1983-01-12January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
5'73
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on January 12, 1983, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley,
Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. James R. Butler.
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 meeting was called to order at 9:06 A.M., by
the Chairman, Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Agnor introduced Mr. Robert Smith, a senior from Ferrum College who will be
working in several departments in the County offices, as an intern toward his degree in
government administration.
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda containing
two items for approval by the Board and six items for general information. Motion was
immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept and approve the
consent agenda as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. ~
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Item No. 2.1. Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month
of December, 1982, for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and
Regional Jail, were approved as presented.
Item No. 2.2. Resolution to take Court Place in Georgetown Court Subdivision into
the State Secondary System requested by Donald J. Wagner, Builder, was adopted as follows:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of
Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident
Highway Department, the following road in Georgetown Court Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+00 of Court Place, a point common
to the centerline intersection of Court Place and the edge
of pavement of Georgetown Road; thence with Court Place in
a southeasterly direction 600.00 feet to station 6+00, the
end of the cul-de-sac of Court Place in Georgetown Court
Subdivision.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 42 foot unobstructed
right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as
recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of
Albemarle County in Deed Book 699, page 288.
Item No. 2.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of November,
1982, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia.
Item No. 2.4. Letter dated December 16, 1982, from the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation, signed by Mr. Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner, was received as
follows:
"As requested in your resolution dated September 15, 1982, the following
addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved,
effective DeCember 16, 1982.
ADDITION ~ LENGTH
From: Intersection Route 852 to 0.04 miles north
To: Route 1455 Greenbrier Drive on the west side of 0.04 Mi.
Route 29 North.
Item No. 2.5. Letter from Commonwealth Gas Services Inc. for rate increase, dated
December 30, 1982. Hearing to be held on February 17, 1983, at 10:00 A.M., in the State
Corporation Commission's Courtroom, Richmond, Virginia.
Item No. 2.6. Letter from Virginia Electric and Power Company for approval and
certification for rebuilding the Char!ottesville-Gordonsville Transmission Line for 230 KV
Operation. Letter is dated December 29, 1982. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would have
an opportunity to review this transmission line prior to its construction. Mr. Agnor said
he, Mr. Tucker and Mrs. Cooke met with representatives of Vepco on January 11, 1983, and
received a briefing about this proposed transmission line. Mr. Agnor said this line
approval process is strictly through the State Corporation Commission and does not require
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
local government approval. Mr. Fisher said he wished to know if the County could have
input into the planning process for this proposed line. Mr. Agnor said another review
meeting has been scheduled in order to brief Mr. Butler (the proposed line is mainly in
the Rivanna District), but no date for such meeting has been set. Mr. Agnor noted that no
public hearing date before the State Corporation Commission has been scheduled at this
time.
Item No. 2.7. Letter from Tidewater Commercial Deliveries, Inc., received on January
7, 1983, for an application for certificate of public convenience and necessity to the
State Corporation Commission as a restricted parcel carrier by motor vehicle. Hearing to
be held in Richmond, Virginia at 10:00 A.M., on January 27, 1983.
Item No. 2.8. Letter from Peacock Hill Service Company, dated January 7, 1983,.
regarding rate increase proposal filed with the State Corporation Commission for an
increase in its rates for providing water service. Hearing to be held in Richmond on
February 18, 1983. Mr. Fisher asked if the property owners in Peacock Hill had been
notified of this proposed increase. Mr. Agnor said he believes that it is a requirement
of the State Corporation Commission to notify all involved property owners, but that he
would be certain such notification did take place. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned
because of the substantial rate increase proposed. (NOTE: Verification of notification
was conducted on January 13, 1983; the Clerk was informed that all property owners had
received individual notification of this proposed rate increase.)
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Mrs. Cooke, Miss Nash and Mr. Lindstrom
reported they were not prepared to have the minutes of October 13, October 29 and December
8, 1982 approved. The minutes of August 4 were scheduled to be read by Mr. Butler.
Mr. Henley said he had read the minutes of November 3, 1982 (Night) and found no
corrections necessary.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the minutes
of November 3, 1982 (Night), as presented, and defer the minutes of August 4, October 13,
October 29 and December 8, 1982 for approval at the next regular meeting. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters; Request for Street Name. Mr. Tucker said
a request has been received from Mr. Hunter Faulconer, Jr., dated December 14, 1982, as
follows:
"The County of Albemarle's request for a road name for Route 855 has been
addressed by the Faulconer family, the developers of Madison Park. We
respectfully submit the name Faulconer Drive for your approval."
