1982-10-13October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on October 13, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher,
J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:09 A.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order.
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 9:07 A.M., by
Agenda Item No. 2. ConSent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda containing
one item requiring approval by the Board, and eight items for general information. Motion
was immediately offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley, to accept and approve the
consent agenda as presented. 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.
Item No. 2.1. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's
Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of September, 1982; approved as required by the
State Compensation Board.
Item No. 2.2. Report of the County Executive for the month of September, 1982, was
presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code section 15.1-602.
Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment
by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of September,
1982, were also presented as information:
Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account
General Fund
School Fund
Cafeteria Fund
Capital Improvements Fund
Textbook Fund
Joint Security Complex Fund
Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax
Federal Revenue Sharing Fund
Grant Project Fund
Mental Health Fund
$ 1,775.80
748,OOO.87
2,019,863.41
14.952.57
645,477.00
22,509.27'
75,339.53
358.95
1,737.93
969.35
240~i06.75
$3~771~091.43
Item No. 2.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of August,
1982, was presented in accordance with section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia.
Item No. 2.4. The following letter was received from the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, signed by Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer:
"September 21, 1982
Re: Proposed Rural Addition, Shannon Drive, Shadwell Estates
Reference is made to your letter dated September 3, 1982, addressed to Mrs. Iris
B. Cason concerning the above subject.
Cursory review of Mrs. Cason's request indicates that Shannon Drive is eligible
for acceptance as a rural addition. I have not estimated the cost to upgrade
this road to state standards nor determined if some proportion of the cost must
be borne by the property owners involved. I will develop this information prior
to meeting with the Board of Viewers to review all rural addition requests for
the current year."
Item No. 2.5. The following letter was received from the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, signed by A. S. Brown, Secondary Roads Engineer:
"September 29, 1982
Mr. George A. Murdock
Route 2, Box 340
Gordonsville, Virginia 22942
Re: Route 615 - Albemarle County
This will acknowledge receiving your letter of September 18, 1982, concerning
desired improvements on Route 615, Albemarle County.
41:3.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
The Code of Virginia places the improvement program on the secondary system in
the respective counties as a joint responsibility between the County Board of
Supervisors and the Department's resident engineer. These individuals are
responsible for maintaining a secondary road six-year improvement plan which is
periodically updated through a public hearing process that gives citizens the
opportunity to express their requests and needs for road improvements. The plan
is developed and updated by local representatives since they are the ones most
familiar with the needs in the individual counties. It is my understanding that
Mr. D. S. Roosevelt met with you approximately two years ago and explained the
Department's practice of requesting donated right-of-way for improvements of
non-hardsurfaced routes and he did stake the right-of-way limits he felt would
be needed for the improvement. He also advised that if you were successful in
obtaining the right-of-way he would recommend to the Board of Supervisors that
the route be included in the secondary road improvement plan for funding.
Improvement funds are very limited and only the critical needs can be financed
each year and the use of donated right-of-way for the improvement of local non-
hardsurfaced routes permits the maximum use of these funds for actual construc-
tion.
If Mr. Roosevelt can be of any assistance, do not hesitate to contact him as he
will be most willing to cooperate to the extent possible.
Sincerely,
(signed) A. S. Brown, Secondary Roads Engineer"
Item No. 2.6. Notice from Appalachian Power Company, dated September 10, 1982,
regarding public hearing for an increase in rates before the State Corporation Commission,
on which a public hearing will be held November 19, 1982, in Richmond.
Item No. 2.7. Notice from C & P Telephone, dated October 5, 1982, regarding public
hearing for an increase and restructuring of rate schedules and charges before the State
Corporation Commission on January 5, 1983, at 10:00 A.M. in Richmond.
Item No. 2.8. Notice from Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. dated September 30, 1982,
regarding application to the State Corporation Commission to revise its tariffs.
Item No. 2.9. Letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation,
dated October 6, 1982, regarding the Albemarle County 1981-82 Secondary Improvement Budget
Operational and Fiscal Summary, signed by Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer. (copy
on file)
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Miss Nash noted one correction necessary to
the minutes of the meeting of May 12, 1982, under agenda item number 12e, , last paragraph
of the letter "...the monies will flow back into the Capital Improvement Fund..."
Mr. Lindstrom, Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Butler reported not having read the minutes of June
2, July 7 and July 14, 1982.
Mr. Henley reported no corrections were necessary for the minutes of July 21, 1982.
Mr. Fisher requested a correction to the minutes of August 11, 1982, under agenda
item number fifteen. Mr; Fisher said the resolution of intent to amend section 5-3.1 of
the Albemarle County Code, was actually adopted on an emergency basis. Mr. Fisher re-
commended that the minutes be approved, with the understanding that the correctness of the
Board's actions be verified by the Clerk. (NOTE: Following a review of the tape, the
minutes have been modified to more truly reflect the actions of the Board of Supervisors.
Acceptance of this change took place at the Board of Supervisors' meeting of November 10,
1982.)
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes of May 12, July 21 and
August 11, 1982, with the corrections as noted. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher asked for an update regarding a letter noted in the minutes
of August 11, 1982, concerning the drowning of Chris Hicks near Camelot Subdivision. Mr.
Agnor reported that discussions have been taking place regarding the requested signs, but
that said discussions now include the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Agnor noted that no recommendations have yet been formulated.
Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Raffle and Bingo Permits. Mr. Agnor noted receipt
of a memorandum dated September 15, 1982, from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, regarding
the issuance of raffle and bingo permits. (NOTE: Copy of Mr. Jones' memorandum is on
file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Agnor noted that according
to State Code Section 18.2-340.2, the local governing body is authorized to designate a
local official to give final approval of raffle and bingo permits, and he would recommend
that the Director of Finance be delegated that authority. The memorandum also stated that
quarterly reports could be issued to the Board of Supervisors summarizing all raffle and
bingo permits issued.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he was in favor of this action, but cautioned Board members that if
this is approved, the Board will essentially be approving all raffle and bingo permit
requests which come to the County. Mr. Agnor noted that all applications are submitted to
the Commonwealth's Attorney to assure compliance with State law, and that this practice
will contlinue if the Director of Finance is designated to approve the permit requests.
Mr. Butler said this change in procedure might, correct the problem of approving
permit requests retroactively. Miss Nash felt that if the Director of Finance had questions
about the approval of any permit application, said application could always be brought
before the Board of Supervisors.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to designate the Director of Finance as the
local official in charge of issuance of raffle and bingo permits, in accordance with state
Code section 18.2-340.2; that all applications will continue to be submitted to the
Commonwealth's Attorney for conformance with state law and that quarterly reports on all
application approvals will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 5b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt said the Hydraulic Road
project has been advertised for bids which are due in November. Mr. Roosevelt said active
construction on this project will begin in April, 1983
Miss Nash said the Hatton Ferry Committee is considering recommending that the ferry
be taken out of operation during the winter months. She asked what would happen to the
unspent funds. Mr. Roosevelt said any unspent money, can be used for other projects in
Albemarle County.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for a progress report on the Georgetown Road Walkway project.
Mr. Agnor said he would request Mr.~ Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, for updated information
for the Board.
Mrs. Cooke asked the approximate completion date of the reconstruction of the Park
Street Bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said some time in early summer, 1983. Mrs. Cooke noted that
the temporary bridge is a great improvement over the old structure.
Mr. St. John informed the Board that following issuance of a suit against the developers
of Windrift Subdivision the County has voluntarily received from the developer full payment
of road improvement costs which payment exceeded the amount of the developers bond which
had been cashed and used by the County to complete the roads in Windrift, Section I.
Agenda Item No. 5a. Public Hearing on an ordinance to vacate a portion of a certain
plat of a portion of Block 1, Westfield; this property is shown on a plat of record in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 467, page 586. More
specifically, this will vacate a sixty foot dedicated public right of way leading from
Commonwealth Drive into Stromberg Carlson property. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
September 29 and October 6, 1982.)
Mr. St. John said a staff report on this matter was presented to the Board at the
September 15, 1982 meeting. Mr. St. John noted that although this plat vacation was
advertised for public hearing, he wished to inform the Board that following a partial
title search on this property, he found that this road was never dedicated to public use
or that this plat is a legal subdivision and that the County need not adopt an ordinance
in order to vacate same. Mr. St. John said that if the County wished, the ordinance could
be adopted to clearly give up any claim or rights by the County to this strip of land.
Mr. St. John stated that originally this property was conveyed by West Realty Corporation
to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Commonwealth never accepted recordation of this
plat, thereby nullifying same.~
Mr. Fisher asked if adjacent Property owners were properly notified of this requested
plat vacation. Mr. St. John said they were notified by the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
and that their rights have been protected.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Dan Cook,
representing Stromberg-Carlson. Mr. Cook said he would like the County to vacate this
portion of the plat to insure no future complications in this matter.
Mr. 0rbin Carter, attorney representing Mr. Edwin Q. Wright, an adjacent property
owner was present. Mr. Carter said his client owns lot 76 of tax Map 61W. Mr. Carter
requested deferral of this matter by the Board in order to give him the opportunity to
meet with representatives of Stromberg-Carlson based on the new information presented by
the County Attorney regarding the dedication of the right-of-way.
Mr. Edwin Wright stated his concern about children playing on this road and on
Commonwealth Drive and how traffic patterns would be affected.
Mr. Fisher asked the applicant if there was any urgency in this request. Mr. Cook
he would certainly be willing to meet with Mr. Wright to discuss this right-of-way. Mr.
Fisher requested a motion to defer action on this request to the'November 10, 1982, regular
day meeting, and that the applicant and adjoining property owners meet to discuss same.
Following a brief discussion by the Board, motion was offered by Mr. LindStrom, seconded by
Mrs. Cooke, to defer this item to November 10, 1982. 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.
s aid
4t 5.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 6. Social Program Review Objectives. Mr. Agnor read the following
memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, dated October 6, 1982~
regarding the social program review objectives:
"The Social Program Review Committee has begun the 1983-1984 budget review
process and proposes five additional objectives to the existing objectives
adopted by the Board of Supervisors last year.
