1983-08-10318
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting'of, the Board of Supervisors of-Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 10,~ 1983, at 9'00 A'.M., in Meeting Room 7', County Office Building, 401-McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Present: Mr. James. R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T.
Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen ¥. Nash.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: ~County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R.
St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr.
Fisher.
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mrs. Cooke, to approve the consent' agenda with-the items as presented. Roll was called
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NOne.
Item No. 2.1. Statement of expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of July, ~t983, were presented.
Item No. 2.2. Change Order #7 dated July 8, 1983~in the amount of $6,666.00 for
Phase II renovations of the County Office Building, was presented.
Item No. 2.3. The final report entitled "Allocation of Funds Fiscal Year 1983-84,
Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems and Public Transit" and the"Six Year Improvement
Program, Fiscal Years 1983-84 through 1988-89, Iutarstate, Primary, Urban & Secondary
Systems and Public Transit", dated July 21, 1983, was received from Harold C. King,
Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. ~Mr. Fisher noted
the information contained within the Six-Year Program regarding improvements in the primary
system; particularly, the improvements to the bridge and approaches at the South Fork
Rivanna River on Route 29 and the proposed widening of Route 29 North from the northern
city limits to Rio Road~which funding has been spread over six years and beyond in the
program.
Item No. 2.4. Letter dated July 27,~1983 from Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner of
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was received:
"As requested in your resolution dated May 11, 1983, the following addition
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved effective
July 27, 1983.
ADDITION LENGTH
LOFTLANDS SUBDIVISION
Deepwoods Road - From Route 1555 to cul-de-sac.
0.23 Mi."
Item No. 2.5.a. Letter dated July 15, 1983, from Ms. Corrine P. Hudgins, Registrar
for H. Bryan Mitchell, State Historic Preservation Officer for the Virginia Historic
Landmarks Commission, was received regarding the consideration of D. S. Tavern in the Ivy
vicinity for the Virginia Landmarks Register.
Item No. 2.5.b. Letter dated July 26, 1983, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell, State Historic
Preservation Officer for the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, was received concerning
property known as Mirador being entered on the National Register of Historic Places.
Item No. 2.6. Letters from VEPCO re: State Corporation Commission Hearings.
a) Notice dated July 15, 1983, from R. T. Gutleber, Director of T&D Engineering
Services, regarding application for approval and certification of the Charlottesville-
Gordonsville, 230 KV rebuild and the Hollymead Tap 230 KY Line. It having been ordered
that those applications be consolidated, a public hearing on same is to be held on October
21, 1983, at 10:00 A.M. in Richmond.
b) Letter dated July 26, 1983 from Mr. A. R. Curtis, District Manager, regarding
VEPCO's Summary of Basic Facts and Relief Requested, was received regarding a case before
the State Corporation Commission to consider issues concerning the cancellation of the
North Anna Unit 3 project.
Item No. 2.7. Letter dated July 27, 1983 was received from Mr. Marshall Pryor,
President of Downtown Charlottesville, Inc., enclosing resolution supporting continuation
of the Visitors' Center at its existing location.
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
319
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: April 6, May 4, June 8 and July 6, 1983.
Mr. Henley had read the minutes for April 6, 1983, and noted no corrections.
Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of May 4, 1983, and suggested the following words
be inserted on page 141, second line from the top, after the word "force", "which contained
the Sheriff's comments to his deputies about the upcoming Sheriff's election and their
expected role in that election". Since this was a statement of Mr. Henley, he asked Mr.
Henley to review that wording for his approval. Mr. Henley said the wording was accurate.
Mr. Butler and Mrs. Cooke had both read their assigned pages of the June 8, 1983,
minutes and noted no corrections.
Mr. Fisher had not read the pages assigned for July 6, 1983. Miss Nash had read her
assigned pages for July 6, 1983, and noted one typographical error.
Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes
of April 6, May 4 and June 8, 1983 with the correction noted above. 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.
Agenda Item No. 4a.
Funds).
Highway Matters:
Resolution re:
Route 637 (Revenue Sharing
Mr. Agnor said the Route 637 (Ivy Landfill Road) project has been ongoing for eight
years. Over the years, the County has been using revenue sharing funds for payment on
this project which funds have been matched by State Revenue Sharing funds from the State
Highway and Transportation Commission. In a memorandum dated July 20, 1983, Mr. Ray B.
Jones, Director of Finance, explains the project and notes that a bill in the amount of
$125,890.92, is due. (copy of this memorandum is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr.~
Agnor said although this is not the final payment on the project, same is drawing near.
Mr. Agnor also noted that Mr. Jones has received verbal confirmation that the Highway
Commission will consider matching a portion of this amount if the County uses Federal
revenue sharing funds. Therefore, an appropriation of $62,945.46 is requested from
Federal Revenue Sharing Funds and the balance will be paid by the Commission. A resolution
requesting State funds must be adopted.
Mr. Fisher asked how much longer it will take before this project is completed. Mr.
Agnor said there are still some right-of-way issues unresolved and until same are cleared,
this project cannot be concluded.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following
resolution for the Route 637 road improvements (Project #0637-003-169, C501), and to also
adopt a resolution to appropriate $62,945.46 to this project. 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.
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is participating with the City of
Charlottesville in the construction of Route 637 to the Ivy Landfill; and
WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that the
State Highway and Transportation Commission shall make an equivalent matching
allocation to any county for designation by the governing body for such projects
of up to fifteen per centum or $150,000, whichever is greater, of funds
received by it during the current fiscal year from Revenue Sharing Funds; and
WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has allocated from Revenue Sharing Funds
for the current fiscal year the sum of $62,945.46 for the subject property
and will disburse this amount in September, 1983, a sum of $62,945.46;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the State Highway and Transportation Commission be and
is hereby respectfully requested to allocate matching funds in the amount of
$62,945.46 for the 1983-84 Fiscal Year for Project No. 0637-003-169, C501.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $62,945.46 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the Federal
Revenue Sharing Fund Balance and Coded to Code 1-1100-98040-980402--Route 637
Road Improvements for improvements to the road going to the Ivy Landfill.
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 4b. Highway Matters: Change Street Name in Bedford Hills Subdivision.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, was present
and noted petition received from residents in Bedford Hills Subdivision requesting that
both Culpeper Drive and Staunton Street be renamed as Bedford Hills Drive. Mr. Tucker
said the Board must approve the change by adopting a resolution to that effect and then
the property owners can follow through with the remaining paperwork to complete the change.
Mr. Buddy Smith, resident of Bedford Hills, was present. He said that several years
ago a subdivision known as Rutledge Farm was to be accessed through one of the roads in
Bedford Hills. When this proposal was denied by this Board, all the properties on that
s~e~t~e'~sold and the road cannot now be extended since it is a ~closed loop. House
numbers were taken by the residents instead of a rural route, and the numbers run in no
particular sequence. Therefore, Mr. Smith said it is very difficult for rescue squads and
other emergency organizations to find particular residences. Mr. Smith said the Board of
~Directors for the Bedford Hills Homeowners Association, voted at its last meeting in favor
of the proposed change; that is, beginning at the entrance of Bedford Hills on Route 743
with Culpeper Drive, down to and including Staunton Street, be renamed Bedford Hills
Drive.
Mr. Fisher asked if any of the residents are opposed to the change. Mr. Smith said
all but four persons signed the petition. In these cases, most of the people had just
moved into the area and just completed address changes on checks and other personal items.
Mr. Smith noted that the Postmistress at the Earlysville Post Office favors the change.
He also noted that since there is a year's grace on this type of change, there should be
no problem with mail delivery.
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Tucker knew if there would be any problem with this change.
Mr. Tucker said Mrs. Jan Sprinkle, Planning Technician, was present and had indicated to
him that there will not be any problem with this change.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following
resolution to change the name of Culpeper Drive and Staunton Street to Bedford Hills
Drive. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that beginning at the entrance of Bedford Hills on State Route 743, the streets
named Culpeper Drive and Staunton Street be changed henceforth to Bedford Hills
Drive.
Agenda Item No. 4c. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and reported on the status
of Secondary Road activities. The Route 769 project, the back entrance to Key West Subdivisio
is under construction and hopefully the road will be paved within the next few weeks.
Route 618 is ninety percent completed with grading and about fifty percent of the road has
been paved with completion planned for the end of September. Mr. Roosevelt said the work
on Route 743 is progressing and traffic has been transferred to two new lanes from the
intersection of Georgetown Road to Albemarle High School in order to facilitate the opening
of school in late August. Mr. Roosevelt said the resurfacing treatment started Friday and
if there are any complaints, he would appreciate those being channeled to his office. Mr.
Lindstrom acknowledged appreciation for the work on Hydraulic Road and particularly with
the traffic control.
Miss Nash asked where the funds for the resurfacing on Route 20 South came from. Mr.
Roosevelt said the funds were from the maintenance budget. The Department is trying to
resurface the primary roads on an eight to ten year cycle. He personally felt the funds
were well spent because the surface on Route 20 was breaking and if there should be eXtremely
cold weather during this coming winter, there would be more potholes.
Mr. Fisher again asked about the "no parking" signs that he had mentioned for the
Hardware Rapids. Mr. Roosevelt said he had delayed this request until he could visit the
site. Also the person in charge of such signs has been on vacation, however, he will
pursue this request in the near future.
Mr. Henley then asked the reason for the pile of gravel at the White Hall School
property. Mr. Roosevelt said the contractor for the resurfacing of roads in the White
Hall area has left the gravel~there for his use while working in the area.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present and said the contractor has promised
to start Monday~on construction of the Georgetown Pedestrian Walkway and hopes that same
can be completed before school starts. Mr. Fisher noted appreciation for the work on the
project.
Mr. Elrod also noted that Mr. Bell, property owner at the intersection of Georgetown
and Barracks Road, has requested that five locust trees on his property be cut down. Mr.
Elrod said the trees are dying and this will aid in construction of the sidewalk.
Mr. Butler noted appreciation for the opening of the roadway at the intersection of
Route 22 and Route 250 at Shadwell.
321
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 5~ Resolution re: Job Training Partnership Act.
Mr. Fisher said Mr. James Skove, Senior Planner, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission, has been actively involved in this new federal program and will present the
request.
Mr. Skove reviewed the Job Training Partnership Act and noted that the request is for
the adoption of a resolution to establish a policy board consisting of one member from
each of the eleven participating jurisdictions in this program. The purpose of the policy
board is to carry out the responsibilities of the program and each representative is to
act on behalf of his respective jurisdiction. (The details of the Job Training Partnership
Act are set out in the minutes of February 9, 1983, Minute Book 22, pages 13 through 14.)
Mr. Skove further stated that the Private Industry Council (which was explained on February
9, 1983) consists of twenty-eight members and has two tasks; decide how the funds from the
federal grant will be spent and who will administer the program which begins on October 1.
Mr. Skove noted that according to reports, the appropriation is to be about one million
dollars for the nine month period from October 1, 1983, through June 30, 1984. (Mr.
Fisher left the meeting at 9:45 A.M.) Mr. Skove said a decision as to who will administer
the funds has not been made. He also noted that 'the local governments have indicated that
they do not desire to be involved in the day to day operation of the program. The Private
Industry Council will be involved and a central body (policy board) will help simplify the
process. Mr. Skove said the resolution requested today is to establish the policy board.
Mr. St. John suggested the words "Job Training" be inserted between "Piedmont" and
"Policy" wherever same appears in the resolution to aid in researching of the minutes in
the future.