Mr. Tucker said this road is located between the Ivy ramp onto the Route 250 By-pass
and Old Ivy Road. Mr. Tucker said an office building is being constructed at this loca-
tion, and in order to issue a building number for mail delivery, a street name is neces-
sary. Mr. Tucker said that in researching this matter a plat dated 1910 indicated the
name of the road to be Everit Avenue. The use of the name Everit Avenue was suggested to
Mr. Faulconer, but Mr. Faulconer wishes to name the road as requested.
Mr. Fisher said he would like to see Albemarle County retain as many old road names
as possible to aid in retaining the County's history. Mr. Henley said as long as no one
objected during a public hearing, he would have no difficulty renaming the road.
Mr. Fisher suggested Mr. Tucker communicate with the Albemarle County Historical
Society to see if there is any objection to renaming old roads and bring this matter back
to the Board for further discussion at the February 9, 1983 meeting. Mr. Tucker said he
would also contact Mr. Faulconer.
Agenda Item No. 4d. Highway Matters: Take Spring Lake Drive in Section One in
Windrift Subdivision into the State System. Mr. Agnor said in order to have this road
accepted into the State System, the Board must authorize a letter guaranteeing a per-
formance bond for this road for one year. Mr. Agnor said the County had to foreclose on
the bond for this road, and the County then completed the construction using some General
Fund monies. Mr. Agnor said a performance bond is required by the State (up to a maximum
of $7,500) guaranteeing the performance of the road for one year from the date of its
acceptance into the State System. The Highway Department will take the guarantee in the
form of a letter. Mr. Agnor then recommended the Board adopt a resolution requesting
the acceptance of Spring Lake Drive into the State Secondary System, as well as author-
izing a letter of guarantee to cover the repair or replacement of the road if necessary,
and authorizing the staff to disburse the funds necessary for a maintenance fee until the
end of the fiscal year.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke to adopt the following
resolution and authorizing that a Ie2~e~. be forwarded to the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation guaranteeing the roadway construction, materials and work-
manship on Spring Lake Drive Section One for a period of one year from the date of ac-
ceptance of this road into the Secondary System of State Highways; up to a maximum of
$7,500. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,.
Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be
and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways,
subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart-
ment, the following road in Section One in Windrift Subdivision:
Beginning at station 0+00 of Spring Lake Drive, a point
common to the centerline intersection of Spring Lake Drive
and the edge of pavement of State Route 664, thence with
Spring Lake Drive in a westerly direction 2,190.41 feet to
station 21+90.41, the end of the cul-de-sac of Spring Lake
Drive in Windrift Subdivision, Section One.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-
way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by ~plat
in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed
Book 625, page 175 and Deed Book 754, page 288.
Agenda Item No. 4b. Raymond McCann Preliminary Plat Appeal. (Plat showing proposed
redivision of Parcel C-2A, Tax Map #57, Parcel #82A2, Zoned RA, Deed Book 651-193. Pre-
pared by Raymond C. McCann on December 10, 1982, received by the Planning Department on
December 13, 1982.) Mr. Tucker noted receipt of a letter dated December 29, 1982, from
Mr. Raymond C. McCann, requesting this appeal of the preliminary plat (NOTE: Copy of Mr.
McCann's letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) The
reason for appealing the decision of the Planning Commission as stated in Mr. McCann's
letter is "By this letter to you I am appealing the decision of the Albemarle County
Planning Commission to approve my preliminary plat subject to the condition of:~ 'County
Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the road plans
for a State road'. Pursuant to Section 18-4 of the Albemarle County Code (Subdivision
Ordinance), I desire that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors receive this appeal
and review this decision at a public hearing at which I am entitled to be present. I
request that the Board of Supervisors delete the above stated condition to the approval,
and substitute therefor the following condition: 'County Attorney approval of the in-
clusion of the additional lot into the existing maintenance agreement.'" Mr. Tucker read
the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows:
Location: Parcel 82A(2), Tax Map 57, Samuel Miller District; located off
the east side of Route 787, south of the intersection with Route 682.
Acreage: 8.136 acres.
Zoning: RA, Rural Areas.
History: This property was created as Parcel C-2A on the "Bunker and Wakat
Final Plat", which was approved by the Commission on June 13, 1978,
and the plat was signed in July, 1978.
Proposal: To redivide Parcel C-2A into two lots of (a) 4.6 acres and (b)
3.5 acres to be served by an existing private road.
Reason for Planning Commission Review:
road.
The parcel is served by a private
Topography of Area: Gently sloping.
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Route 787 carries 120 vehicle trips
per day and is listed as non-tolerable.
Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that soils on the ridges are
deep, well-drained soils and that those on the steeper slopes are
shallow and excessively drained.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is located within the agri-
cultural/conservation district, which is recommended for a ten-acre
density in the watershed.
