Henley then asked if the
Board could do something at a later date before the certificate of occupancy is issued.
Mr. Tucker said that has never been done before, however, a condition could be imposed
that prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy that the Board will review the plan
again. Mr. Henley said he would hate to delete the condition 2(b) because the school
administration and the others may have a viable solution by that time. Mr. Tucker said
that was the reason he recommended a condition simply as a recommendation that the Fire
Official and the School Board work together to find an alternative for the water source
and that be a condition concerning the certificate of occupancy. Mr. Henley favored that
being a part of condition 2(b).
A brief discussion followed on the possibility that another water source might not be
found and the status of the project then. Mr. Cortez said funds would have to be provided
for the water supply source and that could mean a delay in the project. Mr. Lindstrom
said he had supported this project but would not support the project without this fire
protection condition. He did not feel this condition should be ignored just because the
project could be delayed. Mrs. Cooke then asked if there was any possible water source in
the area. Mr. Cortez said Mrs. Webber has a pond on her property, but that is too far
back from the road. In conclusion, he said he has not seen any encouraging information on
an alternative source.
Mrs. Cooke said she agrees that the project is needed, but agrees with Mr. Lindstrom
that approval of the site plan without fire protection is irresponsible on the Board's
part. The Board should protect the public's investment.
Mr. Agnor felt condition 2(b) should be deleted as well as condition l(e). Mr.
Henley said when he made his motion he was not aware of condition 2(b). He then amended
his motion to also delete condition 2(b). Mr~Bu~er~accepted-t~ha~t£amendmen~t~~his~
second. Miss Nash felt the amendment was worse because this leaves the building without
any fire protection. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Butler and Henley.
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
With the above action, the Planning Commission's action stands and the site plan
conditions remain as set by the Planning Commission on March 22, 1983.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: 1982-83 Budget Amendments. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on April 6, 1983)
Mr. Agnor summarized a memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones, DireCt.or of Finance, dated
March 31, 1983. The first amendment is for a transportation study grant for the Planning
District Commission and Albemarle County is to be the fiscal agent. The grant is for the
Metropolitan Planning Organization and is in the amount of $6,460. The County has a 7.28%
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
in-kind match of this amount. The second request is for $435.00 for the Board of Elections
for the recount of the Murray/~llen election results of last November. The third request
is a bookkeeping procedure in which the County writes itself a check on the land use
deferral program. The program was budgeted for $1,761,460 which is short by $24,049.18.
This combined with a minor overrun of excess fees paid to the State Treasurer for the
Circuit Court Clerk ~ in the amount of $119.35 will result in a net overexpenditure of
approximately $20,000, since some other items in this category were unexpended. Mr. Jones
feels that in the total refund category, there will be enough funds to absorb the difference
of ~4,049.18. Therefore, the request is for $20,000. Mr. Agnor said he recommended
approval of these three budget amendments.
The public hearing was then opened. No one was present to speak for or against these
amendments and the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the
following three resolutions based on the recommendation of Mr. Agnor. 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.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $6,460.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund
and Coded to 9302-5848.1 for the Transportation Study Grant; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to
~amend the Revenues Section of the 1982-83 County Budget by adding $6,460.00
to Code 102404.300--Proceeds MPO Grant; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation shall be effective on
and after April 21, 1983.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $435.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and transferred to the General Fund and Coded to 13G2-1010 for the cost of
the recount of the Murray/Allen Election results in November, 1982.
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation shall be effective on and
after April 21, 1983.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $20,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund and Coded to 9201-5803.12 for an overrun in land use deferrals.
AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation shall be effective on and
after April 21, 1983.
Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution: Community Services Board move to new location.
Mr. Agnor said letter dated March 21, 1983, from Mr. James R. Peterson, Executive
Director of the Community Services Board, along with a resolution was distributed to the
Board requesting authorization to convey property of the Community Services Board at 503
16th Street, N.W. to a trust called the "Region Ten Community Services Charitable Trust".
Mr. Agnor said as he understands the resolution, it requires that each of the governing
bodies with ownership in the described property adopt a resolution to transfer the property
to the trust.
Mr. Peterson said the property in question was purchased in 1976 with the permission
of the local governing bodies who participate in the Region Ten Community Services Board.
The property provided additional office space for the central clinic operation in the
Gordon Avenue area. At a later time, a charitable trust was established with the fourteen
Community Services Board members serving as trustees. This trust was established primarily
because a former Albemarle appointee wanted to provide some stocks and funds for future
long term needs. Mr. Peterson said with the purchase of the Worrell Building by United
Way, Region Ten expects to move to that building by September, 1984 and that move will
consolidate all Region Ten services into one building. Therefore, the two buildings that
the Community Services Board owns on Gordon Avenue, as well as the building on 16th Street,
will not be needed immediately. The resolution requested of the Board today is based on a
desire by the Community Services Board to place these assets in a position to be managed
for long term needs of the mentally handicapped. Mr. Peterson said the trust agreement
was amended recently, at the advice of the Community Services Board counsel, to change
from the fourteen members being trustees because that was too cumbersome. Therefore,
there will now be three trustees, Mr. William T. Stevens who was the first Board Chairman
of~the Community Services Board and Mr. James W. Grove a former Board member and Mr.
Richard Sperry, the current Board member from Nelson County.