Mr. Butler said he has attended some of the meetings and is pleased with the progress
being made on this program.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following
resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher.
WHEREAS, the Governor of Virginia has designated the Counties of
Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Nelson,
Orange and Rappahannock and the City of Charlottesville as the Piedmont
Service Delivery Area; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the Job Training Partnership Act requires
that local governments and the Private Industry Council agree on the
following issues:
a procedure for the preparation and Joint submission of an
annual plan for activities to be carried out with Job Training
Partnership Act funds, and
the designation of a grant recipient and administrative agent
and the duties and responsibilities of the grant recipient
and of the administrative agent, and
a procedure for assigning liability for disallowed costs arising
from Job Training Partnership Act program activities or
administration, and
a procedure for local governments to make appointments of
individuals to serve on the Private Industry Council;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Counties of Albemarle, Culpeper,
Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, NelSon, Orange and Rappahannock
and the City of Charlottesville agree to establish a policy board consisting
of one member from each of these eleven jurisdictions. The Policy-Board will
act on behalf of these jurisdictions in carrying Out the responsibilities and
duties of the eleven jurisdictions under the Job Training Partnership Act; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Policy Board shall be known as the
Piedmont Job Training Policy Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a quorum of the Piedmont Job Training Policy
Board shall be four members from the six Jurisdictions of Planning District 10
and four members from the five Jurisdictions in Planning District 9, and that
all actions of the Policy Board shall be decided by two-thirds of the members
present and voting; and
BE 'IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the chief elected official of each of the
eleven jurisdictions or his designated alternate shall serve on the Policy Board.
Agenda Item No. 6. Set Public Hearing Date to Amend Airport Commission Ordinance.
Mr. Agnor said recently the Airport Commission brought to the attention of the Airport
Board, inconsistencies between the City-and County ordinances regarding the Commission and
its actual practice. Therefore, some minor amendments are being requested. (Mr. FiSher
returned to the meeting at 9:50 A.M.) One amendment is to delete the city manager, the
county executive and the airport manager as advisory, nonvoting members of the commission.
322
AuguSt 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Agnor said that since the City Manager and the County Executive serve on the Airport
Board, it is felt that the two serving in an advisory capacity to the Airport Commission
is awkward. A second amendment will delete wording which makes manager's secretary serve
as secretary to the commission and will allow the airport manager to designate an appropriate
person· Mr. Agnor said these amendments have been discussed and agreed to by both the
Airport Commission and Board. Therefore, he recommends that the amendments be advertised
for a public hearing.
After a brief discussion regarding the difference between the Airport Board and the
Airport Commission, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to advertise
for public hearing on September 14, 1983, amendments to Sections 2-30 and 2-31 of the
County Code relating to changes in the Airport Commission Ordinance as summarized above.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7.
Plat Review Process·
Report from Planning:
Experimental Procedure for Subdivision
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recently completed work on an experimental
procedure for streamlining the subdivision review process. Mr. Tucker then summarized the
following changes:
r, 1 ·
Preliminary subdivision plats shall be submitted for Commission review.
The applicant or a representative shall submit all information required
in Section 18-52 of the Subdivision Ordinance at the filing deadline.
This includes preliminary road and drainage plans, building site
studies and additional pertinent information. (This does not apply to
plats subject to exempt or administrative approval.)
If a preliminary plat has not been submitted and approved by the
~lanning Commission and the applicant wishes to submit a final plat
for Commission review:
All final road and drainage plans, building site studies
and other pertinent information must be submitted 'by the
filin~ deadline to the Plannin$ Department, not after the
Site Review Committee meeting (two or three copies for
distribution.
The six month time limit on preliminary plats and the time
limits on final plats shall not be changed.
Administrative approval of final subdivision plats shall be permitted
on subdivision plats preceded by an approved preliminary plat. The
final plat must be in substantial compliance with the preliminary
plat (i.e., the number of lots shall not increase, improvements shall
not be relocated to adversely affect adjacent property owners, etc.).
As a matter of policy, until proper chanses are made in the Subdivision
Ordinance, the Plannin~ Commission can specifically grant administrative
approval of a final plat in the action on a preliminary plat.
A preliminary conference shall be held between the applicant and the
staff prior to any submittal of a subdivision plat or site plan.
The Technical Site Review Committee has the authority to make detailed
recommendations to the Planning Commission. This includes a recommenda-
tion for denial, deferral or approval. If a committee member feels
that insufficient information has been submitted, a recommendation for
deferral or denial can be made.
Several very general handouts have been prepared to give procedural
information to the public· These include a general procedural outline
chart, official submittal deadline list, fee schedules, and a directory
of elected and appointed officials.
The recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transporta-
tion have been adopted for approval of preliminary road and drainage
plans. Unless otherwise allowed or required by the County Engineer,
preliminary drainage and road plans shall consist of the following:
Preliminary road plans - note the centerline of proposed
roadways showing approximate curvature (measured); prelim-
inary centerline profile for proposed roadway showing
approximate grades; the typical section of roadway; general
location of property with the specific location of all
intersections with existing State roads;
Preliminary drainage plans - note the proposed dra'inage divide
and the outfall drainage area proposed.
In addition, in some cases a traffic analysis plan will be required by the
Planning Staff, the County Engineer or the Highway Department in locations
where this information will be critical to the site plan/subdivision review."
32'3
August 10, 1983 (RegularLDay Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said once this procedure is established it will be used on a temporary
basis for six months. He felt that some of the problems Which have occurred during the
preliminary plat stage will be alleviated by this procedure.
Miss Nash asked who will determine if the final plat is drawn in accordance with the
preliminary plat. Mr. Tucker said the staff will be making that determination.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Technical Site Review Committee often requests that a plat
be brought back for its review after changes are made on a plat. Mr. Tucker said the
Committee has taken a stronger role during the last year on these reviews and will delay
action on any plat lacking sufficient information.
Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present. He said he is familiar with the
existing procedure, particularly with the fact that the final plat is not always being
returned to the Planning Commission for review. He further noted that the time allowed
between filing the plat for approval and when required information is submitted is a
problem. The reason being that when surveyors and engineers are faced with a short period
of time in which to supply the needed information, they tend to do a poor Job thereby
creating more problems. Mr. Elrod said he would personally prefer that everything be
shown on a preliminary plat.
Mr. Tucker said the Engineering Department is not alone in coping with these problems.
The Planning staff and the Highway Department are also hampered with the timetable. In
particular, the Planning staff has to coordinate the work, get together necessary information
for the staff report to the Planning Commission, and often there is little time allowed
after the filing deadline for that to be completed. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be a
meeting of County staff and the area surveyors and engineers to inform them of the~new
procedure. Mr. Tucker said yes. He also noted that this procedure will not be initiated
until October in 'order that people will not be affected midstream with their plans.
Mr. Fisher said he hoped this procedure will prove satisfactory. Mr. Tucker said the
procedure was tested on site plans as well as subdivision plats, but the Planning Commission
felt more comfortable experimenting with the subdivision plat review process first. The
discussion concluded at this point with no suggestions concerning the proposed procedure'.
Agenda Item No. 8.
Area.
Report from Planning:
Map of Watershed Line in Hydraulic Road
Mr. Tucker presented for the Board a map clarifying the staff's interpretation of the
Board's policy concerning the ridgeline in the Hydraulic Road area separating the areas
draining to the Reservoir and the areas draining away from the Reservoir~. (This was
requested by Mr. Lindstrom during discussion of ZMA-83-10 for Dr. Philip Halapin on August
3, 1983.)
Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-83-10. Philip T. Halapin (Deferred from August 3, 1983).
This petition was deferred from the August 3, 1983 meeting because the Board felt
that only that portion of the property draining away from the Reservoir should be remoned.
The applicant's representative present at the August 3 meeting did not know if the applicant
would be agreeable to having the property surveyed in order to determine the location of
the ridgeline of the watershed.
Mr. Tucker summarized the request as set out in the minutes of August 3, 1983. He
said he visited the site and talked to the applicant's surveyors and he agrees that any
grading on this site can be done as was done on the Beechtree Plaza property so that there
will not be any drainage into the reservoir.
Mr. Lindstrom said after seeing the map just presented (Agenda Item No. 8), and
recognizing that only a small piece of property is involved which can be graded in a
manner so the runoff will drain away from the watershed, he did not feel there would be
any problem with this request. Further if the entire parcel is not rezoned, the remaining
portion of the property may not be usable for any purpose. Since any drainage will be
covered by both the Runoff Control Ordinance and the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, Mr.
Lindstrom said he would offer motion to approve ZMA-83-10 as recommended by the Planning
Commission to rezone 0.5 acre of 1.948 acres from R-4 to Commercial Office (CO), Tax Map
61, part of Parcel 27A. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Report: McIntire School Property.
Mr. Tucker said the Board on July 13, 1983, requested the staff to prepare a report
on potential alternative uses of the McIntire School property. (Mr Henley left the meeting
at 10:30 A.M. and returned at 10:32 A.M.) Mr. Tucker presented the following report dated
August 4, 1983:
"INTRODUCTION
The McIntire School Property consisting of a 38,500 square foot school building
and 12.4 acres of land was recently declared surplus property by the Albemarle
County School Board and transferred to the County Board of Supervisors effective
July l, 1983. A recommendation to sell the surplus property has been made by
the County Executive. However, the Board of Supervisors has delayed action
on the recommendation until a study of alternative uses has been made by the
County staff. This report will present a brief discussion of several alternatives
for reuse of the property. As a part of the identification of alternatives, an
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
informal survey of community resource persons was undertaken to assess identified
community needs and reuses. This included the Charlottesville Department of .~
Parks and Community Development, Albemarle Departments of Parks and Social Services,
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Charlottesville Housing Foundation,
Monticello Community Action Agency and the Jordan Development Corporation as well as the
Y.M.C.A.
POTENTIAL REUSES
Alternative uses for old school properties such as the McIntire School are abound;
however, many factors come into play as to the feasiblity as well as appropriate-
ness of uses. Factors to be considered in the evaluation of alternative uses
include, but are not limited to: needs of the community for other kinds of services
and facilities; real estate market in area; the size, configuration and condition
of the building; and location in relation to surrounding land uses; legal
implications for owner; costs of renovation and operation of reuse; among others.
A list of alternative uses and a brief description of each follows. They are
not in any priority order. They are suggested here for your consideration
and may require further study following your review.
- JAUNT Office and Maintenance Facility - JAUNT has been searching for new
headquarters in the urban area. They have applied for funding to construct
a building. Only 5,000 square feet are needed.
- Economic Development and/or Employment Training Center - Location for an
economic enterprise and/or training center for unemployed/underemployed/low
income persons in area. Profits to be derived for such a use include both
monetary for community service projects as well as direct benefits to persons
trained and hired by the program. Could possibly be coordinated with offices
for community services organzations.
- Day Care/Nursing Home - Center for child care for County residents who work
in the area plus some provision of care for elderly. The two could probably
be effectively combined.
- Human Service Organization Center - There is still a need for a centralized
facility for many local human service and related organizations. The Worrell
Building will not house many local organizations and the school building could well
suit this purpose. For example, Monticello Area Community Action Agency,
Charlottesville-Albemarle Association of Retarded Citizens, Emergency Food
Bank, Child Development Association, Jefferson Area Board for Aging, and
numerous health related organizations (Cystic Fibrosis, Multiple Dystrophy,
among others).