School Impact: Total projected enrollment of about one student with a
slight impact.
Type Utilities: No public facilities are available.
Waivers Requested: The applicant is requesting waivers of the following
two private road provisions which apply to the allowance of a private
road:
a)
Section 18-36b(3) states that the fee of the right-of-way must be
owned by the lots abutting it or by a homeowners' association.
The plat which c~eated the 50 foot private easement stated that
Lot C-2B retained full ownership of the easement and therefore
this provision cannot be complied with. However, Staff has
received a statement from the owners of Lot C-2B, James and
Deborah Cobb, granting permission for the proposed increased use
of the right-of-way. In addition, this waiver was basically
granted previously in 1978.
January 12, 1983 (Reg~ular Da~ Meeting~
b) Section 18-36b(5) states that the average density in the resulting
subdivision must comply with the density recommendations in the
Comprehensive Plan. In this case, the density recommended in the
Plan is ten acres per dwelling unit. (Please note that the
current parcel of record does not comply with the recommended
density.) Please see the attached waiver request from MT. McCann
for justification of these waivers. ~
Staff Comment.; The County Engineer has commented that the existinprivateg
road serving this property is adequate. The Highway Department commented
that the commercial entrance constructed in 1978 is also adequate for
this use.
Staff has received a letter from the owners of adjacent Parcel C-iA
noting certain deed restrictions imposed on the subject parcel. One
of these restrictions refers to the location of a driveway serving
either of the proposed lots. It states that a driveway entrance may
not be constructed within 75 feet of the entrance serving Parcel C-iA
without the approval of the owners. Though this is a consideration
which must be addressed by the owners of the two parcels, the County
has no jurisdiction over any restrictive covenants in this.case. The
above referenced letter is attached for the Commission's information.
As the Commission is aware, the Staff cannot recommend that waivers be
granted. However, the Commission may want to consider the following
items in its deliberations:
(a) An existing maintenance agreement exists on this road.
(b)
It appears that the majority of the adjacent owners have no
objection to the increased use of the private road within certain
limits.
In addition, it is the Staff's understanding that the applicant has no
desire to construct a State road.
The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance, and
Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
Provide evidence of a 30,000 square foot building site on each
lot;
Written Health Department approval in accordance with the building
site provision, prior to Planning Commission review of the final
plat;
Compliance with Section 18-36b(3) of the private road provisions
(ownership of right-of-way);
County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Trans-
portation approval of the road plans for a State road.
Should the Planning Commission choose to grant either or both of the
waivers, the following shall apply:
Conditions 1.c. and d. shall be deleted and replaced with:
County Attorney approval of the inclusion of the additional lot
into the existing maintenance agreement.
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission approved this plat on December 21,
1982, subject to conditions 1.a, b, d as recommended by the Planning Staff.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Raymond
McCann. Mr. McCann requested that the Board members review his letter o£ appeal carefully
because it clearly stated all the facts he felt were necessary for the Board's decision.
Mr. McCann said he would be glad to answer any questions from members of the Board and
requested a favorable decision.
There being no one else from the public wishing to speak either for or against this
appeal, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher asked if there was a
possibility for future subdivision of lots along this road. Mr. Tucker said it was
possible to further subdivide'~the land. Mr. Fisher asked if other existing lots along this
private road could be further subdivided in the future. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher
noted that lots of record at the date of adoption of the current zoning ordinance can be
divided into five lots of two acres each by right in the RA District, however, for the
area of the County where the McCann property is located, the Comprehensive Plan recommends
that lots be ten acres each because the land lies within the South Fork Rivanna watershed.
He asked how this conflict in regulations would be handled by the Planning Staff if an
application were received for further development on this private road. Mr. Tucker said
that the Staff would note in its report that there is this conflict between the Zoning
Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, but, basically, under zoning laws, there would be a
right to a minimum of five development rights; so even if the proposal did not comply with
the Comprehensive Plan, it certainly would meet zoning regulations. If the proposal was
for more than the five development rights, and required a special use permit, then he
feels the County's ability to enforce the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan would
be much better. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board granted a waiver in this case and created a
precedent in the area, if the Board would be able to deny another request for five lots
served by a private road. Mr. Tucker said the waiver could have some bearing, but he does
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
'577
not think the Planning Commission would approve such a request for a private road if the
land were in an area where the Comprehensive Plan recommended ten acre parcels.
Miss Nash asked if this private road could meet State standards. Mr. Tucker said
additional right-of-way would have to be acquired. The road is presently owned in fee
simple by James and Deborah Cobb. Also, the Highway Department did not view this road to
see if same would meet State standards for alignment.