Both existing and proposed objectives are attached for your review. Three of
the five proposed objectives have been taken from the County's proposed Compre-
hensive Plan 1982-2002. The last two objectives deal with programs relating to
provision of jobs and programs which have reduced their reliance on local govern-
mental funding, were felt to be important objectives for consideration.
EXISTING
Encourage those programs/services which address identified "community"
problems and have demonstrated their success in achieving their objectives.
2. Promote those programs/services which demonstrate efficient administration.
3. Discourage those programs/services being duplicated by others.
Encourage programs which promote the active use of volunteers in achieving
actual program objectives.
PROPOSED
Promote projects which provide emphasis on providing services to low-income
and transportation-disadvantaged populations.
2. Encourage programs which promote energy conservation.
3. Support programs which aid in the housing rehabilitation effort of the
County.
4.Encourage those programs/agencies which have demonstrated a reduction in
requested funding from local government.
5. Support programs that provide jobs and the necessary supportive services,
thereby reducing the unemployment rate."
Mr. Lindstrom noted that under the heading "proposed", items 1, 2, 3 and 5 should
actually be subheadings under the existing heading item number 1.
Mr. Fisher commented that this budget process worked very well last year, and that he
agreed with Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion about rearranging the list of objectives. Miss
Nash said she would like to see an explanation in the budget when the committee recommendation
is different from the agency request.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the objectives
for the Social Program Review as follows:
1. Encourage those programs/services which address identified "community" problems
and have demonstrated their success in achieving their objectives. Such community
problems are exemplified as follows:
a. promote projects which provide emphasis on providing services to
low-income and transportation-disadvantaged populations.
b. encourage programs which promote energy conservation.
c. support programs which aid in the housing rehabilitation effort
of the County.
d. support programs that provide jobs and the necessary supportive
services, thereby reducing the unemployment rate.
2. Promote those programs/services which demonstrate efficient administration.
3. Discourage those programs/services being duplicated by others.
4. Encourage programs which promote the active use of volunteers in achieving
actual program objectives.
5. Encourage those programs/agencies which have demonstrated a reduction in
requested funding from local government.
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. 9. Employment Research Commission. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Francis
Fife, head of this group could not be present at today's meeting. Mr. Fisher noted that
at the Board of Supervisor's meeting of September 15, 1982, (total request set out in
minutes of September 15, 1982) this request to appoint a committee was discussed and
deferred in order for the entire Board to be present for the decision.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mrs.. Cooke said she felt the secondary schools could incorporate better training to
prepare citizens for some of the more basic skills required in business, and that perhaps
some local businesses would cooperate with that training. Mr. Fisher said he felt employ-
ment for those not capable of handling high-technology jobs is a nee~which should be
addressed.
Mr. Lindstrom said that if additional high-technology industries are brought into
this area, these industries bring highly educated people into the area, at the same time
eliminating a need for low and unskilled jobs. Mr. Lindstrom said he was uncomfortable
with objectives 3 and 4 because of this encouragement of new industry.
Mr. Butler said he felt it was not only important to get people a job, but in many
cases, it is important to get people a "better job". Mr. Butler said some people are
better off on welfare than at work, and a better incentive is r~quired to encourage those
people to work. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt Mr. Butler's commen~s should be forwarded to
Mr. Fife, so that another commission isn't appointed to simply ~it around and talk about
an existing problem. Mr. Fisher commented that he liked Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion. Mrs.
Cooke said she would like to see ways of utilizing those educational opportunities that
already exist before another commission is organized.
Mr. Fisher then directed the clerk to forward a transcript of this discussion to Mr.
Fife for his review and future discussion before the Board.
Agenda Item No. 7. Request to set public hearing date to amend Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Areas. Dr. Roy Thomas of the Albemarle Baptist Association
was present to make the following request:
"October 5, 1982
I am writing on behalf of the Albemarle Baptist Association to request the Board
of Supervisors to amend the Albemarle Service Authority Jurisdictional Area to
include Parcel 6 of Tax Map 61 in their water and sewer service area. This
property is located between R.E. Lee and Son, Inc. and Albemarle High School,
already in the service area~
The Albemarle Baptist Association plans to construct a new Southern Baptist
church on this site. Maximum size of the new facility would be 25,000 square
feet. Although we do not yet have a site plan for the new church, approval of
the extension of the jurisdictional area would allow us to install a sewer
service in Hydraulic Road before and during the forthcoming reconstruction of
Hydraulic Road at a greatly reduced cost. Also, public sewerage would save us
from constructing 12,000 square feet of drainfields.
We have also filed an application for a special use permit with the zoning
department. If at all possible, we would like the Board of Supervisors to
review concurrently the special use permit application and this request to allow
hookup to public water and sewerage.
Sincerely,
(signed) Roy S. Thomas, III
Chairman, New Work Committee, Albemarle Baptist Association"
Mr. Fisher told Dr. Thomas that the Board has spent the last six years battling to
reduce intensive development along the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said it has been the recent
opinion of the Board that, regarding the jurisdictional areas o~ the Albemarle County
Service Authority, only existing buildings outside the present area will be served if they
are immediately adjacent to a waterline or their well has run d~y; and that this did not
include sewer service.
Mr. Lindstrom said that although he shares Mr. Fisher's feelings about changing the
jurisdictional (service) areas of the Service Authority, he does not have any problem with
setting a public hearing on this matter for the same date as the special permit is to be
heard. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to set a public hearing to amend the service
areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority for the same date as when the Special
Permit request is heard; that date still to be determined. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Henley and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. JAUNT: Discussion of Charter Revisions. Mr. St. John introduced
Mr. John V. Little of the law firm of Michie, Hamlett, Donato & Lowry, attorney representing
JAUNT in this request. Mr. Little reviewed JAUNT's request for the Board, and summarized
his memorandum of September 2, 1982 (NOTE: on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors) as well as the following memorandum dated September 21, 1982 from the
Board of Directors of JAUNT:
"JAUNT is currently a private, not-for-profit corporation providing a mixture
of transportation services within Planning District Ten. Since 1979 JAUNT
has been the recipient of capital and operating assistance through Section
#18 of the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 for non-
urbanized areas. ~JAUNT received these funds directly from the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation, the fund administrator. The
City of Charlottesville and the counties of Albemarle and Nelson contributed
the required local match to leverage the federal funds. This financial
assistance subsidizes approximately 40% of JAUNT's expenses and offsets the
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
As a result of the 1980 census, the Char.lottesville/Albemarte County area
has become a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. The urbanized portion
of the SMSA is no longer eligible for transportation assistance from
Section #18, but must now receive funding from Section #5 of the Urban Mass
Transportation Act of 1964, as amended. Section #5 regulations state that
the recipient of funds must be a 'public entity' and the precedent has been
set that the recipient also be a transit operator. JAUNT may continue
receiving Section #18 funds directly for the non-urbanized portions of our
service area.
In order to receive federal operating subsidy for the urbanized area, JAUNT
had two basic choices:
Request that the City of Charlottesville be the recipient of all
Section #5 funds and subcontract to JAUNT; or 2. Become a public
body.
The first option was rejected for the following reasons:
Ae
JAUNT is a regional program. The City would be recognized as the
grant recipient of funds for urbanized areas of Albemarle County as
well as the City. JAUNT would thus be perceived by other localities
as an agency of the City and would lose its regional identity.
Be
The City's liability would be a cause-of concern to City staff and
elected officials. Since Charlottesville, as recipient, would be
receiving the grant funds, the City would be held totally liable and
accountable for finance management, service and reporting.
As the grant recipient, the City would become the owner of all vehicles,
buildings and other capital equipment purchased for JAUNT.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation public transit
officials have expressed a strong dislike for dealing with third party
or 'pass through' funding arrangements such as this would be.
JAUNT's Board decided.topursue the second option with its attornies. The
choices open for becoming a public body were:
To remain a non-stock corporation but to amend the articles of incorporation
so that the JAUNT board is appointed entirely by the local governments.
2. To become a public service corporation.
3. To establish a transportation district to receive the funds.
The JAUNT Board considered all the-options and voted, on September 13, to
become a public service corporation - because this option was precedented.
(Public service corporations have been previously approved for UMTA funding).
This option could be implemented with a minimum of review at State and
Federal levels and more expeditiously than other options.
As a public service corporation, JAUNT would remain virtually as it now
exists with a few advantageous changes:
1. It would continue to be exempt from SCC regulations.
2. We could claim exemption from sales and excise (specifically. gasoline)
taxes. This would result in an estimated savings in operating costs
of over $9,000 a year. Exemption from taxation would also enable ·
JAUNT to purchase supplies through the state contract and to enter
into a maintenance arrangement with Charlottesville Transit.
3. It would become a stock corporation with the shares belonging to the
local governments.
4. Ail the JAUNT Board members would be elected by the Shareholders
(localities).
The effects on the local governing bodies would be favorable and are as
follows:
A. As a separate corporation, all liability would rest with JAUNT. As a
general rule there would be no liability to the shareholders except to
the extent of their investment in the corporation.
B, There would be no specific requirements regarding funding contributions.
This would be handled between JAUNT and the.!ocalities as it has been
in the past.
C. Shareholding local governments would have greater control over loca1
transportation through increased Board rePresentation. (JAUNT could
serve non-shareholding localities through a contract arrangement but
these localities would have no Board representation.)
D. JAUNT would retain a regional identify.
In order to create a public service corporation, the following needs to
take place:
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Each local governing body must adopt an ordinance or resolution approving
the agreement to form a Public Service Corporation.
The mayor and chairmen of the boards of supervisors sign the agreement
to form a Public Service Corporation, outliningthe rights and duties
of the localities as stockholders of the new corporation.
3. JAUNT's attorney completes the incorporation process.
The localities provide money for the purchase of stock and the Corporation
issues the same. Stock to be issued at $1.00 per share; Charlottesville
five shares for a total of $5.00, Albemarle County five shares for a
total of $5.00, and Nelson County two shares for a total of $2.00.
The stockholders (localities) elect Directors. There are current
Board members who may be reelected or the stockholders may choose to
elect new Directors. Directors are as follows: Charlottesville and
Albemarle five directors each and Nelson County two directors.