- YMCA Recreation Center - The YMCA needs a recreation center and the McIntire
School building would provide space for all of its activities plus additional uses
following renovation. Also, office space for some community related
organizations might be available. The YMCA's first alternative is a long
term lease and secondly an outright purchase. The County could also
continue to utilize the softball fields in its recreation program.
- Housing - The major need identified in this report is housing. A variety
and combination of housing services could be provided.
- Emergency housing for persons seeking affordable housing, etc.
- Rental housing for low and moderate income persons.
- A shared housing facility for elderly.
- Mix of housing types and tenure including apartments, townhouses,
or even single family dwellings on the open land surrounding the
school.
- Planned development approach with variety of residential, office,
and recreational uses.
- Othg~.reuses of old school buildings by localities include retail mall, inn,
private preparatory school, business office, senior citizen center, church,
museum, art gallery, performing arts auditorium and studios, and even industry.
These reuses are suggested here as information only.
SUMMAR!
A number of alternative uses for the McIntire School property have been briefly
addressed in this report. Further study on one, several, a combination, or
additional reuses of the property may be in order following Board review and
direction."
Mr. Fisher asked if the City's comments were requested for a planned development
approach with a variety of residential, office and recreational uses. Mr. Tucker said
according to existing moning (R-l), the density would be comparable to what exists in the
area at present which is single-family detached dwellings on about one-quarter to one-half
acre lots. Mr. Tucker said the recommendation of Mr. HuJa is that this property could be
developed in some planned method. Mr. Fisher said that would probably give the greatest
return to the County.
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
325
Mr. Fisher then distributed a proposal received earlier this morning from the Virginia
Children's Musuem and noted that the proposal contained a recommendation for a variety of
uses in the building such as the Red Cross, the YMCA and the Children's Museum. Mr.
Fisher said with all the interest expressed in the property perhaps a public hearing
should be held.
Miss Nash asked why the ~County is bound to the zoning of this property. Mr. Agnor
sai? if the County continues to own and use the building, use will be limited by the
~onlng regulations of the City. He did not feel that the County can sell the property
with a restrictive use in conflict with the zoning. However, the County could consider
inserting a clause in any bill of sale limiting the property to certain uses that would be
public needs as long as the uses did not conflict with the moning.
Mr. Butler said he would not want to dispose of the building and then find that at
some time in the immediate future that a need existed. Mr. Fisher said that is his concern
and the reason that the report was requested. Mr. Tucker further noted that whatever use
is made of the building, improvements are going to be necessary and the type of improvements
will depend on the use chosen. Mr. Fisher said even though that is true, this is a good
location where public water and sewerage disposal are available, and the location is on a
good four-lane road.
Mrs. Cooke said as she understands the YMCA has expressed an interest in buying the
building. Mr. Fisher said the first alternative mentioned by the YMCA was to have a long
term rental lease with the County.
Mr. Henley said although the proposal from the Children's Museum is a good one, he
would have problems giving the property away because he feels the County will be faced
with school needs at some future time.
Mr. Lindstrom said the County holds a valuable asset in the building, and the building
is an advantage to both the City and County.
The Board concurred in Mr. Fisher's suggestion for holding a public hearing on dispositio~
of the M¢Intire School property. Mr. Fisher suggested that those organizations having
already expressed an interest in the building be notified by letter as well as City officials
of the public hearing and a statement of interest be requested from the organizations.
Mrs. Cooke then offered motion to advertise for a public hearing sometime during the month
of September with Mr. Fisher's suggestion being included. Mr. Butler seconded the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom. and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request for Land Addition to Ivy Creek Natural Area.
Mr. Agnor said letter dated July 27, 1983, has been received from Mr. Paul Saunier,
Jr., Vice-President of the Ivy Creek Foundation, regarding a forty by 500 foot strip of
land which connects the Ivy Creek Natural Area to Lamb's Road. This strip affords emergency
and maintenance entry into the Ivy Creek Natural Area in the event that entry is needed
from Lamb's Road. Mr. Agnor said a benefactor has offered to purchase this strip and
donate the land to the ICNA. The strip is off of a parcel of property which is shown on a
subdivision plat now under Planning Commission review. Mr. Agnor said the request is for
some indication from both the County and City regarding willingness to accept this additional
strip of land as a gift. Mr. Fisher asked if this strip will have any affect on the land
in the subdivision. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Fisher then asked if this strip can be used
to figure density credits. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Agnor said the staff has reviewed
this request as well as the Directors of both the City and County Parks Departments and
all are recommending approval.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to express the
County's willingness to accept the gift as described in the letter from Mr. Saunier for a
forty by 500 foot strip of land to be added to the Ivy Creek Natural Area to the present
access on Lamb's Road; to have the County's appreciation for the gift related to the
benefactor; and to authorize the Chairman to sign a deed of gift for the strip as required
by Virginia Code Section 15.1-286. Miss Nash asked if the subdivision has been approved.
Mr. Tucker said it will be subject to this action. Roll was then called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
(Note: Deed of gift is set out below.)
THIS DEED OF GIFT made this 1st day of August, 1983, by and between W.
BEDFORD MOORE, III and JANE TARLETON SMITH MOORE, husband and wife ("Grantors"),
and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
("Grantees"),
W I TNE S SETH :
That for and in consideration of Grantees' protection and preservation
of the hereinafter described property, Grantors do hereby GIVE, GRANT and CONVEY
with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE unto the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, as tenants in common, all
that certain tract or parcel of land situate in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District of Albemarle County, Virginia, being shown and designated as "Conservation
Area", containing 0.505 acre, more or less, on a subdivision plat prepared
August lO, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
by Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, Inc., dated May 16, 1983, of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, prior hereto
with an instrument dated AugUst 1, 1983, between Ronald D. Carter, et ux.~ and
Elizabeth C. Langhorne, to which plat reference is hereby made for a more
particular description of the subject property; AND BEING the same property
in all respects as that conveyed to Grantors by deed of Ronald D. Carter and
Frances D. Carter, husband and wife, dated August 1, 1983, and of record
immediately prior hereto.
This conveyance is made expressly subject to any easements, covenants,
conditions and restrictions in the chain of title to the property herein
conveyed which have not expired by limitation of time contained therein or
otherwise have become ineffective.
Said property hereby conveyed is to be added to the Ivy Creek Natural
Area under the existing permanent restrictions on use of the area as a
public nature preserve.
Pursuant to the provisions of Virginia Code Section 15.1-286 and
pursuant to a resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting of August 10,
1983, the County of Albemarle hereby accepts conveyance of the above-
described real property.
At 10:54 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:04 A.M.
Agenda Item No. 12. Quarterly Report: AHIP.
Mr. Gary Oliveri, Executive Director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program,
was present. He presented the fourth quarterly report for Fiscal Year 1982-83. Mr.
Oliveri said eight jobs were completed during this quarter and he reviewed same with a
slide presentation of these accomplishments.
Mr. Oliveri said the primary focus of AHIP is to repair units in order that the units
can at least meet minimum VDHA housing quality standards and remove those units from
substandard classifications. Also, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation is now loaning
funds which will enable more jobs to be done. Mr. Oliveri said he is very optimistic
about the Community Development Block Grants which will enhance AHIP's capability of doing
major rehabilitations. Mr. Oliveri concluded his report by stating his hope to expand
AHIP's Self-Help Program.
Mr. Oliveri stated that AHIP's independent end-of-the year audit has been completed
and the balance of operating funds is $1,478. The policy of AHIP has been to inform the
Board of any remaining funds at the end of the year and request that it be allowed to
retain the funds if there is a good purpose of same. Therefore, the request today is to
allow AHIP to use these funds for a full-time helper for the next two months. Mr. Oliveri
said this is a busy time of the year and AHIP has several major projects underway.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr, Agnor his recommendation on this request. Mr. Agnor recommended~
the request be approved. He further noted that these funds are available because AHIP has~
managed its operation well and within the resources available. Mrs. Cooke then offered
motion to allow AHIP to use the $1,478 of excess funds from the 1982-83 fiscal year as
requested for a full-time helper for the next two months. Mr. Butler seconded the motion
and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler asked the status of Farmer's Home Administration loans. Mr. Oliveri said
loans are available but persons desiring that type of loan have to work harder to obtain
same. Mr. Fisher asked when final action is to be taken by the State on the Community
Development Block Grants. Mr. Tucker said that will be finalized in September.
Agenda Item No. 13. Amendment to Albemarle County Service Authority Service Areas
(Deferred from July 13, 1983).
Mr. Tucker said this was deferred from July 13, 1983, in order that the Albemarle
County Service Authority Board of Directors could review the proposed amendments. He has
presented these amendments to the Board of Directors. Mr. Tucker said at the July meeting,
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the wording of the key on the maps be changed from "water
and/or sewer to public or existing structures" to read "water and/or sewer to existing
structures". Mr. Tucker stated that areas involving this criteria are around the western
Albemarle schools and at the Airport where there are existing public buildings. These
areas have been reduced on the maps to show basically just the structures. Mr. Tucker
continued with corrections that have been made, one being in the Colthurst area and along
"21 Curves". Originally this area was shown for "water only" in order to be consistent
with the policy of serving the existing structures where they are contiguous to an existing
waterline, those lots are shown for service. This is the same policy as that adopted for
the Route 29 North area several years ago. Mr. Tucker said these changes do two things.
One is to bring the service boundaries into compliance with the recent amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan and also provides a consistent policy throughout those service areas.
327
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said there was a question about properties which lie on the north side of
Cro~et, which were deleted from the growth area, but which have existing sewer problems,
but also lie within one or two watershed areas; Beaver Creek and the South Fork. Mr.
Tucker said these areas are now covered.
Miss Nash then asked if the area of Route 631 south to 1-64 lies within the service
areas. Mr. Tucker said yes, but there were no changes necessary in that area. Miss Nash
asked how far south the service area extends. Mr. Tucker said basically it follows the
existing growth area boundary which extends about one mile south of Country Green down to
Biscuit Run. Miss Nash then asked if land on the west side of Route 631 is included in
the service areas. Mr. Tucker said a portion is included on the west side but only that
land which is included in the growth area and is mainly Zand lying between Route 631 and
Route 20.
Mr. Agnor asked if the service boundary at the Airport matches the proposals in the
adopted Airport Master Plan. Mr. Tucker said the area shown on the map only includes the
existing structures. Future development can be included if the Board so desires. Mr.
Agnor said there is a project known as the South Complex Project, (office and hangar area)
that is already out for proposal. Mr. Tucker said he thought that area was already included,
but would double check to be sure.
Mr. Butler asked if there are any plans from the Airport area out to the Earlysville
Village. Mr. Tucker said that area is outside of any continuous growth area, so is not
shown in the service areas. Mr. Tucker said there have been discussions about expanding
water and/or sewer service to Earlysville and if that were the case, the plan would have
to be amended. However, at the present time, the area is not served by either utility.
Mr. Butler said he had received a number of calls about this area at one time. Mr. Agnor
said an interest was prompted by the storage tank required at the Broadus Wood School
project, and he had also been approached by the Earlysville Fire Department about same.
Mr. Fisher said this item was subject of a public hearing on July 13, 1983, but he
would reopen the hearing at this time if anyone desired to make comments.
Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was
present. He noted that the Authority Board of Directors took this matter under consideration
at their July monthly meeting but did not reach an unanimous opinion; the end result was
that the members decided to communicate individually with the Board. Mr. Fisher asked if
the changes in the areas north of the Crozet growth area that are shown for water and
sewer, incorporate all of the residential areas now experiencing sewer problems. Mr.