Mr. Lindstrom said he was reluctant to overrule the Planning Commission because there
did not seem to be any legal reason for doing so. Mr. Fisher said although this appeal
involves only one additional lot, he feels it is important to support the Planning Com-
mission. Mr. Fisher said approval would set a precedent which would allow future sub-
division of lots in the watershed, in direct opposition to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr.
Fisher said he agrees with the Planning Commission conditions.
Mr. McCann said the Planning Commission considered work sessions to further study the
problem of subdividing lots involving private roads. Mr. McCann felt there was a signifi-
cant distinction in his case which should be seriously studied.
Mr. Henley said he needed a better reason to deny this plat other than requiring a
State road. Mr. Henley felt it would change the character of the area by requiring a
State road.
Mr. Lindstrom said his major consideration is that this request is not in compliance
with the Comprehensive Plan and since there are so many lots which could be divided under
such a precedent (if granted) he does not want to create any more loopholes. Mr, Lindstrom
said he was not willing to support the request for a waiver.
Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the eight acre parcel should be further subdivided
below the ten acre recommendation in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked the Board
if there was any motion to change the recommended conditions of approval as set by the
Planning Commission. There was no motion offered, so the approval of this preliminary
plat for tax map 57, parcel 82A2 was sustained as stated by the Planning Commission.
Agenda Item No. 4c. Highway Matters; Procedure for Resolving By-Pass Needs. Mr.
Fisher said when the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study (CATS) was approved on
December 15, 1982, action was taken to delete the western by-pass and the proposed Route
20 connector from the proposal. Mr. Fisher said since those items were deleted, some
other answer must be found. Mr. Lindstrom's motion to approve the study called for
appointment of a committee.
Mr. Lindstrom said to successfully maintain the policies of the County as set out in
the Comprehensive Plan, some acceptable alternative to future transportation problems must
be found. Mr. Lindstrom said he has spoken to members of the CATS Policy Committee as
well as the staff of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Mr. Lindstrom said the
MPO makes recommendations on road projects which are eligible for Federal funding. Mr.
Lindstrom said he spoke with members of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
who felt the best process would be to work through the technical staff of the MP0 to
develop plans for alternatives to a western by-pass. Mr. Lindstrom said the State Highway
Department should also be involved in such discussions. Mr. Lindstrom said there are two
obvious actions the Board could take; request a new computer model from the Highway
Department or establish a committee to make suggestions for routes which could be re-
commended to the M?O for formal study.
Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation said he woUld
recommend using the MPO because this is the only connection the Highway Department has
with an area~planning group. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not know what problems the eli-
mination of the western by-pass and Route 20 connector will create in the future and
suggested the Board request the MP0 to determine the extent of the problem and make a
recommendation to the Board. Miss Nash felt the only problem with Mr. Roosevelt's re-
commendation is that some of the people who presented the idea for a western by-pass and
the Route 20 connector are now members of the MP0.
Mr. Fisher asked the Board if they wished to request the assistance of the MP0 or
find some other means to resolve the question. Miss Nash offered motion that a resolution
stating the attitude of the Board of Supervisors be drafted by Mr. Lindst~om for a pos-
sible solution of.the problem caused by deletion of the western by-pas from the CATS
proposals. Mr. Lindstrom asked when such a resolution should be brought back to the
Board. Mr. Fisher suggested the February 9th meeting of the Board. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Cooke.
Mr. Henley said he felt the suggestion offered by Mr. Roosevelt was good, but that he
was willing to hear Mr. Lindstrom's resolution. Roll was then called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. BUtler.
Agenda Item No. 4e. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt reported that a contract
has been awarded for the construction of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road from Route 29 North to
Whitewood Road), and work should be fully underway by spring.
Miss Nash asked if work on the Sand Road (Route 717)' has been completed.
said to his knowledge it has.
Mr. Roosevelt
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Miss Nash then asked about a dangerous ditch on Route 715 near the Van Clief pro-
perty. Mr. Roosevelt said he has looked at that ditch and stated that it has existed for
many years in that condition. Mr. Roosevelt said he could place additional delineators
along the road to warn of the dangerous shoulder, but felt it would cost a minimum of
about $4,000 to place an anchored guardrail at that site. Mr. Roosevelt said such an
expense would have to be considered a budget item and discussed at a later date.
Miss Nash asked Mr. Roosevelt to check out the condition of Route 708 between Blenheim
and Woodridge, as she had received a. complaint of pot holes. Mr. Roosevelt said he would
investigate the problem.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, if he could present a pro-
gress report on the Georgetown Road Walkway. Mr. Elrod said he plans to advertise this
project for bid next week.
Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion, Zoning Violation, S?-77-83, David Lee Spradl±n. Mr.