Mr. Fisher noted serious reservations about this request. The property on 16th
Street was purchased with funds from all participating jurisdictions. He did not agree to
the property being put into a trust operated by self-appointed people. Also, not knowing
how this property will be accounted for to the local governments concerned him. Mr.
Fisher said he realizes that the Community Services Board had a surplus of funds when this
building was purchased, and he felt there are a lot of questions unanswered.
April 14~1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Peterson said some of Mr. Fisher's concerns are answered within the trust agreement.
The Community Services Board appoints the trustees. An amendment was made to the trust to
keep as much control and direction as possible by the full Board. Mr. Peterson said the
trust is set up precisely so that there is a responsible agent to manage the assets.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to know what the building will be used for in the
future.. ~Mr. ?eterson said when the move is made to the United Way Building, this building
will not be needed for outpatient services as it is currently used. Mr. Fisher asked why
the property could not be declared surplus and the building sold. Mr. Peterson said it is
intended that the trustees will manage, sell, or do whatever is felt to be in the best
long term needs of the Community Services Board. Mr. Fisher said that could mean renting
the building to supPly income for Community Services operations. He was not sure that is
appropriate for a public agency when the building was purchased for a specific need. Mr.
Fisher said this appears to be turning real estate owned by the Region Ten Board, which
was funded by local governments, over to a third entity not controlled by these local
governments, and this appeared to be just holding real estate.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if he had seen the trustee agreement. Mr. St. John
said no. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not have any basic objection to the request but did
feel that the County Attorney should review the agreement to assure that the purposes of
the trust are going to be commensurate with the nature of the original investment which
was an investment for the Community Services Board activities and whether the building 'is
sold or rented and for no other purpose. Mr. Lindstrom said if that is the case, then he
did not have any problem with the request. Mr. Fisher said he would support Mr. Lindstrom's
suggestion but also request County staff to make a recommendation as to whether this
process is appropriate for Community Services or other regional agencies that may have
similar circumstances for holding real estate with no spacific purpose other than to
further their needs. Mr. Lindstrom had no problem with that suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom
then asked if time is of importance on this request. Mr. Peterson said no.
Miss Nash asked if the trustees report to anyone. Mr. Peterson said no. As previously
mentioned, there is a clause in the agreement for keeping as much control and direction as
possible to the entire Community Services Board.
Mr. Agnor said he understands the trustees are a subgroup of the Region Ten Community
Services Board who manage the assets, both cash and/or gifts~ and property. Mr. Peterson
said that was correct. The trust has been in effect for a number of years and does have
cash assets which are now managed by the trust.
Mr. Fisher then suggested that this request be deferred to May 11, 1983, in order for
staff to formulate the requested information.
At l~a~G ~.M~.~..the Board recessed for lunch. The meeting reconvened at 1:33 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 13. Victim Assistance Program. Commonwealth's Attorney, Lindsay
Dorrier, was present. Mr. Dorrier referred to his letter to the Board of Supervisors
dated April 7, 1983, stating that the Albemarle County Commonwealth Attorney's Office has
been actively setting up a Victim/Witness Assistance Program since January, 1983. (NOTE:
Mr. Dorrier's letter of April 7, 1983, is on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors.) Mr. Dorrier presented letters from Sheriff's Deputies urging support of
this program, as well as letters from actual victims supporting this program. Mr. Dorrier
read from a summary sheet attached to his April 7, 1983 letter, which stated:
There are presently three pieces of legislature dealing directly with
Victim Assistance; two at the state level, one at the federal level.
Ae
Crime Victims Compensation, Code of Virginia Section 10.2-368, allows
for financial reimbursement to victims/witnesses of crime.
Victim Impact Statement, Code of Virginia Section 19.2-299.1, gives
the victim the opportunity to express, in a presentence statement, the
impact the crime has had on his life.
Ce-
Federal Act, Public Law 97-291, provides for additional protections
and assistance to victims and witnesses in Federal cases.
II.
In 1982, approximately 1,500 residents were direct victims of .crimes. An
estimate of the number of people affected by crime, who may be in need of a
Victim Assistance Program in Albemarle County in 1982, is over 6,000 people
if direct victims, indirect victims and witnesses are considered.
Iii. Local assistance is available at both state and federal level for Victim
Assistance Programs. The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Service
offers free technical assistance to new and developing programs.
IV.
The primary function of the program is to act on behalf of the victim,
fulfilling the various needs which arise as the results of the crime. One
goal is to have every valid crime come to trial and insure that every
victim and witness feels that justice has been achieved.
Short-term counseling and referral for victims of most serious crimes is
developed to help alleviate emotional and mental suffering. This duty
currently rests with the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. In Virginia
prosecutors are encouraged to keep witnesses informed about cases, but no
statutory provision exists which requires specific actions on behalf of the
witness by the prosecutor's office.
114
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Lastly, Mr. Dorrier requested the Board to fund this program sufficiently to compen-
sate one part-time employee and one telephone extension in his office, in the amount of
$7,500.
Mr. Dottier then introduced Ms. Allyson Grob, a graduate student at the University of
Virginia, who has helped se~ up and operate the victim/witness program since January,
1983. Ms. Grob described her duties and procedures which she has established in the
Commonwealth Attorney's office. Ms. Groh said she ~acts as a liaison between the victim/
witness and the Sheriff's office and court system. Ms. Grob said she explains procedures
to victims, accompanies them through various court procedures, handles counseling re-
ferrals, etc. Ms. Grob referred to letters handed out to members of the Board, received
from several of the Sheriff's deputies, probation officers and actual victims who have
used the service; requesting the Board's support for the continuation of this agency.