Brent felt the changes do incorporate those areas. Mr. Fisher said he wanted to be sure
of this since the reason for the Crozet Interceptor is to clear up existing pollution
problems. Mr. Tucker noted that his staff has met with representatives of the Health
Department regarding the problem areas and specific locations now having problems were
identified by the Health Department.
Next to speak was Mr. Allan Benn, property owner of land adjacent to the Western
Albemarle High School. He again voiced his request as stated at the July 13, 1983, meeting
that his property be included in the service areas since ~there is runoff from the schools
across Route 250 onto his property. When his property is developed, the runoff could ~be
contained, thus providing a reduction in runoff over the natural state. Mr. Berm said
since the July meeting, the Planning Commission held a meeting dealing with the issue of
remoning properties relative to making those properties consistent with recent amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan. At that meeting, it was pointed out that his observations
about the runoff going across Route 250 are accurate, and also that Route 250 is not the
dividing line of the watershed. There is water on the north of Route 250 that will drain
in various places onto the south side. Mr. Berm said there are circumstances where development
of properties on the south side will actually contain water coming from the north side of
Route 250. Mr. Berm said the Planning Commission also discussed the role of the proposed
Lickinghole Creek sediment basin as opposed to the existing runoff control regulations.
The issue is whether this is the most efficient way (centralized containment) and the best
way to handle the problem. Mr. Berm said as a property owner in the Crozet area, he is
concerned with the economics of the area. It has been mentioned that in order to be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, an additional 13,000 people are planned for this
growth area in the next twenty years. Mr. Benn said that is an increase is seven and one-
half times the existing population. To him it seems that rather than restricting develop-
ment in the area, there should be some decision as to what services will be needed in that
period of time. Mr. Berm said he is not sure what the answer is for this type of projection,
but he does feel it is improper to down,one properties and restrict the service areas.
Mr. Be~n said he feels the most important part of the Comprehensive Plan are the population
projections and he feels it is improper to down,one at this time and restrict an area that
will need more size and more facilities.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker for a response to the statement regarding the number of.
people projected for the Crozet Community in the next twenty years and whether there is
enough commercial space to handle that population. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan
envisions a holding capacity of about thirteen thousand people for Crozet. When Mr. Benn
questioned this figure, the staff was requested to examine that estimate again to determine
if there is some inconsistency. According to the design and densities proposed in the
area by the Comprehensive Plan, it appears that that number of people can be accommodated.
However, he can agree that there may be a need for some additional commercial land in the
future since the downtown Cro~et area is very limited as to the amount of vacant land
for such development.
With no one else present to speak for or against the proposed amendments, the public
hearing was closed.
328
August lO, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked if there were other questions from the Board on these amendments.
Mr. Lindstrom said this is essentially the final step to. conform the !A.'C.S.A. service
areas ~,~,~-~',~Uomp.rehensive Plan designation to protect the pubIic drinking water impoundments
and watersheds. Mr. Lindstrom said with the exception of waterlines already in the ground,
and in the Crozet area where there are existing sewage disposal problems, there is no
service area designated generally outside or intruding a watershed impoundment. Mr.
Tucker that was true and also there are no service areas shown outside of the current
designated growth areas; the only exception being the Western Albemarle area. Mr. Henley'
said there are still existing lines serving people. Mr. Lindstrom said there are existing
lines serving existing structures and these will be designated on the map with the notation
discussed earlier. Mr. Fisher said this area of Crozet has not gone through the same
process as that when the urban area lines were drawn to try and control development outside
of designated growth areas by controlling utilities. He said this is a better pattern
than encouraging development in areas where it is know that the land drains directly into
Beaver Creek or other drinking water impoundments.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the new service area boundaries for the Albemarla
County Service Authority (as shown on maps displayed). Mr. Tucker asked if the intent of
the motion is that he examine the line around the hangar project at the southern end of
the airport to determine if that area is included in the service area and, if not, to move
the line a little to the south? Mr. Lindstrom asked if that area is within the watershed.
Mr. Tucker said no, it is just outside of the growth area. Mr. Lindstrom said if it is a
public facility, and is not in the watershed, he would include that in his motion. Mr.
Butler seconded the motion. Mr. Henley said he has a lot of problems with restricting
water service because he does not feel water plays that big of a part in controlling
growth. However, he will support this motion and will also support the service areas
being increased if so needed in the future. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Notices re: Postal Facilities: Ivy and Keswick.
Mr. Agnor said two letters have been received from the Virginia District Manager for
the United States Postal Services regarding the Ivy and Keswick postal facilities. (The
two letters are on file in the Clerk's Office. One is dated August 2, 1983, from Mr..C.
L. Fallis, Manager, regarding the Ivy postal facility, and the second letter is dated
August 3, 1983, from Mr. J. J. Collins, Acting Manager, regarding the Keswick postal
facility.) Mr. Agnor said it is stated in the letters that these existing facilities are
inadequate and that both should be expanded or moved to new quarters. Both letters solicit
comments from the governing body. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that this be assigned
to the Planning Department for further review, with the coordination of Mr. Fisher for the
Ivy facility, and Mr. Butler for the Keswick facility.
After a brief discussion, Mr. Fisher said he had no problem with the recommendation
but did feel that the facilities should be examined from the standpoint of the location of
same and how that would fit into the overall Comprehensive Plan recommendations for the
subject area. Hearing no objections from any Board members, the recommendation of Mr.
Agnor was to be followed.
Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said when the preliminary plans for renovations to the County Buildings on
Court Square were presented to the Board, authorization was granted to proceed with the
final designs with same being returned to the Board for final approval before advertising
for bids. The main reason for bringing the plans back to the Board was in the event of
significant changes or if the estimated construction cost was not within the amount budgeted
in the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor said the occupants of the buildings which
will be the Commonwealth's Attorney, Clerk of the Circuit Court, Judge of the Circuit
Court, Clerk and Judge of the General District Court, and the Sheriff have all approved
the design and the historic restrictions in the City have been met as well. Mr. Agnor
said the request today is for Mr. Floyd Johnson, architect for the project, to be granted
the authority to proceed with the bidding process. Bids will be returned to the Board
when it is determined whether the bids are within the budget for the project.
Mr. Johnson was present and said there were no major changes in the final design
drawings from what the Board had previously been shown on the preliminary plans.
Mr. William Sullivan, Director of Staff Services, was present and summarized the
drawings. He noted that the old County Office Building and the Courthouse will be connected
by way of a new annex. Also, the mechanical equipment is to be removed from the basement
of the County building and placed in the courtyard below grade, but will not be seen. Mr.
Sullivan said this change requires the removal of two locust trees. Mr. Sullivan said the
brick sidewalks will be renovated and the lighting in the yards will be upgraded with more
modern fixtures, but of the same design. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are any plans for
landscaping. Some trees need to be trimmed now. Mr. Sullivan said there is no landscaping
involved in this project. Mr. Agnor noted that the trees are maintained periodically.
Mr. Sullivan said work on the trees is in progress now.
329
August 10, 1983 (Regular ~ay Meeting)
Mr. Sullivan continued by summarizing the plans and noting the departments to be
housed on each floor. He also noted that the Clerk of the Circuit Court and all of the
related records housed in that department will have to be moved during the construction.
The cost of this move has not been included in any of the cost estimates at this time. He
then noted that as much work as possible will be done on weekends in order to keep the
record room available for public use at all times. Mr. Fisher said the Clerk's Office is
the only department involved since the other departments will not be moved into the building
until completion of the project and the Sheriff will be moving to the new County Office
Building temporarily during construction. Mr. Sullivan said that is correct, and the
Clerk's Office is a problem because of security required for the records.
Mr. Sullivan continued by stating that restroom facilities have been added wherever
necessary in the buildings to meet health standards. He also noted that the front of the
building on Jefferson Street will have a ramp for the handicapped constructed and a short
ramp on the lower level (the High Street entrance) will be added for the handicapped.
A brief discussion then followed concerning the area where the mechanical equipment
will be placed. Mr. Fisher expressed concern about the area being open. Mr. Johnson said
there will be chain link fencing laid across the top of the area. Mr. Sullivan said the
idea will be similar to that of a heat pump. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the noise from
such a system. Mr. Sullivan said noise levels will be met as far as decibels are concerned,
and storm windows will be added on the first floor of the buildings in order to protect
the courtrooms from any noise.
Mr. Fisher asked the estimated cost of construction. Mr. Johnson said since this
project has not gone to bid, he would prefer to state only that the amount is within the
County appropriation for the project.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to authorize the staff
to proceed with the firm of Johnson, Craven and Gibson, and that bids be taken on the
Court Square Project. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher asked if there was any need for an executive session during lunch. Mr.
St. John requested an executive session to discuss the legal aspects of Agenda Items 17,
18 and 19 and also to discuss personnel matters. Mr. Henley offered motion to that effect.
Mr. Butler seconded the motion.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County's legal position would be Jeopardized if the Board
did not discuss the items in executive session. Mr. St. John said he was not certain.
Mr. Lindstrom did not care to discuss items about a school deficit in executive session.
Even if this item were appropriate for an executive session, he felt it should be discussed
in a public session, and unless there is some acute personnel matter involving a particular
individual, he did not feel that should be discussed in executive session. Mr. St. John
said he did not intend to discuss any personnel matter. Mr. Lindstrom further stated that
the Board is dealing with a situation concerning a substantial amount of money, and some
decision will have to be made by the Board later this afternoon. Therefore, he felt all
comments and discussions of that matter should take place in public. Miss Nash felt it
was the intent to work out the problems in private, and then take action publicly.
At 12:40 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom agreed to the executive session as requested by the
County Attorney, and to discuss the items felt to be Jeopardized if discussed in public
session but not the total matter of the school deficit. Mr. St. John said that would not
be legal for executive session and such is not his intent. Mr. Fisher asked then if the
executive session is only for legal matters. Mr. St. John said yes. Roll was then called
on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:42 P.M. with all members present.
Agenda Item No. 15. SP8348. Charles and Sharon Jones. Request to allow continued use
and addition of private elementary school at Old Dominion Day School. Located on .652 acre
zoned R-15 on east side of Rt. 656. County Tax Map 60Al, Parcel 27. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in Daily Progress on July 26 and August 2, 1983.)
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the staff's report:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Private elementary school (Section 18.2.2.5)
0.652 acres
R-15 Residential
Property, described as Tax Map 60Al, Parcel 27, is located on
the east side of Georgetown Road, about 500 feet from Hydraulic
Road.
History:
In April, 1979, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-79-08, which among other
things, authorized establishment of a day care facility on this property.
Mrs. Jones subsequently obtained licensure from the State to operate the Old
Dominion Day School with a maximum capacity of 75 children.
-330
August 10, 1983 (Regular DayM~eting)
Staff Comment:
The applicant is requesting approval of a private school in addition to the
existing day care facility. Due to State licensing requirements, combined
enrollments would be limited to 75 children. Since the number and ages of the
children would remain substantially the same as the current operation, staff
has determined no issue warranting reevaluation under the special use permit
criteria.
Staff recommends approval, subject to continued compliance with applicable
conditions of approval of SP-79-08 (i.e., Conditions 5 - 10)."
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held on August 2, 1983, voted
to recommend approval of SP-83-48 subject to continued compliance with applicable conditions of
approval of SP-79-08 (i.e., conditions 5 - 10) - (Note: for wording of conditions see letter
dated April 11, 1979, addressed to Bennington Limited Partnership, a copy of which is attach, ed
to the staff's report).