JAUNT's attorney arranges the transfer of assets from the existing
csrporation to the new corporation and the dissolution of the existing
corporation. This completes the process.
The Section #5 grant application will not be considered for review by UMTA (Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964) until the entire process is completed and JAUNT L
is a fully qualified public body. Since the new fiscal year begins on October 1,
1982, JAUNT will be borrowing funds for urbanized area expenses effective that date
and until Section #5 funds begin to flow. The JAUNT BOARD therefore requests that
each governing body act with the greatest possible expediency."
Mr. Fisher asked'if the County could act as fiscal agent for JAUNT, and how the
Section 18 Warranty affects Albemarle County. Mr. Little said the County cannot act as
fiscal agent for JAUNT because the County legally cannot sign the Section 18 Warranty
agreement. Mr. Little said the warranty provides that the County's only required invest-
ment in this project is the cost per share.
Mr. Henley asked what will happen if Federal funding stops. Mr. Little said most
likely JAUNT would go out of business. Mr. Little emphasized that the documents being
presented do not obligate Albemarle County to future funding. Mr. Henley next asked how
the County can be released from these stock agreements. Mr. Little said the County simply
offers the stock to the corporation, and the corporation is obligated to purchase those
stocks back at the original purchase price.
Mr. Fisher asked if there would be any difficulties for Albemarle County to financially
support this public service corporation. Mr. Little said there is no problem with Albemarle
County continuing to support JAUNT financially after it becomes a public service corporation.
Discussion then ensued regarding the possible future funding of JAUNT, both Federally and
locally.
Miss Nash asked when the signing of the necessary documents will be handled. Mr.
Little said he hoped the Board would authorize the signing of the resolution, ~preincor-
poration agreement and stock purchase agreement, today.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board to be appointed by the stockholders for JAUNT would be
salaried. Mr. Little said the appointed Board would not be salaried and would serve at
the option of the stockholders. ~
Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to authorize the Chairman'to sign the resolution
authorizing the formation of a Virginia public service corporation (JAUNT, Inc.) and the
execution of related documents, i.e. preincorporation subscription agreement and stock
purchase agreement; as follows:
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE FORMATION OF A
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION (JAUNT, INC.)
AND THE EXECUTION OF RELATED DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
finds a need exists for a system of public transportation and is unable to reach
a reasonable agreement for membership with an existing transportation district,
and
WHEREAS, in order to provide public mass transportation services for the
safety, comfort and convenience of its residents, the County of Albemarle,-
Virginia, desires to participate in the organization of a public service cor-
poration which is qualified to receive direct federal grants under the Urban
Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, and
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Board of Supervisors the basic
agreements listed below (and other related documents), which are necessary to
the consummation of the organization of the public service corporation:
Ae
Preincorporation Subscription Agreement dated as of September 15,
1982, among the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, the County of
Albemarle, Virginia, and the County of Nelson, Virginia; all political
subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "~reincorporation
Subscription Agreement").
Articles of Incorporation of JAUNT, Inc. (the "Articles of Incor-
poration'').
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Stock Purchase Agreement dated as of October 1, 1982, among JAUNT,
Inc., a Virginia corporation and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia,
the County of Albemarle, Virginia, and the County of Nelson, Virginia;
all political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Stock
Purchase Agreement").
D. By-laws of JAUNT, Inc.
WHEREAS, after careful consideration and in furtherance of the foregoing
public purposes, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that:
1. For the purpose of providing public mass transportation services for
the residents of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, the organization of a public
service corporation which is qualified to receive direct federal grants under
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended is hereby authorized.
2. The execution, delivery and performance of the Preincorporation
Subscription Agreement, the Articles of Incorporation, and the Stock Purchase
Agreement (collectively, the "Basic Documents") are hereby authorized. The
Basic Documents shall be in substantially the forms submitted to this meeting,
with such minor changes, insertions, and omissions (including, without limita-
tion, changes of the date of such documents) as may be approved by the Chairman
of the Board of Supervisors of the County, whose approval shall be evidenced
conclusively by the execution and delivery of the Basic Documents.
3. The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of'the County is authorized
to execute on behalf of the County the Basic Documents to be executed by it,
and, if required the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County is auth-
orized to affix thereto and attest the seal of the County. Each officer,
official and employee of the County is authorized to execute and deliver on
behalf of the County such instrument, documents or certificates, and to do and
perform such things and acts, as they shall deem necessary or appropriate to
carry out the transactions authorized by this Resolution or contemplated by the
Basic Documents or such instruments, documents or certificates; and all of the
foregoing previously done or performed by such officers, officials and employees
of the County are in all respects approved, ratified and confirmed.
This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
PREINCORPORATION SUBSCRIPTION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated as of September 15, 1982, among THE CITY OF CHAR-
LOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA, THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, and THE COUNTY OF
NELSON, VIRGINIA, all political subdivisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia
(collectively, the "Subscribers" and singly a "Subscriber").
In order to provide public mass transportation services for the residents
of the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and Nelson County, Virginia,
the Subscribers desire to organize a public service corporation which is qual-
ified to receive direct federal grants under the Urban Mass Transportation Act
of 1964.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, the parties hereto agree
as follows:
Section 1. Organization of Corporation. The Subscribers shall organize a
public service corporation under the Virginia Stock Corporation Act to be known
as "JAUNT, INC." (the "Corporation").
Section 2. Articles of Incorporation. The Subscribers shall cause to be
filed with the State Corporation Commission of Virginia Articles of Incorpor-
ation for the Corporation substantially in the form of Exhibit A attached to
this Agreement.
Section 3. Subscriptions for Stock. Each of the Subscribers hereby
subscribes for shares of Common Stock of the Corporation in the amounts and for
the consideration set forth opposite their respective names on Exhibit B attached
to this Agreement.
Section 4. Stock Purchase Agreement. The Subscribers shall promptly
execute and deliver a Stock Purchase Agreement substantially in the form of
Exhibit C attached to this Agreement, and shall use their best efforts to cause
the Corporation to consent in writing to be bound by the terms of the Stock
Purchase Agreement.
Section 5. By-Laws. The Subscribers shall use their best efforts to cause
the Corporation to adopt By-Laws substantially in the form of Exhibit D attached
to this Agreement.
Section 6. Consent of City or County.. The Corporation shall not provide
any mass transportation services within the territory of any city or county
without first obtaining the prior written consent of such city or county with
respect to such services. The Subscribers shall use their best efforts to cause
the Corporation to consent in writing to be bound by this covenant.
Section 7. Miscellaneous.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
4 2D
(a) Further Assurances. The Subscribers shall execute and deliver such
further documents and shall do such further acts and things as may be required
to give effect to the purpose of this Agreement.
(b) Assignment. This Agreement or any rights or duties hereunder shall
not be assigned by any Subscriber without the prior written consent of the other
Subscribers.
(c) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not inval-
idate any other provision hereof.
(d) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts,
each of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
(e) Applicable Law; Entire Understanding. This Agreement shall be governed
by the applicable laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. This Agreement ex-
presses the entire understanding and all agreements between the parties and may
not be modified except in writing signed by all of the parties.
EXHIBIT B to Preincorporation Subscription Agreement dated September 15,
1982, among the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, and the County of Nelson, Virginia.
Name of Subscriber
No. of Shares
Consideration
City of Charlottesville, Virginia
County of Albemarle, Virginia
County of Nelson, Virginia
5 $5 .oo
5 $5.00
2 $2.00
STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated as of October 1, 1982, among JAUNT, INC., a Virginia
Corporation (the "Corporation") and THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, and THE COUNTY OF NELSON, VIRGINIA, all political sub-
divisions of the Commonwealth of Virginia (collectively, the "Stockholders", and
singly a "Stockholder").
The Stockholders own capital stock (the "Shares") of the Corporation as
indicated on Exhibit A, and they and the Corporation desire the stock to remain
closely held in order to promote harmonious management of the Corporation's
affairs.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Stockholders and the Corporation agree as follows:
SECTION 1 - RESTRICTION ON FURTHER TRANSFER OF SHARES
1.1 Transfer Restriction. No Stockholder shall sell, assign, transfer or
make any other desposition of the Shares of which it is owner to any person or
entity other than the Corporation or the remaining Stockholders upon the terms
provided below.
SECTION 2 - PURCHASE OBLIGATIONS UPON NOTICE FROM STOCKHOLDER
2.1 Corporation's Purchase Obligation. In the event that a Stockholder
shall make a.written offer to the Corporation and each of the remaining Stock-
holders to sell the Shares of which it is the owner, such Stockholder shall sell
and the Corporation shall purchase such Shares for the price and upon the other
terms provided below.
2.2 Purchase Obligation of Stockholders. To the extent that the Corpor-
ation is prevented by law from purchasing any Shares owned by the selling
Stockholder, each remaining Stockholder shall purchase from the selling Stock-.
holder and the latter shall sell that proportion of such unpurchased Shares
which equals the proportion which the number of Shares owned by each remaining
Stockholder at the time of such notice is of the total number of Shares then
owned by all the remaining Stockholders, for the price and upon the other terms
provided below.
SECTION 3 - PURCHASE PRICE
3.1 Purchase Price. The purchase price of Shares shall be an amount equal
to the consideration paid for such Shares, payable at the Closing.
SECTION 4 - PLEDGE OF SHARES
4.1 Pledge of Shares Prohibited. No Stockholder shall encumber or use any
of its Shares as security for any loan, except upon the written consent of all
of the parties to this Agreement.
SECTION 5 - THE CLOSING
5.1 Place of Closing. Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the Closing
of the sale and purchase of Shares shall take place at the principal office of
the Corporation. ·
421
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
5.2 Time of Closing. The Closing shall take place ten days after the
delivery to the Corporation and the remaining Stockholders of written notice by
the selling Stockholder of its offer to sell such Shares.
5.3 Execution and Delivery of Documents. At the Closing, the parties
shall execute and deliver to each other the various documents which shall be
required to carry out their undertakings under this Agreement, including the
payment of cash, and the assignment and delivery of stock certificates, duly
endorsed and accompanied by all documents necessary to effect a transfer of the
Shares.