Next to speak was Ms. Molly M. ~Jennings of the State Department of Criminal Justice
Services. Ms. Jennings referred to her letter to the Board of Supervisors dated April 6,
1983, requesting endorsement of this program and financial support to formally create same
(NOTE: Copy of Ms. Jennings letter of April 6, 1983, is on file in the office of the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors). Ms. Jennings said her department is available to come
in and provide technical assistance to start such a program. Ms. Jennings said services
provided by such an agency frees a great deal of time for the Commonwealth's Attorney and
Sheriff's department by handling-many duties relating to.the, court process. Ms. Jennings
said this program is very cost effective because it relies heavily on volunteers. Lastly,
Ms. Jennings presented copies of a Victim/Witness Assistance Programs--Executive Summary,
prepared by her department, which provides a history of such programs around the state,
and the services such programs provide and cost of same. Mr.~Fisher asked Ms. Jennings if
the State is presently funding these programs. Ms. Jennings said there is no State money
available, that all such programs are being funded at the local level.
Mr. Dorrier stated that this trial program began in January, established as an
internship program by the University of Virginia and that it has proved to him to be
feasible and acceptable to the court, sheriff's department and the citizens involved. Mr.
Dorrier said he did not make a budget request on this program when preparations were
underway for the 1983-84 budget because the program was only in the trial stages at that
time. Mr. Dorrier again stated that the program is mainly administered by volunteers and
coordinated by one part-time person.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to receive some public comments on this program before
making any decision. Mr. Fisher said he would also feel more comfortable if the program
were to be funded as part of the Commonwealth Attorney's office rather than as a separate
agency.
Miss Nash asked if employees in the Commonwealth Attorney's office working on such a
program would be eligible for funding from the State Compensation Board. Mr. Dorrier said
his office is eligible for one part-time employee, but is not certain if a victim/witness
program coordinator would qualify under requirements set by the State Compensation Board.
Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes the needs of victims of crime, but expressed concern
that this request for funding has not gone through the normal budget procedures of the
County as all other agencies did. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not wish to consider any
funding unless this program goes through the normal staff budget committee review for fear
of setting a precedent. Mr. Fisher said if the Board members agree, the staff budget
review committee can be directed to study this request and present its recommendation to
the Board on May 11, 1983. Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Dorrier tried to get this program
reviewed by the staff budget review committee, but the request was received too late to be
placed in the budget review cycle.
Agenda Item No. 14. Finalize 1983-84 Budget. Mr. Fisher asked if the individual
members of the Board would like to make statements concerning their feelings on the
budget. Mr. Lindstrom said several people from Newtbwn~.~ speaking at the public hearing
had mentioned a need for water. He asked if this is something that could be handled
through the AHIP program. Mr. Henley said water has been installed in several homes. He
felt the request was for water at a community center. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to
begin the conversation by suggesting that the education budget be funded in the full
amount recommended by the School Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not only concerned about
teacher salaries, but with school building maintenance, and possible loss of programs such
as alternative education and fine arts. Mr. Lindstrom said he strongly feels that a two-
cent real estate tax rate increase would cover the school request without strapping
property owners. Mr. Lindstrom said he had many people contact him in favor of a tax
increase. Mr. Lindstrom said he realizes there is no merit system for teachers, but he
feels teachers should receive greater administrative review in order to insure that they
are doing their job properly and not receiving longevity increases which are not deserved.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor if new revenue projections recently presented would have any
effect on the proposed budget for 1983-84. Mr. Agnor said it is true that revenue pro-
jections have increased, but not sufficiently to eliminate the current year's deficit of
$62,626 in the Education budget, or fund next year's total education request. Mr. Agnor
said other items have come to his attention which will require funding next year which
were not originally accounted for, i.e. changes in the social security law and costs for
maintenance at the County vehicle maintenance facility. At this time, Mr. L~ndstrom
offered a motion to set a second public hearing on the budget setting a two-cent increase
on the real estate tax rate, bringing the total proposed real estate tax rate to seventy-
nine cents per one hundred dollars of assessed valuation.
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke, who said she agrees with Mr. Lindstrom's
comments. Mrs. Cooke said she is very impressed with the number of citizens who have
taken the time to contact her in support of a tax rate increase in order to fully fund the
education budget. Mrs. Cooke said not funding the education budget cheats the future of
all those who live in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to add that a two-
cent increase would total approximately $30 additional taxes on a $150,000 home.
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Henley said he did not plan to support the motion as he felt all County employees
should get the same percentage increase next year. Mr. Henley said he would not support
raising the tax rate. Mr. Henley said if there is a problem with the base salary for
teachers, then it should be adjusted; but to raise taxes to accomplish this is improper.
Mr. Henley said he feels it is unfair to give the teachers a larger increase than other
County employees, and to use the premise that teachers are "professionals" is unfair to
the other professionals working for the County, such as engineers, etc.
Miss Nash agreed with Mr. Henley and said she would not support the motion. Miss
Nash said if the teachers are granted the full seven percent raise proposed for 1983-84,
it would give the teachers a total nineteen percent increase from 1982-83 through 1983-84.