The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Jones was present and said she wants to provide small
individual elementary classes for clients who wish to have their children remain in her school.
With no one else from the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve SP-83-48 subject to the condition
recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
P~ck~
Agenda Item No. 16. SP-83-49. David L. and Glenda F~.//Request to locate day care,
child care or nursery facility. Located on 4.069 acres zoned RA on northeast side of Rt. 787~.
County Tax Map 57, Parcel 82J. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in Daily Progress on
July 26 and August 2, 1983.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning:
Location:
Nursery School
4.069 acres
RA Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 82J, is located on the
northeast side of' Route 787 about 0.2 mile east of Route 682.
Character of the Area:
This property is located in Ivy Woods subdivision (30 lots). Other development
in the immediate area includes Skyline Crest (27 lots), Ivy Meadows (14 lots) and
Country View subdivision (18 lots).
SP-81-12 (Joseph Kelly) authorized a community swimming facility in Ivy Woods
subdivision. SP-81-21 (Mary Leavell) authorized a one-court tennis facility.
As reflected in the staff report for sP-S1-21, roads in the area were a problem:
mAs development has occurred in the area, the Highway Department has received
increasing complaints over the condition of' the roads. Yet, as can be seen from
this application, from the Ivy Woods swimming pool application, and from continued
residential construction in the area, traffic increase is being caused by existing
and new residents along these same roads.~
Staff Comment:
The applicant currently operates a preschool for fewer than six children in the
basement of her home. The applicant proposes to increase enrollment to ten
children, which requires special use permit aoproval. Since hours of operation
would be limited to 9 - 12 daily, no license from the state is necessary
(approval of this petition would require waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of the Zoning
Ordinance which requires state licensing). Mrs. Pack would operate the preschool
with no employees.
Staff has reviewed this proposal for consistency with the criteria for issuance
of a special use permit (31.2.4.1) and offers the following comments:
ae
A preschool, as was the case with the swimming facility and tennis facility,
is a use normally anticipated in areas of substantial residential development;
As stated earlier, no state licensing is required for this pre-school. In
such cases, staff recommends certain requirements, based on state regulations,
intende.d to address physical and safety aspects of the use. In this case, the
applicant does not want to provide fencing around the play area. Staff offers
the following comments:
1. The play area is located about 250 feet from Route 787 and 100 feet
from a private road serving three lots. The play area is adjacent to the
house and driveway loop. Heavy vegetation exists between the play area and
private road;
2. Seven special use permits have been approved county-wide for child
care uses in the last five years. Fencing of play areas was required in
six cases. In the one case where fencing was not required (SP-81-46 Elaine
Clark; see Condition 6 and attached staff report), other measures were
required;
332
August 10~ 198'3 (Regular Day Meeting)
USE OF MONEY & PROPERTY
In this category, the reduction in the interest rate caused a shortfall of
$188,866.55 in collection of interest on investments. (Mr. Jones said the
interest rate fell from 18 percent to nine percent. The budget had been
calculated on 12 percent.)
REVENUE FROM LOCAL SOURCES
There was a 4.95 percent over-collection of estimated revenues from local
sources amounting to $1.2 million.
REVENUE FROM THE COMMONWEALTH
There was a shortfall in the State Revenues of the General Fund of $194,477.25
or 7.16 percent. This is a combined shortfall of State Shared Expenses ($48,794.07)
plus the shortfall of State Categorical Aid ($164,891.89). The major portion of'
this shortfall in State Revenue was due to cutbacks in Social Services Programs
($160,601.85). There were off-setting cutbacks in expenditures of Social Service
Programs of approximately $185,000.
SUMMARY
The Grand Total of General Fund Revenues was $946,506.82 in excess of estimated
revenues or 3.39 percent over-collected. This is a very favorable end-of-year
revenue report especially since the first half of the fiscal year was experiencing
an economic slump. There was a very significant recovery in the last six-month
period of Fiscal Year 82-83.
If you take the total revenues received in the General Fund ($2'8,840,290.25) and
subtract the expenditures and transfers, you get the approximate change in fund
balance as follows:
Total General Fund Revenue
Less: General Operating Expenditures
Transfers to School Operating Fund
Transfers to Debt Service Fund
Transfers to Capital Improvement Fund
$28,840,290.05
(11,853,533.05)
(12,499,414.00)
(1,9-20,692.72)
(1,187,~169.00)
Estimated Increase (General Fund Balance)
$ 1,378,881.28
Of the $1,378,881.28 increase in the General Fund Balance, over $400,000 is
represented by receivables and approximately $150,000 will be requested for
reappropriation at a later date. The remaining balance should be reserved
for operating capital to cover the increased need of operating capital in
19~3-84 due to the increase in the payroll and accounts payables. As you know,
the unrestricted balance of the General Fund has been drawn down to a low level.
From July 1, 1983, to November 1, 1983, monthly expenditures are projected to
exceed monthly revenues by approximately $5 million.
It is quite comforting as Finance Director to find out that the revenue picture
for FY 82-83 was as good as it was on June 30th. It certainly did not look that
good at the mid-point of the fiscal year."
Mr. Jones proceeded with his memorandum dated August 1, 1983, addressed to the School
Board, Superintendent, Board of Supervisors and County Executive entitled "End-of-Year
Financial Report for FY 82-83".
"A trial balance for School Operations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1983,
was run on July 5th on a cash basis. This report on a 'c'ash b'a's'is produced the
following results:
Total Cash Receipts (Revenues)
Total Cash Disbursements (Expenses)
$23,616,696.99
2'4','4'42',5'89'.'82
Cash Operating Deficit
$ 825,892.83
I immediately by memo dated July 5, 1983, to David Papenfuse made the information
available with the applicable revenue reports, expenditure reports and recap
reports with copies to the Superintendent and County Executive. I also directed
the Accounting Division of Finance to hold all checks inclusive of payroll and
accounts payable checks until a final report on an accrual basis was available.
The Annual Appropriation Ordinance and the Code of Virginia allow me to make
disbursements only to the extent of designated funds available for that purpose.
This cash basis report was showing a shortfall in estimated revenues of. $861,179.60;
however, it was showing an unexpended balance (comparison of actual expenditures
against appropriations) of $80,888.64 in expenditures which changed significantly
on an accrual basis.
Since July 5th, we have been involved in the accrual process which requires
recording all'known and measurable'revenues and expenditures for a 45-day
period after the end of the fiscal year. After accruing in excess of $500,000
in revenues dedicated to Education (plus over $400,000 in General Fund Revenues)
and over $120,000 in accounts payable for Education, there was an annual operating
deficit of $378,344.37 in Education.
333
Adgust 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
As of July 28th, all known accruals of revenues and expenditures were made and
trial balances were run. There are two attachments to this memo which show the
results; one attachment is for revenues, and the other is on expenditures. Any
expenses or revenues after the above date will be handled as an audit and adjustment
pursuant to arrangements with representatives of the auditing firm.
The accrual process produced the following results for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1983:
Total actual revenues
Total actual expenditures
Operating Deficit
$24,175,731.37
24,.554~075.74
$ 378,344.37
The deficit is the combination of short-falls in revenues combined with over-
expenditures.
Total revenue short-fall
Total over-expenditures
$347~747.09
30,597.28
Operating Deficit
$378,344.37
On July 28, 1983, I released the 'hold' on accounts payable to prevent incurring
service charges from the vendors. However, I cannot disburse the twelfth month
paychecks to ten month employees until some type of corrective action is taken
to make funds available for disbursement of these checks on August 31. There are
over 600 of these checks with salaries amounting to $680,456.03 and fringe costs
amounting to $195,072.73 totaling $875,528.76.
The solution to the deficit of fiscal year 82-83 is much more difficult than~in
prior years. It was previously handled as an advance from the General Fund.
However, the General Fund has been drawn down to the point where all of the
unrestricted balance will be needed for operating capital to meet the regular
payroll and accounts payable from July through October, 1983, in fiscal year 1983-84.
There are several possible alternatives for solving the problem.
1. Reduce or postpone the scheduled capital improvements that are not underway
and advance the required amount of $378,344.37 to the School Fund.
2. Sell the McIntire School property and use the proceeds to solve the problem.
3. Reduce the 1983-84 local funds by the required amount of advance ($378,344.37).
4. Reduce the 1983-84 transfer to the Capital Improvement Program and u~e those
funds.
5. Advance from the Capital Improvements Program Fund to the School Fund.
At this time, I would recommend No. 5 in the form of a temporary solution. Then
when the audit for 1982-83 is completed and various fund balances are completed
as well to get a better feel of what the economy and future revenues are going to
bring in for fiscal year 1983-84, seek a permanent solution to the problem from
one of the first four alternatives or even something new. Regardless, there has
to be corrective action in August to allow me to legally release those paychecks.
If no action is taken, the most I can legally do is release paychecks on a pro-rata
basis as to the funds available.
There are two actions necessary in my opinion.
Advance the School Fund the amount of $378,344.37 to cover the deficit for
FY 82-83. This should be done upon the condition that all of the School Fund
balance as of June 30, 1983, as shown in the annual audit revert to the respec-
tive fund from which it was advanced.
Second, approve an appropriation from the School Fund Balance to cover all
category over-expenditures as shown on Attachment II as follows:
FROM:
School Balance
$175,207.26
TO:
17A School Administration 11,867.20
17B1 Instruction - Regular 11,815.67
17B2 Other Instructional Costs 10~198.06
17E Food Service .13
17Fl Operation of School Plant 103,419.61
17G Fixed Charges 32,995.64
17V Flow Through 4,910.95
TOTAL
$175,207.26
It is important for you to recognize the following circumstances in making the
above appropriations.
The over-expenditures cannot be solved by transferes because the bottom line
is over-expended $122,107.07 in Basic Education.
The unexpended balances of the Federal and Self-Sustaining Education Programs
cannot be used to off-set over-expenditures in Basic Education by transfers
because their level of expenditures is directly related to the revenues to
be reimbursed to the School Fund.
The appropriation of the items above cannot be made until after the advance
of $378,344.37 to the School Fund has taken place.
334
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
CONCLUSION
The deficit is as large or larger than in any previous year. It appears to have
been caused by short-falls in revenue due to overestimates - some of which were
tied to over-estimates of average daily attendance (ADA) and average daily
membership (ADM). Each student represents about $1500 in revenue from the State.
Another significant area of over-expenditure was in Oper'~t'i'on Of'School Plants~due
to under estimates of electricity ($65,602.73) and fuel (~'3'6',0~-g.33) costs. In
Fixed Charges, there wasa significant underestimate in the cost of Health Insurance
which caused an over-expenditure of $83,724.51.
For your review, I am attaching a copy of the line-item eXpenditures. You will
note this attachment includes School Debt Service (which had an unexpended balance
of $86,749.28 due to the fact the Literary Fund Loan on Phase III Albemarle High
School was not issued in 1982-83) that is not included on Attachment II. You will
also note some handwritten corrections (Manual Adjustments) that resulted from
accruals after the report was completed.
Respectfully, I request the Board of SuperviSors' action on the''ad~gnce and
appropriations to cover over-expenditures set forth above. Until this is done,
it is somewhat meaningless to begin the process of reconciling the Fund Balances
at the end of the year with the Auditors."
Mr. Jones also presented the following memorandum~dated July 27, 1983, entitled "End-of-Ye
transfers - General Operations."