Fisher said the Board will be discussing this issue to decide whether or not to set a
public hearing on the question of revoking this special use permit for violation of
condition number five which stated: Approval is not for automobile graveyard as defined
in Section 16-8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Agnor reviewed the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors meeting of March 1, 1978, when this special permit was originally approved.
Mr. Agnor reviewed several pieces of correspondence from the Zoning Administrator's office
regarding a complaint of operating a junk car yard on this property, and the Zoning
Department's efforts to abate that violation. (NOTE: Copy of Zoning Department memorandums
dated July 9, July 12, September 30, November 16, and November 29, 1982, are on file in
the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Agnor stated that efforts to
have Mr. Spradlin comply with the conditions of the special use permit have not been
successful and through a memorandum dated November 29, 1982, this violation was referred
to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for the Board's agenda and action. Mr. Agnor
further noted that this matter had been scheduled for the December 8, 1982, meeting of the
Board, at which time a letter was received from Mr. George B. McCallum, III, attorney,
requesting a deferral for one month to give him time to review this case prior to hearing
by the Board.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Robert Vamghn, Zoning Administrator, to give the Board a pro-
gress report following inspection of this property. Mr. Vaughn said that at an inspection
about 10:00 A.M. today, there seemed to be twelve to fifteen additional cars since the
last inspection, making a total of about forty vehicles on the property this date. Mr.
Vaughn said the definition of an automobile graveyard is having more than two inoperable
vehicles on the property, and that such an automobile graveyard is only allowed in the
Heavy Industrial District according to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Vaughn said it is his
opinion that Mr. Spradlin's operation is currently in violation of his special use permit;
actually operating an unauthorized automobile graveyard.
Mr. George McCallum spoke next stating that he visited the property and it is clearly
in violation of the special permit conditions. Mr. McCallum said he discussed the situa-
tion with Mr. Spradlin who stated the initial cause of the junk car situation was that he
could purchase an entire junk car for the same price as just individual used car parts
which he uses in his auto repair business, thus he tended to accumulate junk cars for an
inventory of used car parts. Mr. McCallum stated that an automobile crusher was brought
to the property and several hundred cars were crushed but the more valuable cars still
remain on the property uncrushed. Mr. McCallum said Mr. Spradlin, since that time,
brought additional cars onto the property in an effort to have a sufficient number to
again retain the services of the automobile crusher (the operator will only crush cars in
lots of 100 or more). Mr. McCatlum said this is the occurrence which caused the Zoning
Administrator to refer this matter to the Board of Supervisors for action. Mr. McCa!lum
said his client is attempting to get a firm commitment from the operator of the crusher to
remove the junk autos from his property, but has no firm date as yet. Mr. McCallum
requested the Board of Supervisors to defer a decision for an additional thirty days to
give his client an opportunity to remove all the cars from the site.
Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should set a public hearing on this case, and then
if Mr. Spradlin is able to remove the junk cars, no action will be necessary. Mr. Fisher
said this would express the Board's intent to handle this violation. Mr. McCallum said
although he could not guarantee having all the junk vehicles removed from the property he
could present the Board with a firm commitment from the operator of the car crusher of a
date for removal of the cars. Mr. Fisher said he would be agreeable to deferring action
on setting a public hearing if Mr. McCallum could present such a letter of commitment at
the next Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled for January 19, 1983.
Miss Nash asked if Mr. Spradlin had any plans for substituting his source of obtaining
used auto parts other than from wrecked cars. Mr. McCallum said Mr. Spradlin would have
to purchase those used automobile parts from other people.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the procedure of receiving a letter of intention
from Mr. McCallum by January 19 would in any way be improper. Mr. St. John said there is
nothing improper with requesting such a letter of intent. Mr. McCallum agreed to present
a letter to the Board of Supervisors on or before January 19, 1983, stating a firm com-
mitment date for the operator of the crusher to remove all inoperable vehicles from Mr.
Spradlin's property.
At 10:50 A.M., Mr. Fisher declared a recess.
11:03 A.M.
The meeting was called back to order at
JanUary 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting~
Agenda Item No. 6. Request for amendment to Region Ten Community Services Board By-
Laws. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a letter dated December 20, 1982, from Mr. James R.
Peterson, Executive Director of the Region Ten Community Services Board, requesting the
Board of Supervisors to ratify an amendment to the Region Ten Community Services Board By-
Laws and change appointments to this Board in accordance with those amended By-Laws.