Miss Nash said she could see no reason to give the teachers any more of an increase than
other employees. Miss Nash noted that salaries in many areas of the State are frozen.
Miss Nash said she would like to see an increase given to everyone on the~ County payroll
earning less than $20,000 and for those making above that amount, wages should be frozen.
Mr. Fisher asked about the suggestion from the State for a 9.7% increase for school
teachers. Mr. Agnor said that if the total amount of increase in revenues from the State
were applied to teacher salaries only and not applied to any operating expenses or any
increases in fringe benefits, the revenues from the State would fund a salary increase of
6.1 percent; not the 9.7 percent suggested. There are many reasons for this. That State
standards of quality call for expending $1,464 per pupil; Albemarle County presently
expends close to $2,700. The standards call for 54 teachers per 1,000 students; Albemarle
County has .81 teachers per 1,000 students. The State has a composit index which is
applied to the $1,464 and then the State funds the inverse of that amount. When someone
looks at the index, they see .554 percent and think that is what the State funds, but
actually the State pays the inverse or .446 percent. It is a manipulation of figures that
will result in Albemarle County receiving from the State for the 1983-84 year, enough
funds to fund a 6.1 percent increase for teachers only. This current year, the fringe
costs of the schools are running at 30 percent; next year, because of a large increase in
the cost of retirement, fringes will cost 33.6 percent. If the 9.7 percent suggested were
available for a salary increase next year, the total actual increase would be 12.8 percent
with the cost of fringe benefits added. Mr. Fisher said he hoped someone would write to
all of the County's members in the General Assembly about this problem.
Mr. Butler said he supports the teachers, but cannot support the motion to raise
taxes. Mr. Butler said he feels the teachers on the lower part of the scale are hardpressed,
but felt the solution was for the State to revise its funding formula. Mr. But.let said he
did not want to see Albemarle County fall below the State average for salaries, and felt
teachers, officials and legislators should meet to work out a solution. Mr. Butler said
that if a two-cent tax increase is passed, a seven percent salary increase should be given
to all county employees.
Mr. Fisher said his position has not changed, he will not support a tax increase
because of the reappraisal which goes into effect in 1983. Mr. Fisher said the General
Assembly is encouraging teachers to ask for more money, yet refuses to raise State taxes
to provide the money. Mr. Fisher said he is tired of the Governor and General Assembly
telling localities to raise teacher salaries, yet standards of quality for education are
so low that there is not sufficient reimbursement to give localities the ability to pay
the salary increases demanded. Mr. Fisher noted that although the current State standard
is 54 teachers per 1,000 students, Albemarle County has 81 teachers per 1,000 students;
yet when student enrollment declined by 788 over a six-year period, the County school
system actually added 73 teachers. Mr. Fisher reiterated that he is not willing to
support a tax increase and that the problem must be resolved another way.
Miss Nash said she wished to note that Federal contributions to education through the
State have also diminished and this also contributes to the increased costs of education
by local governments.
Mr. Lindstrom said that in reading some statements by Delegate Van Yahres, he feels
that if the localities don't take on the responsibility for correcting low salaries, there
will be a centralization of decision-making in Richmond that no one will like. Mr. Lindstrom
said that unless the Board is willing to inject itself into the budgeting process of the
schools, there is no way to guarantee that the proposed cuts will not be taken out of
programs instead of salaries. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels this Board must support the
School Board's budget or else replace the School Board members because no matter what kind
of a budget the School Board submits, it is cut by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Lindstrom
said he is concerned that a reduction in the School Board's budget will result in the
cutting of many important programs as well as a poor increase in teacher salaries, and
that two cents on the tax rate is a very small price to pay for a quality education.
Mr. Henley called for the question. Roll was called on Mr. Lindstrom's motion,~ and
the motion failed by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Butler, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
Mr. Henley said he felt the Board should take the school budget category by category
pull out the salaries and give all county employees the same percentage of increase. Mr.
Henley asked Mr. St. John for assistance in wording a motion to adjust the budget in order
to give all county employees a five percent increase. Mr, St. John said there is no way
he knows of to designate funds solely for salaries. Mr. St. John said the Board of Super-
visors can designate funds to certain categories but the School Board decides how those
funds are to be spent within those categories.
Mr. Agnor then reviewed at the Board's request the salary increase figures which were
originally proposed for school and general government employees, as well as which employees
in the County are covered by a merit system and how those merit systems are to be funded.
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Henley then offered motion to prepare the budget with an amount which will allow
for a five percent, across-the-board salary increase for all County employees, plus
retaining a merit increase for those employees covered by a merit system. Mr. St. John
said he had no problem with the motion as it has been presented, although there is no
guarantee that the money will be taken from salaries by the School Board. Mr. Henley
asked if the Board could not instruct the School Board to reduce those categories con-
taining salaries. Mr. St. John said the Board could so instruct, but those categories
contain other than salary items.
Mr. Lindstrom said that under Mr. Henley's motion a teacher will not have the same
opportunity for an increase as other government employees because there is no merit
increase available to teachers. Mr. Fisher said he understands the motion to grant a five
percent increase for all personnel, plus budgeting an amount for a merit increase for
those employees who are covered by a merit pay system for the next fiscal year; this would
include all general government employees who are presently under a merit system and bus
drivers, custodians, secretaries and other classified employees of the school system,
provided the School Board goes ahead and implements its merit pay system during the next
fiscal year.