5.4 Sequence of Transactions. The sale and purchase of Shares which the
remaining Stockholders are to purchase shall take place immediately prior to the
sale and purchase of Shares, if any, which the Corporation is to purchase.
SECTION 6 - LEGEND ON CERTIFICATES
6.1 Legend on Certificates. Ail Shares now or hereafter owned by the
Stockholders shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement and the
certificates representing the same shall bear the following legend:
THE SALE, TRANSFER OR ENCUMBRANCE OF THIS CERTIFICATE IS SUBJECT
TO AN AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 1, 1982, AMONG THE CORPORATION AND
ALL OF ITS STOCKHOLDERS. A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN
THE PRINCIPAL OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION. THE AGREEMENT PROVIDES,
AMONG OTHER THINGS, FOR CERTAIN PRIOR RIGHTS TO PURCHASE AND
CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS TO SELL AND TO PURCHASE THE SHARES OF STOCK
EVIDENCED BY THIS CERTIFICATE, FOR A DESIGNATED PURCHASE PRICE.
BY ACCEPTING THE SHARES OF STOCK EVIDENCED BY THIS CERTIFICATE,
THE HOLDER AGREES TO BE BOUND BY THIS AGREEMENT. THE SHARES OF
STOCK REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED
UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR UNDER THE BLUE SKY LAWS OF
ANY STATE. THE FURTHER TRANSFER OF SUCH SHARES OF STOCK IS
RESTRICTED IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION UNDER
SUCH ACTS OR AN OPINION OF COUNSEL SATISFACTORY TO THE CORPORA-
TION THAT SUCH REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED.
SECTION 7 - TERMINATION
7.1 Events of Termination. This Agreement and all restrictions on stock
transfer created hereby shall terminate on the occurrence of any of the following
events:
(a) The bankruptcy or dissolution of the Corporation.
(b)
A single Stockholder's becoming the owner of all of the Shares of the
Corporation, which are then subject to this Agreement.
(c)
The execution of a written instrument by the Corporation and all of
the Stockholders who then own Shares subject to this Agreement which
terminates the same.
SECTION 8 - MISCELLANEOUS
8.1 Remedies for Breach. The Shares are unique and the parties to this
Agreement shall have the remedies which are available to them for the violation
of any of the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the
equitable remedy of specific performance.
8.2 Notices. Ail notices, offers, acceptances, or any other communication
provided for herein shall be given in writing by registered or certified mail,
and shall be deemed to have been given when deposited in the United States mail,
postage prepaid, addressed (a) in the case of the Corporation, to its principal
office, and (b) in the case of any Stockholder, at its address appearing on the
stock records of the Corporation, or to such other address as may be designated
in writing by it.
8.3 Assignment. The rights and duties of each of the parties under this
Agreement shall not be assignable to any person or entity without the prior
written consent of all of the other parties.
8.4 No Waiver. No failure on the part of the parties to exercise and no
delay in exercising, and no course of dealing with respect to, any right hereunder
shall operate as a waiver thereof; nor shall any single or partial exercise of
any right hereunder preclude any other or further exercise thereof or the
exercise of any other right. The remedies herein provided are cumulative and
not exclusive of any remedies provided by law.
8.5 Severability.. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held
invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not inval-
idate any other provision hereof.
8.6 Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties and their respective successor and assigns.
8.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts,
each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and
the same instrument.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meet~_n~g)
¢22
8.8 Applicable Law; Entire Understandin$. This Agreement shall be governed
by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
This Agreement expresses the entire understanding and all agreements between the
parties and may not be modified except in writing signed by all of the parties.
The motiOn to authorize the Chairman to sign the above documents was seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation by Peter McIntosh regarding the Legal Aid Society.
Mr. McIntosh said that two new attorneys have been hired with funds provided by localities
and the State. Mr. McIntosh presented a statistical analysis of the major areas of legal
problems experienced by the Charlottesv±lle-Albemarle Legal Aid Society, along with
residency figures. Mr. McIntosh indicated that Federal funding in the amount of $147,500
is available through December 15, 1982, and he hopes that the same level of funding will
be available from the Federal government for calendar year 1983.
Mr. St. John said the executive committee of the local Bar Association has recom-
mended a program whereby local attorneys would either contribute services or dollars to
the legal aid program.
Agenda Item No. 12. Revised Metropolitan Planning Organization Contract (MPO). Mr.
Agnor noted that in July of this year the Board of Supervisors authorized the signing of
the Metropolitan Planning Organization contract. Mr. Agnor stated that this revision is
necessary because of several United States Code section reference changes in the document.
Mr. Agnor requested the Board!s authorization for the Chairman to sign this revised
contract which follows:
A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR A
CONTINUING, COOPERATIVE AND COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS FOR
THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE URBANIZED AREA
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this 21st day of October, 1982,
by and between the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT; the city of Charlottesville,
acting as a local unit of government and as one of the local transit operators,
hereinafter referred to as the CITY; the county of Albemarle, acting as a local
unit of government, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY; the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission, acting as the regional clearinghouse reponsible
for carrying out the Federal Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-95,
hereinafter referred to as the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY; and the Jefferson Area United
Transportation as one of the local transit operators, hereinafter referred to as
JAUNT.
The DEPARTMENT, the CITY, the COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, and JAUNT
shall cooperate in a continuing comprehensive transportation planning and
programming process, hereinafter referred to as the '3-C' process, as defined in
Section 134 of Title 23, United States Code; Sections 3, 4(a), 5, and 8 of the
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 (49 U.S.C., Section 1602, 1603(a), 1604,
and 1607); 23 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 450; 49 CFR, Chapter VI, Part 613; and in
accordance with the constitution and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia to
form the Metropolitan Planning Organization, hereinafter referred to as the MPO.
Ail activities in the process shall be the responsibility of the MPO, a
policy making body acting at the designation of and on behalf of the Governor of
the Commonwealth of Virginia, in cooperation with the DEPARTMENT, the CITY, the
COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, and JAUNT.
The A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, as a signatory to this Memorandum of Understanding,
agrees to coordinate its review responsibilities under Part IV of the OMB
Circular A-95 with the DEPARTMENT and the MPO. This coordination shall be
accomplished through the MPO, on which the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY has one nonvoting
representative. The A-95 REVIEW AGENCY shall keep the MPO apprised of projects
which have an impact on transportation planning. The MPO shall also coordinate
its responsibilities with those of the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY and shall consider
other comprehensive plans for the area. The Unified Work Program and the Annual
Element of the Transportation Improvement Program and amendments will be for-
warded to the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY following endorsement by the MPO.
The CITY and JAUNT, as signatories to this Memorandum of Understanding,
agree as operators of publicly owned local mass transportation services to
coordinate their urbanized transportation responsibilities with those of the
MPO. This coordination shall be prominent on all activities involving public
transportation.
The DEPARTMENT shall coordinate its responsibilities for transportation
planning, programming and implementation within the study area (as defined, in
ARTICLE I herein) with those of the MPO as a function of its voting represen-
tation on the MPO and its involvement in technical staff activities in cooper-
ation with the MPO, the CITY, the COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, and JAUNT.
423'
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
NOW, THEREFORE, The DEPARTMENT, the CITY, the COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW
AGENCY, and JAUNT agree as follows:
ARTICLE I - GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE PROCESS
The transportation planning process shall, as a minimum, cover the entire
urbanized area as designated by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the area
likely to be urbanized by the period covered by the long-range element of the
current transportation plan described herein. The area shall hereinafter be
called the STUDY AREA. The STUDY AREA shall include the city of Charlottesville
and portions of Albemarle County. The boundaries may be adjusted by agreement
between the DEPARTMENT and the MPO. If said new boundary extends into a juris-
diction not included in the STUDY AREA, the jurisdiction shall automatically be
included in the STUDY AREA.
ARTICLE II - TIME FRAME OF THE PROCESS
The continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning and
programming process shall be established on a continuing basis, effective the
date of the execution of this AGREEMENT by all participants. The AGREEMENT
shall terminate when:
Section 134, Title 23 U.S. Code, or Sections 3, 4(a), 5, and 8 of the
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as amended, previously cited
herein, are repealed or amended by the Congress of the United States
to no longer require the continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive
transportation planning and programming process, or
The CITY, the COUNTY, the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY, JAUNT, or the DEPARTMENT
withdraw from the continuing, cooperative and comprehensive transpor-
tation planning and programming process with not less than ninety (90)
days written notice to the other parties, or
e
The redesignation of the MPO by the local jurisdictions and the
Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, or
The redesignation of the A-95 REVIEW AGENCY by the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
ARTICLE III - FINANCING THE PROCESS
The responsibilities and work activities performed by the MPO shall be
supported by planning funds authorized by Section 104 (f) of Title 23, United
States Code (PL Funds), by Section 1607 (d) of Title 49, United States Code
(Transit Funds) and by Section 13 Funds provided by the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration under the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970. PL Funds and
Transit Funds shall be allocated in accordance with the direction of the MPO.
The use of PL Funds and Transit Funds and other funding sources shall continue
as additional monies are appropriated. Should a portion of such funds be
discontinued, this AGREEMENT shall be renegotiated. Should all such funds be
discontinued, this AGREEMENT shall be terminated.
ARTICLE IV - AMENDMENTS
Amendments to this AGREEMENT may be made by written agreement among all
parties to this AGREEMENT.
ARTICLE V - METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
The MPO shall be composed of the following voting representatives desig-
nated by and representing their respective agencies.
City of Charlottesville - 2 representatives
Albemarle County - 2 representatives
DEPARTMENT - 1 representative
There shall also be one nonvoting representative designated by and repre,
senting each of the following agencies:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
A-95 Review Agency
JAUNT
Federal Highway Administration
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
University of Virginia
Any other agencies as may be agreed upon by all voting representatives
to the MPO ~
The MPO shall elect a chairman and other officers as deemed appropriate.
The MPO shall establish rules of order. The MPO constituted herein shall remain
in effect until such time the local jurisdictions and the Governor of the
Commonwealth of Virginia designates another MPO.