(NOTE: Copy of Mr. Peterson's letter is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board
of Supervisors.) Mr. ?eterson's letter proceeds to note that on December 13, 1982, the
Region Ten Community Serviced Board unanimously approved an amendment to the By-Laws
stating:
ARTICLE IV-MEMBERSHIP
Section 2. A member of the Board shall be appointed for a term of three
years from the first day of July of the year of appointment; except that of
the members appointed or reappointed following the change in term commencing
from January one to July one, several shall be appointed for terms of two
and one-half or three and one-half years so as to expire on June thirty.
No person shall be eligible to serve more than two successive three-year
terms; provided that persons heretofore and hereafter appointed to fill
vacancies may serve two additional successive terms.
Mr. Agnor noted that this would affect the recently made appointments of Messrs.
Jeffrey W. Sobel and William A. Chick.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to ratify the amendment
to the Region Ten Community Services Board By-Laws; changes allowed by Virginia Code
Section 37.1-196 whereby local governments can appoint Community Services Board members on
a July through June basis. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash to change the term of
apPointment for Mr. Jeffrey W. Sobel to expire on June 30, 1985, and the term of Mr.
William A. Chick to expire on June 30, 1986. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 7. Report from the County Executive on the Impoundment on Lickinghole
Creek. Mr. Agnor presented a report from the Albemarle County Engineering'Department,
dated December 29, 1982 regarding the Lickinghole Creek Detention Basin as follows:
"Estimate of Probable Costs
Discussion:
1')
The purpose of this project is to provide a facility to trap phos-
phorus bearing sediment and other nonpoint source nutrients and
pollutants from the 8;352 acre watershed of Lickinghole Creek which
includes the Crozet growth area.
While the primary goal is to trap particulate phosphorus, the pre-
liminary design phase will include consideration of methods of re-
moving dissolved orthophosphate.
3)
The project will be located in the vicinity of the intersection of
Lickinghole Creek with the C & 0 Railroad near Route 250.
4) Three alternate designs will be studied:
a)
b)
c)
One normally dry detention basin to trap sediment.
One pond to trap sediment and provide treatment of dissolved
nutrients with aquatic plants.
Two ponds. One dry basin to trap sediment followed by a pond for
treatment of dissolved nutrients.
Each of the alternates will be studied to determine capital costs,
maintenance costs, and cost effectiveness related to the South Rivanna
Reservoir.
5)
Ail field and aerial surveys and geologic information will be per-
formed by private firms. The County Engineering Department will
prepare the preliminary studies, plans and cost estimates. Final
design and specifications would-be prepared by private ~consultant
firms.
Estimated Costs:
1) Survey and field data:
Topography for 75 acres ~ $35/acre
Locate property lines
Drill bore holes - 200 vf ~ $6/vf
Lab soil test
$2,525
1,000
1,200
3OO
$5,025
58O
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
2) Preliminary design.and cost estimates:
3)
County Engineer - 40 hours ~ $24/hr.
Civil Engineer II - 100 hours ~ $17/hr.
Geologist Consultant - 24 hours @ $40/hr.
Final design and specifications:
$ 960
1,700
96o
$3,620
Project Engineer - 40 hours ~ $37/hr.
Engineer - 120 hours ~ $28/hr.
Drafting - 100 hours ~ $15/hr.
Clerical - 20 hours ~ $12/hr.
GRAND TOTAL
$1,480
3,360
1,500
240
$6,580~
Note: The first two items under number two would be charged to the Engineering
Department's budget and therefore would not require an allocation by the
Board.
Recommendation:
Proceed with cost items one and two (survey and preliminary design).
Estimated allocation would be:
Survey and field date
Preliminary design
TOTAL
$5,025
96O
$5,985"
Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that if the Board chooses to approve this appro-
priation that it be made part of the Capital Budget, since these costs are only prelim-
inary designs of a far more costly project.
Mr. Henley asked if the property owners involved have been notified of the County's
intent to conduct field studies. Mr. Agnor said there is only one property owner involved,
and if, following a public hearing, the Board gives approval to this project, the property
owner will be notified and his permission received before any work begins.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise this proposed
budget amendment for survey and field data and preliminary design and cost estimate data
for an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek in the amount of $6,000; to be heard at 11:00
A.M., on February 9, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of Voting Precincts. Mr. Fisher noted that at the
December 8, 1982, meeting of the Board, a committee was established to study the question
of establishing a suburban voting precinct. Mr. Fisher said the committee was comprised
of Mrs. Elizabeth Haugh, representing the Electoral Board; Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, Registrar;
George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Mr. Tucker made the presentation for the Committee as follows:
"The Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors to study the revision
of polling places for the Samuel Miller Magisterial District met on January
5, 1983, with all members present.