Mr. Lindstrom said he does not plan to support the motion, but Wished the motion to
be clarified to avoid confusion. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the motion mandates that the
changes occur in the instructional category of the school budget. Mr. Fisher said changes
would also occur in the administrative categories. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the
intent of the motion is that the budget be amended to reflect a five percent increase for
everyone, the result of that being that the School Board might leave e.g. seven percent
for salaries and cut other programs as long as the total of the budget matches the amount
set by the Board of Supervisors. Mrs. Cooke said she feels that if the motion passes,
this will cause either the instructional staff or the school programs to suffer.
Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the Board approve the budget with specific
dollars for each of the major categories and then ask the staff to revise the budget for
the appropriation ordinance. Mr. St. John said it is only within the Board's power to
request Mr. Agnor to change categories within the budget; the Board cannot direct the
School Board to change their budget line item by line item. Mr. Agnor said he would have
to meet with Mr. Papenfuse in order to make those changes. Mr. Agnor said he would
recommend that the Board of Supervisors meet with the School Board in order to discuss the
intent of this motion and explain the reasoning behind the motion. Mr. Henley said he had
suggested a meeting with the School Board three weeks ago, but it was suggested that this
take place later. Mr. Henley added that he sincerely hopes the School Board will co-
operate with the efforts of the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Agnor noted that he hoped the
School Board would apply the five percent increase to teachers base scale and not make it
a step increase. Mr. Agnor said a five percent scale adjustment would allow Albemarle
County to remain competitive with other localities in Virginia and especially with the
City of Charlottesville which had just approved a six percent scale adjustment for their
teachers.
Mr. Henley then restated his motion asking Mr. Agnor to bring back a budget with all
salaries adjusted in the School categories reflecting a five percent gross increase and
leaving in funds for a merit increase for those county employees who are under a merit
system and for classified employees of the School system if the merit system is put into
effect by the School Board. Mr. Fisher asked that if there are any funds left after the
salary adjustment, that amount should be restored into program areas. Mr. Henley said he
would agree to that. The motion was then seconded by Miss Nash.
Mrs. Cooke said she did not understand the ramifications of this motion and would
therefore abstain from voting on same. Mr. Fisher said he would support this motion
because he believes a balanced budget must be achieved and that it not be at the sacrifice
of school programs. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the large part of the problem in reaching a goal of fair
salaries, school programs, etc., is due to the nature of the method of taxation allowed
localities by the General Assembly. Mr. Lindstrom said real estate and personal property
methods of taxation have no relation at all to the ability of the owner to pay those
assessments. Mr. Lindstrom then read the following resolution and offered motion for its
approval:
WHEREAS, the current system of local taxation enabled by the General Assembly
bears little relationship to a citizen's ability to pay for governmental services;
and
WHEREAS, the rapid increase in property values in certain localities,
particularly in those localities facing rapid population growth, which growth
often necessitates additional expenditures for governmental services, has increased
the inequity of property taxation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that we do hereby respectfully request Senator Thomas J.
Michie, and Delegates Mitchel Van Yahres and George Allen to introduce and
actively seek passage of legislation to grant local government the option of
replacing the current property tax system with an income tax.
(Mr. Henley left the meeting at 3:40 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom said he does not know if he
will see this suggestion studied even in his lifetime, but felt it important enough to
formally make a request. Miss Nash felt a tax on restaurant receipts would also be
beneficial. Mr. Lindstrom said he is suggesting an income tax to replace real estate
property taxation. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees that it is about time the General Assembly
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
look at other methods of taxation, and stated that she would second the motion to adopt
Mr. Lindstrom's resolution. Miss Nash said she would like to see added to the motion the
words "or other more equitable form of taxation", to give the General Assembly some mobility
in their actions. Mr. Lindstrom agreed to the amendment. Mr. Butler said it would be
good for the General Assembly to investigate new ways of local taxation to help ease the
burden on the local taxpayer. Mr. Fisher said he would not support this resolution,
stating that there are already various forms of taxation. Roll was then called and the
motion to adopt the resolution as amended was carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: Mr. Fisher.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
A~ 3:55 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess.
The meeting reconvened at 4:00 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 15..~ Notice of Proposed Tax Increase. (Deferred from April 6, 1983)
Mr. Agnor said in view of the Board's request to recalculate the budget with regard to
salary increases, he would request this agenda item be deferred until May 11, 1983.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer this matter until May
11, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda item No. 16. Set public hearing date on an ordinance to create a county
police force. Mr. Fisher read the proposed ordinance for the Board's information. Mr.
St. John noted that he was careful to word the ordinance to insure State Compensation
Board funding of the Sheriff's'Department until a total changeover is accomplished.
Motion was offered by'Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to set May 4, 1983, at
7:30 P.M., as the date for public hearing. Mr. Butler said he would vote for holding the
public hearing, but not necessarily for the ordinance. Roll was then called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 8. Resolution to correct action taken when adopting CATS Study. Mr.