"The accruals of expenditures in July on Fiscal Year 1982-83 operations produced
expenditures in excess of appropriations in thirteen of the forty departments and
functions in General Operations. These over-expenditures can be adjusted by
transfer of appropriations in General Operations as follows:
FROM AMOUNT
1203 Personnel $14,569.89
1214 Director of Finance 11,404.57
$25,974.46'
TO
4300
8101
1201 County Executive (Telephone Expenses & Salary Adjustment) $ 644.08
1204 Legal Services (Salary Adjustment) 127.05
1302 Board of Elections (Salary Adjustment) 177.85
2101 Circuit Court (Postage, Telephone, Office Supplies) 830.92
2102 General District Court (Telephone) 83.25
2106 Clerk, Circuit Court (Salary Adjustment) 3,065.20
2200 Commonwealth's Attorney (Telephone, Workmen's Compensation,
Salary Adjustment)
Staff Services (Electrical Service)
Planning (Social Security Expense for Planning Commission
Members and Printing of the Comprehensive Plan) 3,755.15
8103 Housing Office (Salary Adjustment) 795.42
8203 Soil & Water Conservation (Salary AdjuStment) 66.25
8204 Watershed Management (Salary Adjustment) 231.94
9201 Refunds (Excess fees paid to State from Clerk of Circuit
Court; Fee Revenues)
3,196.23
6,877.52
6,123.60
$25,974.46
After the above transfers, the actual expenditures (excluding transfers to Education
and Debt Service) of $11,853,533.05 in General Operations was $345,625.18 less than
the total appropriation of $12,199,158.23. There will be some reappropriations
requested at a later date which will reduce the $345,625.18 unexpended balance by
approximately one-half.
Respectfully, I request your official action on the above transfers. Attached is
a summary recap as of June 30, 1983, on General Operations expenditures prior to
the above requested transfers. Checks to vendors are being held in accounts payable
on these over-expenditures pending your official action."
Mr. Jones then proceeded with a fourth memorandum dated August 8, 1983, entitled "Analysis
of Fund Balances on June 30, 1983, of General Fund, Capital Improvement Fund and Revenue
Sharing Fund".
"A preliminary end-of-year analysis on the above fund balances after crediting
all 1982-83 revenues and expenditures for the year on the accrual basis of
accounting is submitted for your information. Each fund was analyzed without
any consideration of solving the 1982-83 operating deficit of the School Fund.
GENERAL FUND
Unaudited Fund Balance as of 6/30/83
Less: Due from School Fund (Advance)
Re-Appropriations
Funds Available
$6,564,192.00
(1,039.141.00)
( 150,O0'0'.'0'0)
$5,375,051.00
r
335
Augmst 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
In order to determine the amount of the $5,375 million funds needed for operating
capital from July 1 to October 30, I have estimated the revenues coming into the
General Fund Balance at 110 percent of last year and subtracted the projected
expenditures of General Operations and transfers to the School Fund and Debt
Fund as follows:
Beginning Balance 7/1/83
Add: Projected Revenues from 7/1-10/30/83
Estimated Funds Available
$5,375,000.00
3,300~000.00
$8,675,000.00
Deduct:
From 7/1-10/30/83
Expenditures - General Operations
Transfers to School' Fund (Local Share)
Transfers to Debt Fund
(3,350,000~00)
(4,626,156.00)
( 512,000.00)
EXCESS FUNDS
$ 186,800.00
(Mr. Jones noted at this point, that this figure graphically represents his
statement that the General Fund balance has been drawn down to a point where
this balance cannot be used for any major appropriations.)
This analysis does not reduce the beginning balance of $6,564,192 by the
accrued receivables of $472,606 as of 6/30/83. Therefore, it is assumed all
receivables will be collected by October 1983. Also, it should be noted that
General Operations expenditures are estimated at 108 percent of last year's
exclusive of transfers to Capital Outlay ($661,400) and the payment to the
· City of Charlottesville ($1,530,991). As you can see from this, the General
Fund cannot advance the School Fund $378,344.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Unaudited Fund Balance as of 6/30/83
Less: Unexpended Appropriations as of 6/30/83
Advances to Rescue Squads and Volunteer
Fire Companies
$4,990,544.36
(1,525,413.59)
( 643~125.2I
$4,347,419.15
Receivables from Rivanna Water Authority Paid 7/7/83
Receivables from Literary Fund (Last payment of AHS III)
FUNDS AVAILABLE 6/30/83
Budgeted for FY 83-84
Transfer from General Fund
Repayments (Fire Companies & Rescue Squads)
FUNDS AVAILABLE FY 83-84
$ 803,713.00
240,000.00
$5,391,132.15
661,400.00
170,000.00
$6,222,532.15
(At this point Mr. Jones mentioned that on June 30, 1982, there was a receivable
shown in the General Fund of $800,000 due from the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority; said amount due to be received in July, 1983. Also shown as a
receivable in the General Fund~was $443,000 in cash advances to the various
volunteer fire departments and rescue squads. These two assets were trans-
ferred to the Capital Improvements Fund in order to make that a workable
budget item. This decrease in the General Fund is just about equal to the
increase obtained in the General Fund from collection of excess revenues in
FY 82-83; therefore, there is no net gain in the General Fund. Mr. Fisher
noted that these transfers do help the Capital Improvements Program.)
These adjustments bring the funds available to $6.2 million for FY 83-84. As
you can see, the $378,344 could be advanced from the CIP Fund to the School Fund
without jeopardizing existing appropriations or CIP needs for FY 83-84 in the
amount of $3.5 million.
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING FUND
Unaudited Fund Balance as of 6/30/83
Payment received 7/11/83
Receivables (October Payment)
578,890.87
168,492.00
168~492.00
915,874.87
Less:
Appropriation to School Fund (Fringe Benefits)
Transfer to School Fund (83-84)
Payment on Ivy Landfill Road
AVAILABLE FOR APPROPRIATION
(404,620.46)
(161,400.00)
(62,945.46)
286,908.95
It is hoped that this analysis of the fund balances as of June 30, 1983 plus
some projections into FY 83-84 will provide you with alternatives to resolving
the operating deficit of the School Fund for FY 82-83."
Mr. Jones summarized all of these memorandums by saying that the General Fund did not
nave a substantial increase in the fund balance due to the offsetting transactions of carrying
over, certain amounts to the Capital Improvements Fund. In the General Operations section,
there was a total overexpenditure of $25,974.46 in thirteen separate departments, but there
was a. net unexpended balance which reverted back to the General Fund. In the School Operations
section, expenditures exceeded revenues by $378,344.37; two transactions are needed to correct
this item - one being a transfer of appropriation to make money available to the School Fund
in the amount of $378,344.78; and an appropriation from the School Fund balance after that
transaction to cover overexpenditures of $175,207.26 in seven different categories. Mr.
Jones also reminded the Board that the figures presented today are based on thirty days of
accruals, but there will actually be forty-five days of accruals for the audit so the figures
may change. Each of the memorandums presented to the Board today have been passed to the
auditing firm of Price Waterhouse for comment.
336
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Miss Nash asked where the $378,344.78 will come from. Mr. Jones said he recommends that
it be taken as an advance from the Capital Improvements Fund. Miss Nash asked about using
Federal Revenue Sharing Funds. Mr. Jones said those funds are not an adequate source.
Mr. Fisher asked what will happen to the Capital Improvements Program if the funds are
taken from that source and not restored. Mr. Agnor said when the new Capital Improvements
Program was approved in June, there were sufficient funds for the 1983-84 year, but funds
were about $1.4 million short in the second year of the Program. If the $378,000 is taken
from Capital Funds, the Program will be about $1.75 million short unless some other action is
taken. There could be the sale of a fixed asset such as property, or the split collection
real and personal property taxes, and the money designated for the Capital Fund. The Capital
Program showed that there would be a shortfall of funds in the first three years of this new
Program, but that in the fourth and fifth years, resources begin to gain ground so that by
the end of the five-year cycle there would be enough funds to approximately pay for all of
the projects in the Capital Program.
Mr. Lindstrom Said he would like to go back and recap. It appears that the School Fund
is short $378,344 because of under collection of receipts and over expenditures. The General
Fund balance is up $345,625~because of under expenditures in that fund, and also up by $1.2
million in collecting unexpected revenues. Mr. Lindstrom said that before trying to figure~
out how to deal with the problem in the School Fund, the tacit recommendation of Mr. Jones
and Mr. Agnor seems to be that the $1.2 million stay in the General Fund balance in order to
pay expenses during the time when large amounts of revenue are not being received. Also
receipt of these unexpected revenues in the General Fund makes up the shortage that has
occured in the General Fund because of other transfers made and it does it one or two years
faster than had originally been expected. Mr. Agnor said that was correct; it had been
thought that the transfers would be recovered in one to one and one-half years if the Federal
Revenue Sharing Fund law were extended, and these funds continued to be received.
Mr. Lindstrom said he did not mean to diminish the importance of the deficit of $378,344
in the School Fund or how that deficit came about, but it appears that this $378,344 will not
significantly affect the amount of funds the Board had thought would be available at this
point in time because.there were funds collected in FY 82-83 which were not anticipated to
ever be collected. Mr. Lindstrom said he has heard some comments from members of the public
that there is a financial crisis in the County. Although there may be a continuing financial
problem in terms of ability to estimate accurately revenues coming to the School Division,
there is no financial crisis in terms of actual money. In fact, the County is much better
off now than had been thought at the beginning of the FY 82-83 Fiscal Year. Whatever action
is taken to correct the problem with the School Fund balance will not make the situation
worse with respect to any funds the County had thought would be available during the FY 82-83
year despite the shortfall in revenues collected in the School Division. Mr. Agnor said that
is correct even though Mr. Jones has indicated that the County may have to borrow funds in
the early part of the 83-84 Fiscal Year in order to meet demands on the cash flow. Mr. Jones
hopes this action can be avoided, and from the above analyses it appears that this will be
possible because of the overcollection of revenues in the 1982-83 Fiscal Year.
Mr. Jones said the shortfall of revenues in the School Fund and the unexpended balance
of the funds in the General Fund being nearly equal was a coincidence. Also, it must be
recognized that the revenue projections of the General Fund into the 1983-84 Fiscal Year are
calculated on a 110 percent collection of revenues in excess of last year. Mr. Lindstrom
said he does necessarily feel the County is "ahead of the game" by $1+ million, and is not
saying that the $1- million will be spent, but is replenishing the depleted fund balance in
the General Fund that is needed in order to keep this operation running. Mr. Fisher said it
is a very good position to have underestimated revenues. Mr. Agnor pointed out that this was
not done intentionally. Mr. Lindstrom said that is a key. If the Board had known about the
$1+ million last year, the tax rate might have been reduced. Mr. Jones said he did an analysis
of revenues last December based on the first six months of the fiscal year. The economy from
July, 1982 through December, 1982 was "sic". At that time, if revenues had been projected on
the trend, the County would have been $1.4 million in the red. The economy did a turn around
during the first six months of the calendar year 1983 that brought in the $1- million in
revenues that could not have been projected would be collected last December. Mr. Jones said
that four or five years ago, the unrestricted balance of the General Fund was about $11+
million; now that balance is near $5 million and that amount is absolutely needed for cash
flow. Mr. Fisher said that during the 1982-83 Fiscal Year, with the $1+ million transferred
to the School Fund to cover the accumulated deficit; the $400,000+ transferred to the School
Fund to cover the accrual of fringe benefits for the months of July and August; with another
$378,000+ requested today, the County has put an additional $1.8 million in that fund in just
one year in addition to what was appropriated from local sources. Mr. Jones said that is
true if you go all the way back to 1976. (This discussion will continue later in the meeting.)