Motion was immediately offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept the
amendments tO the MPO contract as presented, and authorize the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors to sign same as set out 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.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 13. Report: Liability Insurance. Mr. Agnor reviewed the following
memorandum from Mr. Russell B. Otis, dated October 8, 1982, regarding the proposed in-
surance coverage as recommended by the County's Risk Management Consultant:
"With the assistance of Mr. Sam Rosenthai, Risk Management Consultant, the County
has issued specifications and requests for proposal for all of Albemarle County's
general government insurance needs. A total of ten proposals were received with
a wide representation of reputable companies on September 22, 1982.
Since that date, Mr. Rosenthal has reviewed and evaluated the proposals with a
committee of staff. The bidding process has proven most beneficial to the
County. Current insurance carried has a total premium of approximately $55,350.
Improved coverage for all general County property and automobile fleets as well
as new coverage on the data center as well as valuable papers and records will
total approximately $38,000.
A decision is requested from the Board as to whether or not to purchase General
Liability insurance, Public Officials insurance and an umbrella liability policy,
estimated cost of an additional $10,600."
Mr. Rosenthal was present and proceeded to specifically describe all proposed areas
of coverage, the premiums for specific coverage and amounts deductible.
Mr. St. John asked if the proposed coverage included punitive damages. Mr. Rosenthat
said punitive damages, if awarded by a judge, would be covered up to the one million
dollar limit per year. Mr. St. John then asked if a public official makes a wrong decision,
what exclusions would there be in the proposed coverage. Mr. Rosenthal used the example
of civil rights and discrimination, stating that if the Board of Supervisors were to enact
a law which the Board knew was illegal at the time of enactment and someone sued the
County; if it could be proven that the Board intentionally enacted that law knowing that
it was illegal, the insurance policy would not cover the County. Mr. Rosenthal said that
any illegal act will not be covered.
Mr. St. John next asked if the insurance company has the right to dictate the settle-
ment terms. Mr. Rosenthal said the insurance company would have the right to dictate
whether or not to pay a settlement out of court or what to pay for a final judgment. Mr.
St. John asked if the insurance company would have injunctive relief powers over the
County. Mr. Rosenthal said he did not feel any insurance company would have that power.
Mr. St. John expressed concern that an insurance company would attempt to pressure the
County (for example) to issue a special use permit to an applicant, rather than be sued
and possibly lose the case thereby costing the insurance company the amount of the settle-
ment. Mr. Rosenthal said the Board of Supervisors would have the final decision on
whether or not to issue such a permit, and if damages were awarded following a suit, the
insurance company would pay.
Mr. St. John said he had no negative comments about the policies being offered. Mr.
St. John added that there was a time when he advised the Board against purchasing a public
officials insurance package because it was considered a waiver of immunity rights which
belonged to County officials. Mr. St. John said a recent Supreme Court decision has ruled
that to purchase such insurance is not a waiver of those rights. Also, Mr. St. John added
that since the Commonwealth of Virginia has recently waived its immunity rights through
legislation, it may soon be decided in a Federal or State court that local governments no
longer have immunity rights because they are a direct branch of the State government. Mr.
St. John endorsed the purchase of the public officials policy.
Discussion then developed regarding whether or not the insurance company should be
allowed to decide to settle or pursue suits filed against the County. Mr. St. John felt
that although very often it is less expensive to settle an action out of court, the
principle of the decision is far more important to pursue. Mr. Rosenthal said far too
often insurance companies offer to settle out of court because it is less expensive than
to defend the suit in court. Mr. Rosenthal said what may happen is that the insurance
company would only pay the amount which they offered to pay out of court and the County
would pay anything exceeding that amount if the judicial settlement was greater.
Lastly, Mr. Agnor said no appropriation is required at this time, however, it may be
necessary to come back later for an appropriation if premium refunds on old cancelled
policies do not cover the new policies.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the proposal from the Risk Management
Consulting firm for General Liability insurance, Public Officials insurance and an umbrella
liability policy. This acceptance based on the provision that the final policy contracts
be reviewed by the County Attorney, County Executive and Mr. Sam Rosenthal of Risk Management
Consultants prior to signing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to reappoint
Mr. Fred C. McCormick to another five year term on the Fire Prevention Code Board of
Appeals. This term would be scheduled to expire on November 21, 1987. The motion was
seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
425
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher said he has submitted a letter of resignation as a member of the Emergency
Medical Services Council (Note: Mr. Fisher's term was due to expire on December 12,
1982.) No Board member wished to accept Mr. Fisher's seat on this council at this time.
Mr. Lindstrom requested the Clerk of the Board to contact Mr. William Chick and Mr.
Jeffrey Sobet to determine if they wish reappointment to the Community Services Board, and
report back to the Board as soon as possible.
Miss Nash requested the Clerk of the Board to contact Mr. Walter Hurd to determine if
he wished to be reappointed to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, and report back to the
Board as soon as possible.
Mr. Fisher commented that there are still no nominees for openings on the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority Board, the BOCA Code Board of Appeals and the Jordan Development
Corporation Board which must be filled.
At 12:05 P.M.-~m~tion was offered by Mr, Lind.st~om to adjourn into executi~¥e~session
to discuss personnel and legal matters. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. St.
John said the State Code requires a more specific reason for going into executive session.
Miss Nash said to discuss the defense of the potential suit regarding the Otis Lee matter.
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.
The Board returned from lunch at 1:37 P.M. and continued with the agenda.
Agenda Item No. 16. Report from Gene Krumnacher on activities of Region X Board.
Mr. Gene Krumnacher, recent County appointee to the Region Ten Community Services
Board, was present. He extended appreciation for the appointment and noted that he had
promised to report periodically on the activities of the Community Services Board. Mr.
Krumnacher said he has also been elected Chairman of the Virginia Association of Community
Services Board. Therefore, he will report today on the state and local activities.
T~r~.~r~-a~hlrt'y~s~ven community services boards in the state and the primary objective
of the Virginia Association is to formulate and recommend legislation which will be
beneficial in the areas of mental health and retardation and in substance abuse. Mr.
Krumnacher welcomed any comments or input in regard to legislation coming before the
State. Mr. Krumnacher then noted some specifics occurring at the State level and
distributed the following report dated October 12, 1982:
"Following a two year study by the Joint Commission on Mental Health and
Mental Retardation (the "Bagley" Commission), the General Assembly has
reaffirmed the Commonwealth's commitment to the provision of community-
based services through the Community Services Board (CSB) system (local
control), and has adopted legislation intended to assure the availability
of mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services to all
citizens in their home communities. The Assembly appropriated $11.02
million in additional funds for the 82-8~ biennium to further the
following goals:
- Core Services: all CSB's must provide a minimum array
of core services (emergency, outpatient, day treatment,
in patient, residential, and prevention) for the three
disability areas (mental health, mental retardation,
substance abuse). A portion of the $11.02 million will
be allocated to CSB's to fill existing gaps in services
or prevent new gaps from developing as other funding
sources are curtailed.
- Census Reduction: a study of the residents and patients
of all state institutions has been completed. Targets have
been established for the return of residents and patients
to their home communities for whom institutional care is
inappropriate. Joint planning by CSB's and the state
facilities is underway to identify specific services
necessary to maintain these persons in their communities.
Both start-up and continuation funding has been allocated
for this purpose.
- Formula funding: a great disparity exists in the
availability of community services across the Commonwealth.
In order to achieve service equity the General Assembly has
instructed the Department to develop an allocation formula
for consideration by the Assembly. The formula will allocate
state funds and establish local matching requirements.
?
/
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
4 2G
Local Issues and Developments
t. Community Mental Health Centers (CMHC) funding
The first of two CMHC eight-year grants (now administered on a
block grant basis) ended last spring. Five positions were eliminated
at the Crisis Intervention Center. University of Virginia Hospital
has assigned staff to offset the reductions. The second grant ends
next spring resulting in a projected deficit to maintain mental
health S~'~ices of $200,000 in Fiscal Year 1984. Region Ten is
continuing negotiations with state officials for additional state
funds for Fiscal Year 1984.
e
Albemarle/Charlottesville Public Schools -- Joint Day Program for
Emotionally Disturbed Students
The need for a day pro~ram to serve emotionally disturbed students
as an alternative to costly residential placement has been long
recognized. The McIntire Day Program was initiated this year with
Region Ten serving on the Joint Management Team and providing
psychology services.
Risk Reduction Project (to reduce the risk of alcohol and tobacco
abuse) Activities in Albemarle County
The Risk Reduction Project, funded by the Center for Disease
Control, has pro¥ided extensive services to the Albemarle Schools:
- Trained all health and physical education teachers (grades 6-10)
in the use of a smoking education curriculum and retrained grade
6-8 teachers in alcohol curriculum (CASPAR).
- Monitored implementation of curriculum for 2,000 middle and
high school students and collected data on the effectiveness
of the curriculum.
- Provided drug in service training to Albemarle High School
faculty and evening drug education programs to Albemarle High
School parents.
4. Residential Programs
Residential alternatives for mentally retarded and mentally ill
persons have been developed at no additional cost to the localities.
A licensed home for adults and a foster care program for adults were
initiated in cooperation with the Albemarle County Department of
Social Services. The pioneering effort to establish intermediate
~care facilities for severe, multi-handicapped persons (one in the
County) has been stalled due to Medicaid cost containment and general
financial uncerainity. Planning is continuing and the need still exists
for tax free revenue bond authority. A permanent site for the Shelter
for Homeless Alcoholics has been designated. In the meantime, Region
Ten has assumed the operation of the temporary Pantops shelter. Region
Ten is also funded by the state to administer 23 beds located throughout
Northwestern Virginia for the in patient treatment of medically indigent
alcoholics.
5. Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
Region Ten contracts with local employers to provide management,
supervisory, and employee training leading to the referral of
employees whose productivity is reduced due to alcoholism and
other personal problems. Region Ten conducts a confidential
assessment and arranges for appropriate treatment for the employee.
Mr. Fisher extended appreciation to Mr. Krumnacher for the report.