Agnor described this resolution~as a housekeeping matter. Mr. Agnor noted that at the
time of adoption of the CATS Study on December 15, 1982, the McIntire Road Extension was
not mentioned as being shifted from Phase IV to Phase II of the plan and that certainly
was the intent. A revised resolution is proposed to correct that error.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the document entitled "Charlottesville Area Transportation
Study -- Year 2000 Transportation Plan" (the StudY), dated 1981 and pre-
pared by the Transportation Planning Division of the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation (VDH&T), with the assistance of Policy and
Technical Committees appointed by the City and County, is hereby accepted
and approved as an amendment to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. to
be the "Transportation Element" with the following exceptions:
The Route 20 North connector passing through Key West shall not be
included as a part of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
shall not be part of any transportation plan accepted or recommended
by this Board.
The "Western By-Pass" consisting of a four-lane, divided highway
extending 6.07 miles from Route 29 North at the South Fork of the
R±vanna River to the Route 29/250 By-Pass shall not be included as a
part of the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and shall not be a
part of any'transportat±on plan accepted or recommended by this Board.
The Board shall, as soon as possible, appoint a committee which shall
be charged with the responsibility for examining ways of alleviating
congestion in the Route 29 North corridor and for facilitating the
flow of transportation between the Pantops Mountain area and the
growth areas in the vicinity of Route 29 North in the northern part of
the County, provided that alternatives examined shall be outside of
the territory of the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment.
The McIntire Road Extension between Rio Road and Route 29 North
(Hollymead) should be shifted from Phase IV to Phase II. This im-
provement along with improvements proposed to Route 29 North should
provide viable transportation alternatives for the Urban and Hollymead
growth areas for the foreseeable future.
The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is further directed to send
copies of thins resolution to the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Charlottesville
City Council.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the above resol-
ution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
,.118
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9. Resolution: Planning Grant. Mr. Agnor noted that on January 19,
1983, the Board of Supervisors agreed to be the fiscal agent for the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission's application request for a 'Community Development Planning
Assistance Block Grant in the amount of $25,000 from the Department of Housing and Com-
munity Development. Mr. Agnor said this grant has been awarded and now a resolution of
acceptance is required from this Board to read as follows:
WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has offered Albemarle County a 1982
Community Development Planning Assistance grant in the amount of $25,000 for the
Community Development Capacity Building project, and
WHEREAS, the Counties of Ftuvanna and Louisa and the Towns of Columbia,
Louisa, Mineral, Scottsville and Standardsville are co-applicants with Albemarle
County for the Community Development Planning Assistance grant, and
WHEREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will perform the
work described in the Community Development Planning Assistance grant proposal,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Executive be
authorized to enter into a contract with the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development for the Community Development Capacity Building project,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Executive be authorized to
enter into an agreement with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
for the performance of all services to Albemarle County and its co-applicants
for the Community Development Capacity Building project.
Motion to adopt the resolution as proposed was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by
Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 10. Request regarding Job Training Partnership Act.
deleted from the final agenda.
This item was
Agenda Item No. 12. Set public hearing date to amend Section 11-13 of the License
Tax Code and extend filing deadline for 1983. Mr. Agnor reviewed a memorandum from Mr.
Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated March 30, 1983 as follows:
"The County Code in Section ll-13(b) requires that an application for a business
license be filed on or before March 31st of each year based on the preceding
year's gross receipts. The penalty is 10 percent of tax or $10 whichever is
the greater.
This year, in particular, there seems to be much difficulty for taxpayers to
meet this deadline because many of these businesses ~ave resorted to amending
prior year returns due to net operating losses as a result of reductions in the
amount of business (gross receipts) in 1982. The end result is that many
taxpayers have their records in the hands of their accountants and don't have
the exact number (amount of gross receipts) to enter upon the application for
business licenses. We are receiving many-calls on this matter from accountants
and taxpayers.
The County Attorney's Office has drafted an amendment to the Business License
Ordinance to correct this situation. However, there is not time to advertise,
set a public hearing and enact this amended ordinance to be effective for this
year. Therefore, I respectfully request that you take formal action at your
April 14th meeting extending the filing deadline for 1983 from March 31st to
April i5th. Also, I request you to take action to authorize the advertisement
and set a date for the public hearing on the attached amendment to the ordinance."
Mr. Fisher requested a motion to set a public hearing to amend Article 1, Section ll-
13(b) of the Albemarle County Code relating to Business License Tax, as recommended by Mr.
Ray B. Jones in his memorandum and with the following Wording suggested by the County
Attorney:
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that
Article I, Section ll-13(b) of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended
and re-enacted as follows:
Section 11-13.
Same -- Persons liable to keep records, report of
gross receipts.
(b) Each licensee whose license is measured by gross receipts
or gross expenditures shall submit to the director of finance, not
later than MA~eA-~A April 15 of each year, a report of his gross
receipts or gross expenditures for the preceding year.
Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Miss Nash to set May 11, 1983, as the
date to hold public hearing on the above stated ordinance amendment. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley,
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked what the properprocedure would be for the waiver of the filing
deadline. Mr. St. John recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider adopting this
ordinance on an emergency basis. Mr. Jones said he did not realize this, but felt the
deadline date would best be made April 30th rather than April t5th as indicated in his
memorandum. Mr. Jones said his office is extremely busy at this time of the year first
with the sale of car decals, Virginia State Income taxe returns, etc., all due at this
time of the year. To extend the business license tax deadline to April 30th would relieve
some of the pressures in the Department of Finance. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following ordinance:
AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE I, SECTION ll-13(b)
OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article I, Section ll-13(b) of the Albemarle County Code is
hereby amended and re-enacted as follows:
Section 11-13. Same --Persons liable to keep records,
report of gross receipts.