Agenda Item No. 18. Financial Report of School Division for FY 1982-83 by Superintendent
of Schools. Mr. Agnor said he had told Dr. Gutierrez last Friday that this item would be on
the agenda. Dr. Gutierrez called today and asked if a presentation was required. Mr. Agnor
said this item had been placed on the agenda so the School Board could report to the Board on
their ~deliberations Monday night about the deficit in the School Fund. Mr. Agnor said he
understands that no formal presentation has been prepared on this matter.
Mrs. Jessie Haden, Chairman of the School Board, was present~ and said that Mr. David
Papenfuse would make the presentation that he had made to the School Board. Mr. Papenfuse said
he did not know this was to be an agenda item until just a few minutes ago. Back on March 15,
1983, Mr. Papenfuse asked the School Board to entertain a motion to reduce the School budget~
by $185,000 because of an estimated shortfall in revenues from State Sales Tax ($160,000) ~
and Vocational Education ($25,000). At that time, he also requested the School Board to allow
the staff to transfer $175,000 from general operating expenses to cover a misbudgeted fixed
charge. This request was approved by the School Board, and then sent to the Board of
~ho approved same and appropriations were adjusted. At that time, it was estimated that
there would be a shortfall in the School Fund of $63,000 because of these decreases in sales~
337
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
tax and vocational education. Toward the end of April, when the final Average Daily Membership
(ADM) figures were received, it was found that about 100 students had been lost. A number of
State reimbursements are based on the ADM and not on the tenth day enrollment or the September
30th enrollment. The Schools finished the 1982-83 fiscal year with expenditures $30,000 over
the amended budget or one-tenth of one percent. However, on the other side, revenues were
short by $348,000+ due partly to reduced "Recovered Costs" because of the loss in enrollment
(reductions in Basic Aid and reductions in reimbursement for Special Education programs), and
there was some miscalculation in revenue estimates. There was an additional loss in Vocational
Education because of the lower student enrollment and a miscalculation of revenues.
Mr. Papenfuse said he has been questioned as to why he did no~ know about this loss
before the time that it became known. He said that he has previously mentioned to the Board
and the School Board that he felt confident about estimated expenditures, but was bothered by
the revenue estimates because he found no documentation or formulas from the person who
previously held this job as to how the revenues were actually determined. To prevent this
type of thing from occurring in the future, there will be a monthly analysis of revenues
based on formulas used to devise the revenues for the 1983-84 budget. Also, in the event of
unexpected shortfalls in revenues, a memorandum has been sent out to all School administration,
putting into effect a 10 percent management reserve. In addition, Mr. Papenfuse said his
office staff will be monitoring the ADM figures.
Mr, Fisher asked if the ADM figures are not collected by the schools daily and reported
to the State monthly. Mr. Papenfuse said that was correct. Mr. Fisher asked if this has not
been done for quite a long time. Mr. Papenfuse said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if those figures
h~ve not always been available to whoever has been managing the revenues for the School
Division. Mr. Papenfuse said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if the ADM has not always been a part of
the Basic Aid formula used by the State. Mr. Papenfuse said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if the
ADM has not been a part of the other formulas that the County has dealt with for the past
several years. Mr. Papenfuse said yes. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Papenfuse was saying that
nobody ever looked at any attendance membership through the entire year. Mr. Papenfuse said
that was correct, there was a misconception that the payment of State Basic Aid was based on
tenth day enrollment. Mr. Fisher said he knew that was not the case. Mr. Papenfuse said the
person who preceeded him obviously did not know that. Mr. Fisher said the man who preceded
Mr. Papenfuse managed to end the year in the black, but he was fired. Mr. Papenfuse said he
would like to take exception to that statement. The budget managed by that person was not
the budget developed by the person. The budget that person developed is the one that the
Schools are now trying to get out from under. Mr. Fisher said he found it hard to believe
that no one else in the School administration knew that the State money is paid on the basis
of average daily membership. Mr. Papenfuse said when he took office, there were no records
to show how the figures had been developed. Mrs. Cooke asked if Mr. Papenfuse was saying
that there were no records of how any of the revenue figures were developed for the 1983-84
b~dget. Mr. Papenfuse said there were no records there. That is the reason he has been
saying all year that he felt uncomfortable with the projected revenues. Mrs. Cooke asked if
anyone knew why those formulas were not available. Mr. Papenfuse said he had no comment to
make. Mr. Fisher said the formulas are available from the State and from publications; he
has gotten them several times for himself over the years. Mr. Papenfuse said there are
revenue items such as "Rents and Rebates", "Tuition", or "Special Education" that could not
be reconstructed.
Miss Nash said she was not criticizing Mr. Papenfuse, but she feels the educators must
know how the averages will turn out, and it seems that this should have been monitored all
along. Mr. Papenfuse said this fact did not become evident until the budget figures for the
1983-84 year were developed. In the past, the ADM was taken as the figures provided by the
Planning Department and what the tenth day enrollment was. Mr. Fisher said he understood that
the School System had never used the projections of the Planning Department. Mr. Papenfuse
said when budget calculations for the 1983-84 budget began, he was using a figure of 9,150
students, but a conservative number of 9,070 was actually used. Mr. Fisher said unless the
tenth day enrollment next month is higher than 9,070, then the School Board is in deep trouble
already this year. Mr. Papenfus said that is the reason for instituting the ten percent
reserve.
Miss Nash said Mr. Papenfuse mentioned making a monthly check on revenues, and asked if
the same thing will be done for expenditures. Mr. Papenfuse said yes; in fact, he will
probably have information before it comes off of the big computer in the Finance Department
because the cost center directors will be keeping a chronological listing of the accounts as
the funds are committed instead of as the funds are actually paid.
Mr. Fisher said it has been mentioned that this figure is only a small percentage of the
total budget, but will it be possible to underspend in the 1983-84 fiscal year in order to
make up the $378,000+. Mr. Papenfuse said no; to recover that amount would take action of the
School Board to delete some expenditures from the budget. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Papenfuse
could recommend ways to make such a cut. Mr. Papenfuse said no; he believes that the budget
is already cut down as far as it can be cut.
Mr. Lindstrom said he can understand the thrust of the questioning. He does not under-
stand how this problem came about and finds it a little flabbergasting that something as
crucial and as much publicized as the importance of accurate estimates of enrollmen~ figures
could be so misunderstood. Mr. Lindstrom said it appears that this year there is an explanatio~
for the problem which has been a problem in varying degrees for a long time, but has not been
so critical when enrollments were increasing. In the past it appears that a lot of the deficit
were overexpenditures and Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks he understands how a lot of those came
about. If there are ways in which the School System can save money, there should be a massive
effort to do so, but at the same time, Mr. Lindstrom said he voted for the 1983-84 budget in
good faith, and that budget was presented as being the absolute minimum amount of funds needed
to operate the school system. Mr. Lindstrom said he has spoken to people in policy-making
roles in the school division and felt very uneasy when told that several hundred thousand
dollars in expenditures could have been cut if it had been known months earlier that a problem
would occur. Mr. Lindstrom said he did no~ want to adopt budgets that have fat in them, and
to admit that something can be cut, admits that there was fat in the initial budget. Mr.
Lindstrom said there are varying degrees of antipathy toward the School Board about this
33,8
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
problem; his is not quite as great as that of other Board members. Mr. Lindstrom said his
feeling is "don't let this fellow go because he is the only person now who has been through
this trial by fire". Hopefully, Mr. Papenfuse will know what not to do in the future, and if
there are ways that money can be saved, it should be done. Mr. Lindstrom said his remarks
are not really adding anything to what has already been said, but he was trying to counter-
balance what he personally thinks may have been an unnecessary personal attack.
Mr. Fisher asked how the School Board wants this problem resolved. Mr. Papenfuse said~
his recommendation is the same as that of Mr. Jones (set out in Memorandum #2 above). Mrs.
Haden said the School Board had made no definite decision on this matter, waiting until after
the meeting today. Mrs. Haden said Mr. Papenfuse is working with a budget which he did not
put together. The School Board made two major errors in calculations; in special education
the figure that went into the budget was not the figure calculated by the special education
staff and was a mistake of $97,000. In the area of vocational education, there was a $50,000
mistake that could not be corrected when detected because most of the money was for salaries
of people already on the payroll. Also, Mrs. Haden said it was good that it was a mild
winter because the projection for electricity and fuel costs was off $104,000. Mr. Fisher
said that everybody makes mistakes, but has to manage them from the minute they are found.
Mrs. Haden said cuts were made where possible, but most of the money goes into salaries or
fixed charges. Mr-. Fisher said it is still the responsibility of the Schools to manage the
problem from the instant it is discovered. Mrs. Haden said she~has confidence that Mr.
Papenfuse will be able to manage the 198~-84 School Budget; the budget that he built and is
working with building administrators to manage. Mr. Fisher asked if the School Board can
save this "very small percentage" of the deficit. Mrs. Haden said she did not know whether
it could be saved, but if that is what the Board of Supervisors says must be done, the School
Board will put forth every effort to do so.
Mr. Ha~ley Sa~d]...he.~felt the Board had jumped on Mr. Papenfuse enough as he did not feel
the problem was Mr. Papenfuse' fault. Mr. Henley said he feels the person who hired Mr.
Papenfuse is the one who made the mistake. The Board has been wrestling with this deficit
problem for many years and if somebody had been "kicking me in the butt" for something like
this, he would have gotten the best guy, somebody who could do something about it. Mr.
Henley said the person who held Mr. Papenfuse's job prior to him must have been either lucky
or he knew something because his budget came up with $200,000 in the black. Mr. Henley said
he feels that neither the Superintendent or the School Board have kept up with the deficit
problem as they should have.
Mrs. Cooke said she was not sure what Mr. Henley said, but she did not agree entirely
with what was said about Mr. Papenfus and his qualifications. She feels it is difficult to
walk into a situation where there is not enough information available and there are missing
formulas, and try to implement something which you had absolutely no hand in orchestrating.
Mrs. Cooke said she openly disagrees that a mistake was made in hiring Mr. Papenfuse, if that
was the statement. Mr. Henley said he is not criticizing Mr. Papenfuse at all. However, if
he had been doing the hiring, and there had been a deficit problem for five or six years and
the Board of Supervisors had been picking on him about it, he surely would have picked some-
body who could take care of the problem during the first year he worked. Mr. Henley said he
feels Mr. Papenfuse has gained a lot of experience this year. Mr. Papenfuse said he did not
have full year to work on the budget; a third of the year was already gone before he began
work for the School Board, and the budget itself was developed some eighteen months ago. Mr.
Henley said Mr. Papenfuse had mentioned not knowing certain formulas when he thought every-
body else knew the formulas. Mr. Papenfuse said there are a number of other items such as ~
student accounts for special education, the amount of activity receipts, the amount of rents~
and rebates, etc. Unless there is some way to ascertain how the figures were arrived at,
there is no way of knowing the accuracy of same. Mr. Henley asked if there was no way to
reconstruct those figures. Mr. Papenfuse said that even after some background information
was found (such as the special education category), the numbers did not add up.
Miss Nash said there has been a lot of talk this afternoon about the past; she feels
that the future is the important thing. She feels it is important to get the school system
on a proper level of fiscal management for the sake of the whole county and its citizens.