Specific urban areas of the Ivy and North Garden precincts, both in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District were reviewed. In the Ivy precinct the
communities of Bellair, Buckingham Circle, Mimosa Drive, Sunset Avenue
Extended and Stribling Avenue Extended were studied. In the North Garden
precinct, Sherwood Manor, Sherwood Farms and Country Green were studied.
These two precincts, while being in the same Magisterial District of Albemarle
County, are however in different House of Delegates districts. The Ivy
precinct is in the 57th House district, along with the Jack Jouett precinct
and the City of Charlottesville. The North Garden precinct is in the 58th
House district along with the other precincts and Magisterial districts in
Albemarle County and Nelson County. These House of Delegates District
lines were drawn and established by the General Assembly, effective July 1,
1982.
The following possibilities were considered:
1. Combining those sections of the Ivy and the North Garden precincts
into one precinct and establishing one new polling place for these voters.
2. Establishing a new polling place for each of the areas designated
above.
3. Establishing a new polling place for the area of the North Garden
precinct only.
The Code of Virginia, Title 24.1-37, requires the following specifications
to be met in the establishment of polling places:
Januar~ !98~(Re_~ular DaR Meeting~
The polling place must a) contain no fewer than 100 registered voters and
no more than 5000; b) have a voting machine; c) have a minimum of three
election officials; d) have clearly defined and clearly observable boun-
daries; and e) be located in public buildings whenever practicable.
The Code further specifies that all voters affected must be identified and
notified by mail, that any changes in precincts must be advertised in the
newspaper having the largest circulation in that particular county for two
successive weeks and that Federal Election Laws require that any changes
made must be submitted to the United States Department of Justice for their
approval.
The Committee members felt that any revision of precincts resulting in
crossing of House of Delegates district boundary lines should be discouraged.
In combining voters from two districts into one precinct many things must
be considered. Election Officials will be required to keep two sets of
poll books. Ideally, there should be two voting machines, one programmed
for each district. Our voting machines are constructed in such a way that
both districts could be on one machine and programmed in such a fashion to
show both ballots. It would require the election official operating that
machine to make an adjustment prior to each person entering the voting
booth to allow them to vote for only their House of Delegates District
candidate. As you can well imagine this would create confusion for the
voters and is very time consuming. Some localities in the State have this
situation and are anxiously trying to get out from under due to the difficulties
they have experienced, both on the part of the voter and the administrative
aspects of conducting an election.
The Code of Virginia, Title 24.1-203, states that at every polling place
there must be one voting machine for every 750 registered voters in that
precinct. In the Ivy precinct there are now 2,734 registered voters and
four voting machines. There are approximately 320 voters in the area
subject to being changed. In the North Garden precinct there are 1,065
registered voters with two machines. There are approximately 268 voters in
the area subject to being changed. These figures are from scanning the
list of registered voters used at the November 2, 1982 General Election and
are not an exact count. Removing these voters from their current precinct
does not reduce the number of registered voters in the respective precincts
enough to allow a transfer of a voting machine out of their precinct. New
voting machines would have to be purchased for any newly established
precincts. By the same token, the election officials could not be trans-
ferred out of their precincts to serve elsewhere, additional officials
would have to be appointed.
There is an absence of clearly defined and observable boundaries in both of
the areas being considered. There is a major telephone line in the North
Garden Precinct but it is difficult to locate on the Western Boundary line
near Route 29 South. Public buildings are probably located in both of
these areas but their availability and suitability for conducting an
election would have to be examined.
The establishment of one additional polling place in compliance with the
Code of Virginia requirements would cost approximately $4,184.
Members of the Committee agreed that it is not feasible to establish an
additional polling place because:
1) specifications required by the Code of Virginia cannot be met;
2) House of Delegates District lines should not be crossed; and
3) the number of voters affected would not appear to justify the cost.
The citizens of the Sherwood Manor area were moved from the Monticello
precinct, Scottsville Magisterial District, to the North Garden precinct,
Samuel Miller Magisterial District, as a result of the redrawing of the
Magisterial District lines following the Census of 1980. Aware of some
citizen discontent in having to drive ten miles to their polling place, we
feel this imposes no real and true hardship since it is only once or twice
a year. Granted it is an inconvenience, but less of an inconveniene~ for
them in some cases, when compared with voting citizens residing in other
areas of the County."
Mr. Fisher asked if any attempt was made to determine the population of the two House
of Delegates districts to see if there were any differences in the populations. Mrs.
Matthews stated that those figures involved Nelson County, and that the figures are not
available to her. Mr. Fisher stated that more than likely the populations in those two
districts are not identical, and that possibly a single suburban district could be created
and placed in whichever House precinct had the smallest population. Mr. St. John noted
that if the County attempted to create such a change, it would be essential to ask the
State to go through a redistricting process which must be approved by the General Assembly.