(b)
Each licensee whose license is measured by gross receipts or
gross expenditures shall submit to the director of finance, not
later than April 30 of each year, a report of his gross receipts
or gross expenditures for the preceding year.
The Board of Supervisors hereby determining that an emergency exists,
in accordance with Section 15.1-504 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, the foregoing amendment shall have effect immediately, but
shall be enforced for not more than sixty days unless readopted in
conformity with the notice provisions set forth in such section.
Roll was called and the above ordinance was adopted by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to change the filing date stated in the first
motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished the ordinance which will be advertised for public
hearing to contain the date of April 30th rather than April 15th which was stated. Mr.
Lindstrom said he did not wish to change the date of public hearing, which will remain May
11, 1983. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 17. Appointments.
any committee or organization.
Board members had no nominations to be made for
Agenda Item No. 17a. Appropriations, Capital Improvements. Mr. Agnor noted that
there are three appropriation requests; Jefferson Country Fire Fighters' Training Facility,
Resurfacing Totier Creek Park Road and the Georgetown Road Walkway. Mr. Agnor then sum-
marized the following three memorandums which explained the appropriations:
"To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Board of Supervisors ·
Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance
April 8, 1983
Special Appropriation - Jefferson Country Fire Fighters'
Training Facility
The 1982-83 Capital Improvement Program included a training facility for the
Jefferson Country Firemen to be funded jointly by the City and the County for
site preparation only. The CI? allocation last year was for $25,000. As I
recall from discussions held, this was to be approximately a $250,000 facility
with the remainder over and above the total County/City contribution being
funded by the State and the Jefferson Country Fire Fighters group. The Jefferson
Country Fire Fighters have engaged a contractor to begin work and will be in-
curring costs during April. Therefore, I request the following appropriation
from the Unallocated Balance of the CIP Fund to code 9700-7060.58 for the
Jefferson Country Fire Fighters Training Center in the amount of $25,000
As I understand it, arrangements have been made with the Albemarle County
Service Authority to extend a waterline to the site location on Avon Street
Extended. Also, I understand from J. B. Morris that contractual arrangements
have been made with Alan Dillard to do $65,000-$80,000 of site work at this
time."
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
"To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Board of Supervisors
Ray B. Jones
April 13, 1983
CI? Appropriation - Parks and Recreation Department
The Director of Parks and Recreation has requested $16,000 to resurface the
Totier Creek Park road and parking area. This project was included in last
year's CIP program and approved for 1982-83 fiscal year funding.
Therefore, I respectfully request an appropriation from code 9700-9999.99
Unallocated Balance of the Capital Improvement Fund to code 9700-7060.16 for
resurfacing Totier Creek Park Road in the amount of $16,000.
It may be of interest to you to know that as of March 31, 1983, the Unaltocated
Balance of the Capital Improvement Fund was $2,386,032.42. It is anticipated
that the proposed renovation of the Court Square Building will require appro-
ximately $2 million of this amount.
Also, after discussing the requirements for advertising, public hearings, etc.
on budget amendments with various auditors and state officials, I am of the
opinion that an appropriation for a capital project included in the approved
five year CI? program and being funded in the same year as planned in the
program, does not have to be advertised as a budget amendment. Therefore,. the
above appropriation can be made by resolution since it was included in last
year's CIP and was designated for 1982-83 funding."
"To:
From:
Re:
Date:
Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
Mr. Maynard L. Elrod, County Engineer
Georgetown Road Walkway
April 12, 1983
Today we opened bids for the above project. The results were as follows:
Low Bidder:
S. L. Williamson Co., Inc.
Dillard Construction Co.
W. H. Chisholm Co.
Michie Contracting Corp.
$48,959.00
49,536.50
55,68O.O0
69,886.00
We believe that the bid from S. L. Williamson is as low a price as we can expect
and recommend that the contract be awarded to that firm.
This project is in the 1982/83 capital improvements budget at $66,130.00.
recommend that the Board allocate $61,775.00 based on the following:
We
1) Construction Contract $48,959.00
2) Additional culverts, fence and
fire hydrant relocation
Stake-out property lines
Right-of-way Costs
3)
4)
5)
Ten Percent Contingency
TOTAL
4,500.00
1,500.00
17200.00
$56,159.00
57616.00
$61,775.00"
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following three resolutions:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $25,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Unallocated
Balance of the Capital Improvement Program Fund to Code 9700-7060.58 for the
Jefferson Country Fire Fighters Training Center.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $16,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Unallocated
Balance of the Capital Improvement Program Fund to Code 9700-7060.16 for Re-
surfacing Totier Creek Park Road.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $61,775.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Unallocated
Balance of the Capital Improvement Program Fund to Code 9700-7060.80 for the
Georgetown Road Walkway Project.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Miss Nash noted her concern about the location of the Fire Training Facility. Mr.
Fisher stated he also was concerned about the visibility of the proposed facility from
Interstate 64. Mr. Fisher asked the Clerk to obtain the site plan and associated paper-
work and forward same to Board members as soon as possible for their review.