This problem should be settled so the Board can get to paying the classroom teachers the
salaries they should be paid. Also, the Board needs to make sure that the whole management
of the school system goes smoothly so that these crazy situations do not have to come up
every month as they have in the past.
Mr. Butler said he felt Miss Nash had it on the key issue. With this deficit problem
persisting over a six-year period, he thinks the citizens have become a little bit disenchanted
with the operation of the budget. Regardless of all the publicity about teachers' salaries
across the state and nation, the Board cannot expect the citizens to be willing to pay
increased salaries if the School Board cannot balance its budget year after year. Mr. Butler'
said he has a strong feeling that there has been waste along the way and that policies which
were established have not been followed to the limit. Mr. Butler said he feels there are
things in the school system that the School Board has got to look at, and he is confident
that it can and should be done so we can move forward.
Mr. Fisher said he had been requested to allow other persons present to make statements
at this time. Mr. Allan Kendrick said the Baord of Supervisors needs to take some corrective
action so the teachers will not suffer a financial shortfall as a result of some error that
has taken place internally within the system. Mr. Kendrick said he feels that the school
system is not receiving the professional financial management for which it is paying and
which the citizens expect. Mr. Kendrick said he has been following this for a long time,
particularly during the last six months. He has noticed that there has been some miscoding
of items purchased, and things have been bought which he could not tell for sure were mentioned
in the budget. At Monday night's School Board meeting, it was mentioned that a large group
of computers will be bought again this year; he could not find that expenditure listed in the
budget. Mr. Kendrick said the coding problem baffles him. He is at the present time a member
of the Planning Commission and the Capital Improvements budget request from the School Board
,339
A~gust 10, 1983 (Regular ~a~Meeting)
came in quite late this year which, he feels, is another indication that the School Board is
not doing its financial planning. Mr. Kendrick said one other area bothers him, and that is
in the hiring of new personnel where job descriptions seem to be changing, with the scope of
the job expanding with assistants being hired where there were none before. Mr. Kendrick
said he realizes the School Board has some autonomy, but with this problem being studied for
two years in a row, something else needs to happen; maybe a bi-monthly overview of the Board
of Supervisors. Mr. Kendrick said it is owed to the County citizenry.
Mr. Rick Bowie said the key thing he heard is $1.8 million in twelve months. Setting up
a simple, effective expenses/revenue summary is not difficult and can be, and should be done,
on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Mr. Bowie said he feels the active involvement of the
Board of Supervisors more often than on an annual basis will solve the problem.
Mr. Fisher said the Board has a recommendation from the Director of Finance, with the
concurrence of the Financial Office of the School System (Memorandum #2) that two actions are
necessary to be sure that the School employees are paid at the end of August. Mr. Lindstrom
then offered motion to advance to the School Fund from the Capital Improvements Fund the
amount of $378,344.37 to cover the deficit balance for Fiscal Year 1982-83; with the stipulatiol
that all of the School Fund balance as of June 30, 1983, as shown in the Annual Audit will
revert to the Capital Improvements Fund. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried
by the following recorded vo~e:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to addopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $173,207.26 be and the same hereby is appropriated form the School Fund
balance to cover overexpenditures for FY 82-83, with same being coded as follows:
17A School Administration $ 11,867.20
17B1 Instruction - Regular 11,815.67
17B2 Other Instructional Costs 10,198.06
17E Food Service 0.13
17Fl Operation of School Plant 103,419.61
17G Fixed Charges 32,995.64
lTV Flow Through 4,910.95
$175,207.26
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher said it was not specifically stated in the motion as to where the advance to
the School Fund would come from and he was sorry he had made the omission. Mr. Fisher said
he assumed it would be taken from the Capital Improvements Fund and transferred to the School
Fund and would be part of the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said that was his intent in making the
motion. Mrs. Cooke said that was her intent in seconding the motion. Mr. Fisher said if no
member of the Board wished to change his vote with that clarification, the vote would stand.
No member of the Board objected.
Agenda Item No. 19. Appropriations, Transfers to Close Out FY 82-83 County Budget by
County Executive. Mr. Agnor said this is all set out as Memorandum #3 in Mr. Jones report
under Agenda Item No. 17.
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to transfer $25,974.46 from Personnel and Director
of Finance budgets to the codes set out in memorandum #3 to cover overexpenditures in the
General Operations for FY 82-83. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said
he would like to point out that the departments that had funds left in their accounts are
having those funds transferred to other departments so that in the final audit their actual
underexpenditure will not show. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor for a statement of the formal interaction between the office~
of the County Executive, Finance Director and School Division Finance Officer on a regular basi~
Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Jones' office sends out a report of monthly receipts and disbursements
to all departments. Mr. Jones' office also assists Mr. Papenfuse whenever help is requested.
Occasionally Mr. Jones will interpose matters of concern, but there is no formal overview. On
a quarterly basis, Mr. Jones and Mr. Agnor meet individually with all general operations
department heads and review that individual department budget. Mr. Agnor said he does not do
that same thing with anyone from the School division and he does not believe that Mr. Jones
does either.
Mr. Jones said that twenty-two statements are sent monthly to the School office for
disbursement to the School Board and administrators. The auditing firm (Price Waterhouse)
has suggested that some type of financial seminar or staff development activity be planned.
Although the auditors cannot go to all of the individual schools, it could be arranged that
designated persons be sent to a staff orientation to explain the cost center operation,
purchasing and managing expenditures, etc. Mr. Jones said that by the time a problem is
discovered, it is too late to do anything. Expenditures must be controlled at the time they
340
AuguSt 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
are being made. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Jones felt it might be necessary to have quarterly
or monthly appropriations to control expenditures in the school system. Mr. Jones said that~
would be an alternative, but there are a lot of materials whi6h are bought in advance of the~
school's opening, and monthly appropriations would restrict certain things to a point where
the schools could not function.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Haden if there is not someway the two finance officers could
communicate more frequently to better coordinate efforts. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not want
to.infringe on the School Board's autonomy,' but felt there might be something of a modest
nature that could be done to facilitate operations in the immediate future. Mrs. Haden said
she feels there is good rapport between Mr. Papenfuse's office and Mr. Jones' office. She
feels they do work together very well and thinks they will do so without either board making ~
an ultimatum.
Mr. Papenfuse said he thinks communications between the two departments have improved ~
and he would like ~to publicly commend Mr. Jones and his office staff for their help during ~
the very trying time of getting the final school budget approved. !i
Mr. Agnor then mentioned a memorandum dated August 5, 1983, from Mr. Jones re: Appropri-
ation - Phase II County Office Building Telephone System: ~ ~
"The original specifications on the telephone system for the County Office
Building included additional capacity for the equipment for Phase II. However,
the original specifications did not include the cost for installation of the
lines and instruments.
A proposal to install the additional phone system in Phase II as well as make
revisions in the Finance department has been received. In Finance, the
switchboard will be eliminated (as well as the operator's position) with
direct lines installed to the seven divisions of Finance (Administration,
Collections, Bookkeeping, Purchasing, Real Estate, Payroll, Licensing). There
have been many problems with the switchboard equipment as well as its operation.
The employee serving as switchboard operator retired as of July 1 so this is
a good time to make the change.
Since the original equipment purchased from Centel was manufactured by Stromberg
and will not interphase other equipment, we are limited to using the same type
of equipment.
The proposal for equipment and installation is $40,678 ($37,070 for Phase II and
$6,608 for Finance) requires an appropriation since this amount was not included
in any of the existing contracts.
Therefore, I respectfUlly request the following appropriation:
FROM Code 9000-0999 Capital Improvement Fund Balance
$43,6?8
TO
Code 1-9000-97000-975002 Telephone System-Phase II-
County Office Building
$43,678
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would need to set a public hearing date for this budget .
amendment. Mr. Agnor said no; this item is included in the Capital Improvements Budget for
FY 83-84. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash', seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
the $43,678 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital Improvement
Fund - Code 9000-0999 and transferred to Code '1-9000-97000-975002, Telephone
System, Phase II, County Office Building Renovations.
Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Agnor next noted memorandUm dated August 5, 1983, from Ray B. Jones, regarding the ~.
Community Development Block Grant - Thomas Jefferson Planning District:
"At the request of Wayne Harbaugh, the County was approved for sponsorship
and fiscal agent on a grant in January 1983 pursuant to official action of
the Board of Supervisors. The grant documents were signed by the County
Executive on January 27, 1983, and the grant was awarded on March 23, 1983,
in the amount of $25,000.00.
The grant is for the period of May 1, 1983, to April 30, 1984. The grant's
purpose is (1) tourist assessment; (2) housing capacity assessment and
improvement; and (3) industrial site inventory and development for Region X.
The County of Albemarle as fiscal agent will be billed by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District for services rendered and the County will be reimbursed on a
quarterly basis by the State of Virginia.
To date no appropriation has been made. Therefore, I respectfully request
your official action on an appropriation in the Grant Fund:
.REVENUE
EXPENDITURES
State Reimbursement
Contractural Services -
T. J. Planning District
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
34l
August 10, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Since this appropriation is not for an operating function and the County is
not making any contribution of funds and only acts as the sponsor and fiscal
agent, this appropriation can be made by resolution without being advertised
as a budget amendment."
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $25,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund and
Coded to 1-1202-94001-900000 for Contractural Services, Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to
amend the Revenues section of the 1983-84 County Budget by adding Code 2-1202-
94001-800000, Community Development Block Grant, Thomas Jefferson Planning
District, in the amount of $25,000; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this appropriation shall be effective on August 10,
1983.
The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 20. Set Public Hearing Date on An Ordinance to Provide for the Estab~
lishment of a Deferred Compensation Plan for County Employees, Etc.
Mr. Agnor said the consultants have put together a deferred compensation plan and had
same approved by the Internal Revenue Service. The next step is to incorporate all of this
into a County ordinance. Mr. St. John prepared the ordinance which needs to be set for
public hearing. Mr. Agnor said he would make a longer presentation at the September 14
meeting as to what a deferred compensation plan really is. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to advertise for a public hearing this ordinance for ~
September 14. Mr. Fisher asked who will administer the plan. Mr. Agnor said his.office is
designated as the administrator, but it will actually be in conjunction with a committee.
The plan will not cost the County any money, all costs will be paid by the employees. Roll
was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 21. Executive Session: Personnel. At 4:00 P.M., motion was offered by
Mrs. Cooke, seconded by ~Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of
conducting interviews with various candidates for appointment to boards and commissions or
personnel matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 5:34 P.M. with Mr. Henley being absent at this
time. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to appoint
Miss Jill Pope and Mr. Robert S. Parrott, Sr. to the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements
Corporation Board; with term to be determined at a later date. The 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 asked about appointees for the Resource Recovery Commission. Mr. Fisher said
three people are needed to serve, and suggested asking Dr. F. A. Iachetta if he would be
willing to serve again.
Mr. Agnor said he would like to know if the staff could be given permission to set an
inducement resolution from the Industrial Development Authority on the agenda and advertise a
corresponding change in the IDA ordinance to raise the allowable number of bond issues rather
than having the Board discuss the issue, set the public hearing and then discuss the issue a
second time. At the present time, it takes about six weeks to get an issue before the Board.
Allowing the staff to proceed would shorten hearing times. Mr. Lindstrom said he would have
no objection to doing it this way. Mr. Agnor said the Industrial Development Authority is
now required by the new State law to hold the advertised public hearing; the Board no longer
has to do this. Mr. Fisher said he wants a public hearing advertised on the request whether
it is required by law or not.
Agenda Item No. 24.
adjourned at 5:42 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was