Mr. James ?eterson, Executive Director of Region Ten Community Services Board, was
present and updated the Board as to state and local appropriations. He said the Community
Services Board adopted the proposed Fiscal Year 1984 budget last Monday night and a four
percent increase as a maintenance level budget is shown. Of that amount there is a
$359,000 combined drop off of Federal support in the following three areas. One is the
Community Health Center grant which Region Ten has had for a total of ten years to support
the basic mental health services. Another area is the Risk Reduction grant. The third
area is the Mental Retardation Developmental Disabilities Prevention grant. Mr. Peterson
said the policy of the Community Services Board has been to maintain those original core
mental health services. Therefore, Mr. ?eterson said negotiations are being pursued with
state officials to get some funds to offset the $230,000 shortfall projected for mental
health. One of the items under discussion was the State formula~which will be effective
in Fiscal Year 1985. Mr. ?eterson said the Region Ten Community Services Board will be
presenting budget documents and the full program request at a later date.
'427
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 17a. Public Hearing Budget Amendments and Appropriations -- McIntire
Day Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 6, 1982)
Mr. Agnor said the McIntire Day Progra.m is a part of the shared special services
program with the City. The program's total cost is $80,792 and the County's half is
already funded in Code 17B2~--Tuition--Other Divisions. The Albemarle School Board, by
action of September 16, 1982, requested that the County's share be allocated in various
line item expenditures and that revenue be shown from the City for $40,396. The School
Board also requests that the County be the fiscal agent for this program.
Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, had indicated in his
memorandum of September 21, 1982, that there had been no provision made for indirect
local costs. Mr. Agnor said that is a matter for the School Administration to deal with.
Mr. Fisher suggested that copies of the memorandum about the indirect costs be sent to
the School Board.
The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to speak for or against
these budget amendments, the public hearing was closed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following
resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $40,396~00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund
and Coded to 17J.1--McIntire Day Program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $40,396.00 be transferred from Code
l?B2-221--Tuition - Other Divisions to Code 17J.1--McIntire Day Program; and
THEREFORE, FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby
authorized to amend the Revenues section of the 1982-83 County budget by
adding $40,396.00 to Code 17J.1--McIntire Day Program; said amount is the
share from the City of Charlottesville.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the total for this program is $80,792.00 and
is to be expended per the attached budgetary line items.
FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall be effective on October 20, 1982.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Appropriations: Second reading on those heard October 6, 1982.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following
three resolutions for budget amendments and appropriations for these items which were
heard by the Board at its meeting of October 6, 1982, and with the explanations of same
set out in said minutes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $11,629.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund
and Coded to 9302-5840--Clean Community Commission; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby 'authorized to
amend the Revenues section of the 1982-83 County budget by adding $11,629.00
to Code 102404.070--Clean Community Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,000.00 be, and the- same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and Coded to 4100-3099.04--Contractural Services Greenbrier Drive.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $16,800.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and Coded to l101-3022.13--Joint Law Enforcement Study as the County's share of
a study for the possible consolidation of City/County law enforcement agencies.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Da~ Meeting)
428
Agenda Item No. 17b. Public Hearing Budget Amendments and Appropriations--Community
Educational Development Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 6, 1982)
Mr. Agnor said the secbnd request is the Community Educational Development Program
at Stone Robinson School which is fully funded from a state grant in the amount of $17,600,
program fees of $26,000 and contributions in the amount of $1,000. Mr. Fisher asked the
function of the program.
Dr. Carlos Gutierrez, SUPerintendent of Education, was present and said Mr. James
Simmons coordinated the program and noted that the request is to cover a federal grant
which has been authorized for compensating the program. He said the program is an "after-
school" organized instructional program. However, Dr. Gutierrez felt someone affiliated
with the coordination of the program should explain and he said he would send for someone.
The Board recessed at 2:05 P.M. and reconvened at 2:10 P.M.
Dr. Gutierrez returned to the meeting with Ms. Sara Radkowsky, who is working with
Mr. Simmons on the program. Ms. Radkowsky said the Stone Robinson School is a demonstration
site for the program. She noted that the principal of the school, Mr. Charles Simmons,
supported the program and after surveying the area that Stone Robinson School serves, he
concluded that parents were interested in this enrichment program. Ms. Radkowsky said
the County obtained a grant from the State Community Education Department in the amount
of $17,600 and that amount includes the salary of $6,500 for Ms. Ann Ward, who will be
putting the program together. She said the progr.am started this past Monday and there
were twenty-nine children in the program out of the school's enrollment of 340. The
hours of the program are from 2:30 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday but following
the County school schedule. She then explained the program and noted the various activities
involved. She also noted that it is hoped that by January, an adult education program
can start. Ms. Radkowsky said this is the only demonstration site in the County at this
time. She also noted that the remaining portion of the $17,600 is for her salary as a
part-time community education employee in charge of volunteer services.
Mr. Fisher asked what the $26,000 in program fees will be used for. Dr. Gutierrez
said the $26,000 is the fees to be paid by the participants in the program. Mr. Fisher
asked what will happen if the Board makes the appropriation and these fees are not collected;
will the money be spent causing a deficit in revenues. Dr. Gutierrez said Mr. Simmons
informed him that the expenditures would not be made until the revenue is available.
Mrs. Cooke then asked if the program is for children of persons receiving welfare.
Ms. Radkowsky said the program is for any parents and the charge is $.75 per hour. Mrs.
Cooke asked if public dollars are being spent to run this program. Ms. Radkowsky said~
the program fees are used to pay for the necessary materials and the instructor's salary
and all budgetary information will be kept separate from the operation of the school.
Mr. Butler said he was familiar with this type of program and has been very favorably
impressed with these programs.
Mr. Fisher said his basic concern is with being sure that the fees are collected
before funds are expended and if this request is approved, a record should be kept. Ms.
Radkowsky said the fees will be recorded weekly and a system has been set up to account
for same with the assistance of Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the
fmllowing resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $44,600 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated~from the School Fund
and Coded to 17J.2--Community Educational Development Program for said
program at Stone Robinson School; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to amend the Revenues section of the 1982-83 County Budget by adding
$44,600 to Code 17J.2--Community Educational Development Program; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall be effective on October 20, 1982.
Mrs. Cooke said she had heard about this program and was of the opinion that it
should be entirely funde by program fees. She noted concern that taxpayers money is
being requested to fund a program which can be afforded by persons able to provide for
their own children. For this reason, Mrs. Cooke said she could not support the motion.
Mr. Agnor said the request is to spend the state grant funds; a demonstration grant.
If the program functions as anticipated, then the grant may not be needed. In conclusion,
Mr. Agnor said no local funds are being requested at this time.
Mr. Butler restated that this type of program was started several years ago and many
people feel that school buildings should be used for this type of activity. Mrs. Cooke
said she has no problems with using the schools for such but is concerned that the program
is not entirely for social service recipients. Mr. Butler said the program is for the
entire community. Mr. Fisher asked if this program meant keeping the schools open longer
and if so, were utilities included in the cost. Dr. Gutierrez said no and only a minimal
expense would be involved because the custodians would be in the school at the time the
program is occurring.
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.
429
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 19. Public Hearing:
Capital Improvement Program.
Continuation of Public Hearing on Five-Year
Mr. Agnor said the public hearing on the Five-Year Capital Improvements Program was
deferred from July 7, 1982, in order that additional information could be provided on the
following four items: !) Inclusion of a potential park in the southern part of the
County; 2) Inclusion of a proposed park on Whitewood Road on property owned by the School
Board; 3) Inclusion of Buck Mountain Reservoir; and 4) Transfer of waterline costs associated
with the hydrant installation program and utility system extensions to the Albemarle
County Service Authority section of the program. Mr. Agnor said these four items have
been included and the program now contains 104 projects, thirty-three are utility oriented.
Seventy-one of the projects require County funds. The total of the program is $87.9
million with the County's share being $23.4 million. Projects already funded total $5.6
million and the project requests not yet funded total $17.8 million. Resources for the
$17.8 million are estimated to be only $15.5 million over the five-year period. Therefore,
there is a shortfall of funds of $2.3 million. Mr. Agnor said the capital improvements
program does not have to be balanced. In past years, the Board has expressed concern
about contemplating projects in the five year program when the resources to pay for same
were questionable. The staff has each year recommended a potential resource for this
program as a split-tax collection of real estate taxes. Mr. Agnor said for the purposes
of the 1982-87 five year cycle, the staff has shown the split-tax collection in the 1984-
85 fiscal year for $2 million in additional revenue for planning purposes in order to
balance this Capital Improvements Program. A decision on this recommendation would not
be required until adoption of the Fiscal Year 1984-85 budget in April 1984.
Mr. Agnor then reviewed the project sheets entitled "Staff Update, October 5, 1982".:
He also explained the items on the update which were changed since the presentation on
July 7, 1982. Under the Administration and Courts section, the project for the County
Office Building, Phase II, was funded in July, so this section shows a reduction of
$51,000. The Airports section has been entirely reorganized and Mr...Mike Boggs, Airport
Manager, will present an explanation of this later in the meeting.
Mr. Agnor said in the Educational category, the funding for Albemarle High School--
Phase III, has been shown under "previous fUnding" and the School Board is now requesting
anL~appropriation of $1,147,930 to finish the project. For the Albemarle High School,
Phase IV project, the amount of $940,000 is the same as shown in July, however, the
School Board is now requesting that the funds for the project be authorized in order that
the project can become eligible for Literary Funds. The Charlotesville-Albemarle Vocational
Tech Center project has been transferred from the "requested column" to "previous funding"
and the amount shown in July for $100,000 has been reduced to $85,000; Mr. Agnor also
noted that the Jouett and Walton School Roof repairs were funded in July. The Energy
Conservation project has been consolidated into a single line item and no further funding
is required. The Miscellaneous Repairs category was approved for funding in the amount
of $140,000 in July and the School Board is now requesting an appropriation in the amount
of $70,000 for 1982-83 projects which are costing more than estimated. The Broadus Wood
School renovation project was shown in July for funding in the 1983-84 fiscal year.
However, the School Board is requesting that the money for architectural renderings be
allocated now in order that eligibility for Literary Fund monies can be determined.