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom stated he
had read the Board of Supervisors' minutes of September t, 1982, and found no corrections
were needed. Mr. Lindstrom then offered to approve the minutes of September 1, 1982, as
submitted. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Agnor said he had a matter of transfer of appropriations for the department of
Education. Mr. Agnor said on March 16, 1983, at the budget work session, he had reported
a projection that there would be a shortfall in the General Fund revenue transfer to the
School Fund in the amount of $191,241. Mr. Agnor said since that work session those
figures have been reanalyzed and it is expected that the full amount of the General Fund
revenues will be collected.
Mr. Agnor referred to a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated
April 14, 1983, a portion of which reads as follows:
"The Department of Education was requested to provide a revised up-date of the
1982-83 revenues and expenditures at the budget work session on March 2, 1983.
At that meeting, the Superintendent stated that "The Department of Education has
its financial house in order and will be in the black" for FY 82-83. However,
Mr. Papenfuse did an analysis which was acted upon by the School Board on March
14, 1983, indicating a deficit of $62,626. Also, this revision indicated
anticipated expenditure over-runs in Education for FY 82-83 for Administration,
Instruction, Maintenance, Fixed Charges and Capital Outlay. Projected under-
expenditures occurred in Other Instructional Costs, Athletic Activities, Trans-
portation, Plant Operation, McIntire Day Program, Community Education and Flow-
Through.
During the month of March, the Department of Finance encumbered all salaries and
fringe costs for the year. This produced a similar result in the' March financial
statement as the projections of Mr. Papenfuse with the exception of Fixed
Charges. The difference of approximately $400,000 resulted from the fact that
the Department of Finance on a full accrual accounting basis included the fringe
costs of the eleventh and twelfth month paychecks and Mr. Papenfuse's projections
on a modified accrual basis did not. The real question is whether or not the
recent audit specifications of the State Auditor of Public Accounts dated
February 28, 1983, will require full accrual. The audit for FY 81-82 did not
accrue these fringe costs. For the purposes of this memo and due to the fact
they were not accrued in the revision acted upon by the School Board on March
14, 1983, these fringe costs are not included in the request.
I hereby request a transfer of appropriations (which results in a net reduction
of appropriation in the amount of $184,839) a reduction of appropriations, and a
reduction of revenues in Education. It is important for the Board to realize
that none of the above actions provides any solution to the current year's
projected deficit. This $62,626 will have to be dealt with at a later date."
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 4:35 P.M.) Mr. Agnor apologized for pre-
senting this matter to the Board on short notice, but said he is concerned about a negative
balance being a violation of State law. Mr. Agnor noted that in June, 1983, if revenues
are short by the $62,626, more money will have to be allocated to Education or that amount
of money can not be spent. Mr. Agnor said he spoke with Mr. Papenfuse and was assured
that there was "absolutely no way to get $62,000 out of the expenditure side of his
budget, he's cut everything that he could find and Verified it thirty days later and still
there is no amount of money available in the $62,000 shortfall of revenues".
Motion was then offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Miss~Nash, to adopt the following
resolution in conformance with a request presented in a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones,
Director of Finance, dated April 14, 1983:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
does hereby approve the following transfer of funds as set out in a memorandum
from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated April 14, 1983; with sup-
porting material from Mr. David C. Papenfuse, Assistant Superintendent for
Finance/Business Management, dated April 13, 1983.
From: 17B2 Other Instructional Costs $104,127
17A Administration 19,717
17B1 Regular Instruction 44,413
17Ct Attendance and Health 529
17F2 Maintenance 6,996
17K Capital Outlay 8,500
17G Fixed Charges 23,972
TOTAL $104,127
From:
17Fl Plant Operations $109,796
17V Flow Through 63,017
17VB2 Other Education Programs--UVA 1~849
TOTAL $174,662
To: 17G Fixed Charges $174,662
April 14, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following reductions in expenditures and
revenues in the 1982-83 Education Budget are approved as requested by Mr. Ray B.
Jones, Director of Finance, in his memorandum of April 14, 1983.
REVENUES
AMOUNT OF
DECREASE
State Sales Tax
Vocational Education (State Share)
TOTAL
$160,000
24,839
$184,839
EXPENDITURES
AMOUNT OF
DECREASE
17B1
17C2
17C3
17E
17I
17J
17K1
17J2
17VB2
Public Transportation
Athletic Activites - Albemarle High School
Athletic Activities - Western Albemarle High School
School Lunch
Adult Education
Other Instruction Programs
McIntire Day Program
Community Education Development
Other Programs - UVA
TOTAL
$100,074
2,315
5,313
38o
1,200
21,064
34,330
3,328
16,835
$184,839
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom.
(Note: Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 4:45 P.M.) Mr. Agnor noted that he
has received in his office Part II of the Planning Study relating to the merger of the
Sheriff's Department and the Charlottesville Police Department prepared by the consultants,
Police Executive Research Forum. It was the concensus of the Board members that they
wished to receive this report when a summary sheet is available.
Mr. Fisher stated that there will be a public hearing held by the State Water Control
Board on May 19, 1983, at 9:00 A.M., regarding FY 1984 and extended priority lists for
sewer funding. Mr. Fisher requested a representative from Albemarle County be present at
that public hearing to insure County funding of the Crozet Interceptor.
Agenda Item No. 19. Adjourn. There being no further business, at 4:50 P.M., Mr.
Fisher declared the meeting adjourned.
Chairman