The Fire, Rescue and Safety categories have been adjusted. The project listed as
"Fire Hydrant and Waterline-Schools", has been changed from the $112,250 requested for
1982-83 to $200,000. By removing waterline costs from the Fire Hydrant Program which had
previously been funded in the amount of $49,-878, there is an average in funding of $26,278.
The request for a Fire Engine in the amount of $148,000 was recommended by the Planning
Commission in July for funding in 1982-83. However, the staff is recommending that it be
funded in 1983-84 and so a decision is needed by the Board. Mr. Agnor said the staff has
recommended deferral because of negotiations which are underway with the City on the fire
services agreement. Mr. Agnor said the amount requested for the Fire Service Training
Center has also been changed from $15,000 in 1982-83 to $25,000. There was $40,000 shown
for the Scottsville Rescue Ambulance in July and that project now reflects a $1,000
increase. Mr. Agnor said that funding for a drainfield for the Western Albemarle Rescue
Squad building in the amount of $8,000 was shown in July but has now been deleted as a
capital expenditure item.
For Libraries, the CroZet Branch project now shows the County's cost of $7,000 for
1982-83, where in July $200,000 was shown for 1982-83. He then noted the balance of the
project is being paid by the Perry Foundation. Under Parks and Recreation, the amount of
$36,000 for the Chris Greene Comfort Station project has been changed to $20,000. Mr.
Agnor said the Piedmont Virginia Community College Softball Field Lighting and Fencing
project, was funded in July with the City sharing one-half of the cost. Therefore, the
amount of $38,000 has been transferred from the 1982-83 column to the previous funding
column.
Mr. Agnor said the following three projects have been included under Parks and
Recre~io2~since the July meeting. A project for a park on Whitewood Road in the amount
of $1,024,000 is shown as being funded from 1983-84 through 1986-87. A project listed as
Hardware Rapids Park for a total of $150,000 is shown as being funded in 1983-84 and
1984-85. A project for a Regional Southern Park for $550,000 is shown as being funded in
1984-85 and 1985-86. Mr. Agnor said that under the Solid Waste category, the Ivy Landfill
Road is shown in the 1982-83 column in the amount of $125,900 and this should be the
final funding required for this project. Mr. Agnor said that waterline projects in the
Utilities category do not require any county funds.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
430 .
Mr. Agnor said a request from the School Board for immediate additional funding for
several projects is of concern to Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, and he expressed
this concern in a memorandum dated September 23, 1982 (memorandum distributed to the
Board prior to this meeting and is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Agnor then summarized
his memorandum dated October 7, 1982, relating to the memorandum of Mr. Jones:
"Yom have received earlier a memo from Mr. Jones, Director of Finance, dated
September 23, 1982, concerning requests for appropriations from the Capital
Fund for several school projects. This memo expressed these concerns:
1. A cash flow problem exists in the Capital Fund primarily
from having to fund projects and wait on reimbursements, particularly
with summer scheduled projects that expend over $1 million in
four months.
2. The General Fund operating balance should not be continually
relied upon for advancing funds to the Capital Fund. The General
Fund is now at a balance that is needed for operating disbursements.
3. Revenues from sales tax, interest on investments, and
percentages of tax collections are beginning to reflect the slow
economy.
4. Funding of Albemarle High School Phase IV from a Literary Fund
loan is doubtful, but unknown at this time.
As a result of his concerns, Mr. Jones did a cash flow analysis of
the FY 82-83 Capital Program requests, and reviewed this analysis with
this office for preparation of recommended adjustments to the 1982-87 C.I.P.
The analysis is as follows:
1. The projects awaiting funding in FY 82-83 totalling $1.8 million
will require $5.6 million in the Fund between now and April 1983 in order
to commence all of them on schedule.
2. The Capital Fund has $3.8 million available in that time frame,
a shortfall of $1.8 million.
3. The major project that has caused the cash problems is the
Broadus Wood project, changing from $.74 million in the 1981-86 C.I.P.
to $1.75 million in the 1982-87 C.I.P.
4. Deferral of the Albemarle High School Phase IV project ($.94
million) or the Court Square project ($1.5 million) will not solve the
cash flow problem. It would require the deferral of both projects.
5. Deferral of the Broadus Wood project ($1.75 million) will
solve the cash flow problem.
6. The remaining projects in FY 82-83 are too small combined
together to solve the problem.
Phase IV of Albemarle High School is the final phase of a four year
improvement program. If a Literary Fund loan is not available, that project
is not fundable. The Court Square project is the final phase of an
improvement program that has been planned for ten years, and has been
underway for five of those ten years. It is to be funded from carry-over
balances of the General Fund accumulated over a number of years, plus
appropriations from the General Fund. It is my recommendation that both
of these projects move forward to completion by retaining them in the FY 82-83
and 83-84 funding year.
The Broadus Wood project has received approval by the Board of
Supervisors for preliminary planning only, final approval being reserved for
completion of a school attendance district study by the School Board. Dr.
Gutierrez has indicated that the project is needed irrespective of the
redistricting study. He will be prepared to speak on that matter when you
consider adoption of the 1982-87 C.I.P.
For that adoption, the following adjustments are recommended:
1. Defer the Broadus Wood project to FY 83-84.
2. If this adjustment is not acceptable, and the project is
approved for final design, fund the design in FY 82-83, and the construction
in FY 83-8~.
3. Authorize the final design of Albemarle High School Phase IV in
October 1982 in order to determine its eligibility for a Literary Fund
loan. Final designs are needed for such a determination. If the project
is determined ineligibile for a loan, defer the construction until FY 83-84
and reconsider the project in the next review of the C.I.P. in March - June
1983.
4. Remove the Future Miscellaneous Re~irs (Item III-9 for $300,000)
from the C.I.P. Future repair projects should be requested on a project
basis, rather than being retained on a miscellaneous basis.
431-
October 13, 1982 (Regu~&r Day Meeting)
5. Remove the waterline project to serve Brownsville, Henley, Western
Albemarle from the C.I.P. (Item IV-1 for $200,000). This project is needed
to meet current fire flow standards, which have been increased since the
buildings were consructed, and will serve the protection of the buildings only,
not its occupants. The occupants are protected by evacuation plans and drills.
The building can be protected for restoration through insurance.
6. Defer the Northside Branch Library project (Item VII-3 for $830,000)
to FY 85-86 which is beyond the'proposed split-tax collection year of FY 84-85
when funds would be available. A deferral also allows for further analysis
of growth trends in the northern area of the County, aiding in determining
the location and necessity for a branch library.
7. Send the Whitewood Road Park project (Item IX-13a-c for $1,024,000)
to the School Board for response as to the use of the property. This
response may need to await the redistricting study. This project has not had
Planning Commission review, and should have that review before inclusion in the
C.I.P.
8.. Send the Hardware Rapids Park project (Item IX-14 for $150,000) and
the Regional Southern Park (Item IX-15 for $550,000) to the Planning Commission
for review prior to inclusion in the C.I.P.
Adoption of the 1982-87 C.I.P. is recommended after consideration of the
above adjustments."
Mr. Fisher asked if the Albemarle High School-Phase IV project is deemed eligible
for Literary Funds, if there will be enough cash available in this fiscal year to cover
the beginning phases of construction. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. Fisher asked how long it
will take to complete the project and how long it would take to receive the Literary
Funds. Mr. Agnor said the project could begin in the summer and usually Literary Funds
are received six months after a project begins and three months after it ends.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Broadus Wood project is eligible for Literary Funds. Mr.
Agnor said yes, and this Board has already authorized an application for the limit of two
million dollars.
The public hearing was then continued on the five year capital improvements program.
Dr. Carlos Gutierrez, Superintendent of Education, was present. He distributed a pamphlet
composed by School personnel in response to inquiries from persons moving into the area
and having questions about the Albemarle school system. (Copy on file in Clerk's Office.)
Dr. Gutierrez said the redistricting study is underway with a target date for receipt of
the study by the School Board of January 1, t983. Dr. Gutierrez said his reason for
suggesting that Broadus Wood be placed in the 1983-84 construction year is that no matter
what the results of the redistricting are, it will still be necessary to have a school in
this particular area of the County. Dr. Gutierrez said the present facility is cramped
and trailers are being used for classrooms, and this is unsatisfactory. Dr. Gutierrez
said he would not state that Broadus Wood is in worse condition than other school buildings
in the County, but if he were asked which school building needed repairs first it would
not be Broadus Wood. But he could almost guarantee that whatever direction the redistricting
study takes Broadus Wood will be needed. In conclusion, Dr. Gutierrez said his recommendation
is that the planning funds be approved for this fiscal year and in order that application
for the literary fund loan can be made without deferral to another Fiscal Year.
Mrs. Barbara Herath, parent of children in the Broadus Wood School, spoke next. She
noted the urgent need for renovation to the school and emphasized the following problem
areas in the school. One is inadequate space for physical education classes and such
must be conducted in classrooms during the winter months. She also noted that food is
not stored according to USDA standards and the library has only one-third of the space
required by the state. Mrs. Herath then noted that the PTA and the entire community
supports the school and provides a great deal to the School. She also noted that the
Broadus Wood site is an ideal location for the school no matter what a redistricting
study might reveal. Mrs. Herath said the plans being considered by the School Board have
been drawn to meet the present school needs and also an arrangement for more classrooms
to be added if the redistricting study reveals an expansion is necessary. She also noted
that the Planning Commission has indicated that the Earlysville area is a growth area and
this facility is needed to meet the needs of the area. She said delay of this project
will cost dearly and if the plans are not funded soon, the project cannot be ready for
construction in the spring. She felt that the biggest threat to the project may be the
loss of Literary Funds since if the County has to be put on a waiting list for Literary
Fund loans, there will be no guarantee that funds will be available when the County has
its turn. Mrs. Herath said she realizes that this is not the only school project being
considered, but this project is in danger of losing low interest money if action is not
taken soon. Mr. Fisher asked if the redistricting committee was given a written charge.
Mrs. Herath said the committee was given a directive to look at all factors involved in
order to provide quality education for County students and there are representatives from
all the school districts. Mr. Fisher asked if a set of preliminary plans for the project
are available. Mrs. Herath said yes. Mr. Fisher asked that the plans be made available
to the Board.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
43?
Next to speak was Mr. Jack Taggart, co-chairman of the Court Facilities and Functions
Committee of the Local Bar Association. Mr. Taggar~ said there was a meeting last week
with the committee members, the architect and the Judges and if funding is approved, the
Court Square project is ready for construction in the spring. He noted the overcrowdedness
of the court facility and the necessity for expansion of same~. In conclusion, Mr. Taggart
felt it is time for the funding to be approved and construction to begin.
Mr. Ed Bain, co-chairman of the Court Facilities and Functions C~mmittee of the Local
Bar Association, spoke next in support of funding for the Court Square project.
An unidentified lady spoke next and asked if there was a correlation between the
Court Square Complex project and the Broadus Wood School project. She felt that the.
children deserve more consideration than the Court Square complex project.
With no one else present to speak on the Five-Year Capital Zmprovement Program, the
public hearing was closed.
Mr. Henley asked about the idea of a split-tax collection, in particular, would
there be a penalty on those taxes not paid by June 5. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. Henley
felt if more funds are needed, the tax rate should be increased because each year these
problems will continue.
Mr. Fisher felt if the split-tax collection is considered, public hearings will be
held and public comments taken. He then noted that several years ago, the Board had
struggled with the Meriwether Lewis School project and decided to wait for the redistricting
report. Therefore, he could not support design plans being approved for another school
without the redistricting study in hand.
Mr. Lindstrom shared the concerns about Meriwether Lewis School but said the Superintende~
has indicated that regardless of how the redistricting study turns out, the Broadus Wood
School will have to be improved. Therefore, he did not feel deferral until the redistricting
study is received will not make any difference on this project. He supported approving
the planning funds in order to make application for Literary Funding without committing
the cash flow of the County. He understands that this can be done and the Court Square
project can begin.
Mr. Fisher said the Court Square complex project has been an issue for ten years and
he feels the judges and clerks have been patient and he did not want to stop that project.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would support the recommendation of the County Executive with
respect to items three through eight in his memo of October 7, 1982, but deferring the
decision on the Broadus Wood project until the architect and Dr. Gutierrez can show the
preliminary plans to the Board.
Mr. Butler said he has received a great many communications about this project and
he supports the need for improvements to the school. However, the Board has to be
careful and plan for the expansion to serve the needs. In conclusion, he recognizes that
the area Is growing and he does not feel that the school will be moved out of the community
regardless of the redistricting study.
Mr. Henley asked if action could be postponed on this one particular request. Mr.
Agnor said yes, but the staff would not recommend postponing the decision on the entire
Capital Improvements Program because costs keep changing. Mr. Henley said he preferred
to defer this until further information could be provided rather than taking the project
out. Mr. Lindstrom agreed and moved to accept the recommendation o£ the County Executive
as outlined in the memorandum dated October 7, 1982, and set out above with the deferral
of action on the BroaduS Wood project until a meeting can be arranged with Dr. Gutierrez
and the architects for some preliminary plans to be presented. Mr. Lindstrom also noted
surprise at the magnitude of the Whitewood Road park project.
Mr. Mike Boggs, Airport Manager, spoke and explained the need for additional space
with the three airlines now operating from the Charlottesville/Albemarle airport. He
then presented and explained the Phase I plan for the terminal building in the amount of
$200,000.
Mr. Agnor said there have been a number of discussions with the Airport Board on the
limitations of financing available to the Airport. In answer to the question of Mr.
Fisher on July 7, 1982, about the need for county funds, Mr. Agnor said the Airport has
operated using its own revenue for several years except for capital projects, and each
year excess revenues have been put into the Airport Improvement Fund for capital purposes.
Mr. Boggs also noted that the Airport has generated more than $50,000 over the past few
years which has been earmarked for this project.
Mr. Henley then seconded Mr. Lindstrom's motion.
carried by the following recorded vote:
Roll was called and the motion
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
A brief discusssion followed on tentative dates for a meeting with the Superintendent of
Education and the architect regarding the plans for the Broadus Wood School project. November
10, 1982 was set as the time for this presentation.
43.3
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
kgenda Item No.~ 20. Requests for Appropriation - School Board re: Capital Projects.
Mr. Agnor said one appropriation needed is for payment of invoices for the Albemarle
High School--Phase III project in the amount of $147,930. As indicated in the memorandum
from Mr. Jones on September 23, 1982, there is a balance remaining in the Red Hill School
project of $148,000. Therefore, Mr. Agnor recommended that $147,930 be transferred from
Code 9700-1060.00, Red Hill, to Code 9700-1040.00, Albemarle High School--Phase III, this
being a transfer with the Capital Improvements Fund. Motion was then offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the transfer as recommended by the County
Executive. 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. Agnor said the second request for $70,000 is for the category of Miscellaneous
Repairs for the Schools. (Additional funding needed for re-roofing and structural repairs
at Murray, Stone Robinson and Yancey schools, plus repairs to the lobby at Rose Hill
School.) He noted that $44,000 can be transferred from Code 9700-1070.00--Meriwether
Lewis/Murray project to Code 9700-1010.00--Miscellaneous Repairs, and $26,000.00 can be
transferred from Code 9700-7060.24--Fire Hydrants to Code 9700-1010.00--Miscellaneous
Repairs; all being transfers within the Capital Improvements Fund. Motion was then
offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the transfers as outlined by
the County Executive. 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. Agnor said the remaining appropriation requests will require a public hearing.
They are as follows: $58,000 for Albemarle High School--Phase IV, $75,000 for the Airport
Phase I Terminal Building, $6,000 for Mint Springs improvements to the swimming area and
the dock, $2,500 for Mint Springs improvements to the maintenance building, and $5,000
for Crozet School Recreational Improvements; all appropriations to come from the Capital
Improvements Fund. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to
advertise for public hearing on November 10, 1982, the foregoing appropriation requests.
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. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present and noted that a public hearing also
needs to be advertised for $12,000 for the Health Department Parking Lot improvement.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Miss Nash, to advertise the above
appropriation from the Capital Improvements Fund for November 10, 1982. 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.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher then asked if the staff could schedule public hearings on
appropriation requests without the Board actually ordering same. He felt this would
lighten the Board's work load and shorten the time between the request and action. Mr.
Agnor said it is possible, and preferrable. He said on appropriation requests which
involve new local funds or are controversial such would be brought to the Board for
discussion before the public hearing is scheduled. However, for grant programs where
revenues are obvious or for capital projects which are part of the total program or even
transfers not increasing the budget, such could be scheduled and presented in a public
hearing cycle. Mr. Fisher felt such a procedure should be undertaken. He then asked if
any of the Board members objected to such. No one voiced any objection.
Agenda Item No. 21. Order Advertisement of Buck Mountain Creek Ordinance. (Section
5-3.1 of the Albemarle County Code)
Mr. Fisher said last week the Board established another temporary moratorium on the
Buck Mountain Creek area, and the ordinance will expire on November ll, 1982. A public
hearing for permanent enactment of the Ordinance in order to allow for a period of time
during which the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority could do surveys and other periinent
work related to the matter, was not set. Therefore, Mr. Fisher suggested a public hearing
be ordered advertised for November 10, 1982 on the extension of the Buck Mountain Creek
moratorium. Mr. Henley said he would support advertisement for another public hearing
but did not feel the moratorium should be extended unless something is resolved by that
time with all concerned parties. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by
Mr. Butler, to advertise for public hearing on November 10, 1982, reenactment of Section
5-3.1 of the Albemarle County Code dealing with the issuance of certain building permits
(commonly known as the Buck Mountain Creek Ordinance). 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.
October 13, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
43'4.
Agenda Item No. 22. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Agnor said the Board had directed the staff to work out lease arrangements
between the Offender Aid and Restoration National Office and the~unity Diversion
Incentive Program for the use of the old jailor's house. He said OAR has offered $1,200
a year for the use of the facility and in-kind services relating to the Jail being used
as a museum. The Community Diversion Incentive group is willing to pay the $3.25 per
square foot price for the square footage it needs, which is the market value. Mr. Agnor
said the Jailor's house is worth $6,588 a year and these proposals will only generate
$2,800 a year. Mr. Fisher asked if it is possible to lease the building and give credit
for improvements made to the building in order to offset the cost of the lease. Mr.
Agnor said that is possible, but he was certain that OAR was not interested in only
getting credit for improvements to the building but also want credit for the operation of
the jail as a museum. Mr. Fisher was not inclined to support such because he had been
approached by another party interested in the building. He also would feel differently
if this were a local organization and not a national use.
A brief discussion then followed on a potential use of the building. Mr. Fisher
said OAR using the Jail rent free is one thing, but this is space that can be rented out
to others. Mr. Agnor then asked if the Board would object to offering the facility for
use by private~ enterprises. Mr. Fisher said he did not have any problem with that if a
public agency cannot provide the funds requested. Mr. Henley agreed, but felt that if
the building remains empty, it will deterioriate even more than it has. Mr. Agnor noted
that any lease on the building will only be for eighteen months because in 1984 the Board
will be examining the future use of all county-owned properties in the Court Square area
which were vacated by the move to the new County Office Building.
Mr. Agnor then referred to a memorandum from the County Engineer, Mr. Maynard Elrod,
about a drainage study. Mr. Elrod indicated that the Army Corps of Engineers has noted
interest in doing an extension of the drainage study at no cost. Mr. Agnor said he has
visited other localities which have a computer program on these studies. Therefore, the
County could do such a study in house. Mr. Agnor said hopefully by the November 10,
1982, meeting, more information will be available for the Board on which to make a decision.
Mr. Fisher then noted that Mr. St. John would like to make a statement for the
record concerning the Board's executive session at noon today. Mr. St. John said when
the Board adjourned into executive session, it was not mentioned that one of the subjects
to be discussed would be pending litigation between the Board of Supervisors and Monticello
Gardens, Inc. He noted that such is a legitimate item for an executive session and he
wanted the record to be clear.
Mr. Fisher noted that a meeting scheduled for October 21 between the Board and the
Planning Commission will be held in Meeting Room 5.
Agenda Item No. 23.
P.M.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:46
CHAIRMAN