Mr. Agnor added that any precinct changes must also be approved by the Justice Department
of the Federal Government.
Mr. Fisher said he would like the Committee to obtain those population figures as
requested and bring the information back to the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 1983.
Agenda Item No. 9. Annual Report, Virginia Cooperative Extension Service. Mrs.
Elizabeth Payne, Extension Agent, was present, and reviewed the 1982 Virginia Extension
Report. This report was for the Board's information.
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
)0
Agenda Item No. 10. Set Public Hearing for Budget Amendment. Mr. Agnor noted receipt
of a memorandum dated December 17, 1982, from Mrs. Charlotte Self, Clerk of the School
Board, as follows:
"As Clerk of the Albemarle County School Board, I affirm that at its meeting on
December 13, 1982, the Board recommended that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors recognize as revenue to the school fund $15,000 in federal funds
under the Competitive Block Grant Project (Subchapter C) Gifted and Talented,
"Secondary Advocates for Gifted Students."
The Board further requests a supplemental appropriation in this amount to the
school fund in a manner to be specified by Ray Jones, Director of Finance."
Mr. Agnor recommended that this request be set for hearing on January 19, 1983, at
7:30 P.M.
Mr. Fisher asked specifically what this program involved. Mr. David Papenfuse,
Assistant Superintendent for Finance, was present, and stated that these funds will be
used to train teachers to recognize gifted and/or talented students and the methods for
instructing same.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set January 19, 1983,
at 7:30 P.M., as the date for this public hearing. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request for transfer within Capital Budget.
receipt of the following two memorandums:
Mr. Agnor noted
"To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive
Fred Kruger, Director of Data Processing
January 6, 1983
Computer Equipment Upgrade
Confirming the several meetings which the staff has held to determine the
most effective and efficient alternative to meet the Data Processing equip-
ment and program needs, the following summarizes the need and the recom-
mended solution:
The development by the staff of new programs, including the modification of
large programming systems acquired from other localities, added to the
current on-line requirements of the equipment, has caused the hardware to
reach a saturation point earlier than anticipated. The current hardware
was acquired through lease and purchase with the knowledge that some
upgrading would be needed in two years on some items of the equipment, and
three to five years on other items. The capital program funding for the
upgrading of equipment has been funded with that expectation.
The capital program provides $139,500 for upgrading in FY 83-84 and FY 84-
85. A portion of these funds, i.e. $86,323 is needed in FY 82-83 to
upgrade the hardware now, rather than in future years. The 82-83 capital
budget appropriation for Data Processing has a current balance of $4,556.71,
leaving a balance needed of $81,766.29 to accelerate the upgrading program.
Bids for the equipment were taken by the Purchasing Office following the
staff's review of the upgrading requirements, and the conclusion was that
an acceleration of the schedule for upgrading was the only effective solution
to the matter. It is requested that funds be sought to acquire the necessary
equipment now in order to benefit from the favorable bids which have been
received."
"To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Board of Supervisors and County Executive
Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance
January 7, 1983
Transfer of Funds
The purpose of this transfer request is to provide funding of $86,323 for
upgrading the current Data Processing equipment. Further details of Data
Processing needs are explained in Mr. Kruger's "Request For Funds" attached
to this memorandum.
I have scrutinized all Capital Projects in General Government and verified
with the project department heads as to availability of funds. The current
unencumbered balance of the Capital Improvement Account 9700-7060.02, Data
Processing, is $4,556.71 resulting in $81,766.29 additional funds needed to
fund Mr. Kruger's request.
Therefore, I respectfully request your approval of the following transfer
of funds:
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
FROM:
9700-7060.04
9700-7060.20
9700-7060.45
9700-7060.54
9700-7060.84
9700,7060.88
9700-7060.93
McIntire Library
Radio Tower
Jack Jouett Ball Field
Scottsville Ball Field
Ivy Creek Natural Area
Juvenile Court Facility
Joint Security Re-roofing
Sub-Total
$47,517.48
7,485.41
258.87
4,652.31
8,034.10
4,763.13
406.5O
$73,117.80
9700-7060.31
9700-7060.57
9700-7060.32
Mint Springs Road Paving
Scottsville Library
Chris Greene Lake
Total
$ 3,500.00
3,500.00
1,648.49
$81,766.29
TO:
9700-7060.02
Data Processing
$81,766.29
Ail of the projects down to the sub-total figure of $73,117.80 represents
unexpended balances of completed projects which this transfer will clear
out. The additional projects, Mint Spring Paving, Chris Greene Lake and
Scottsville Library, will be completed with adequate remaining funds after
this transfer.
As you can see, providing this funding results in scraping the bottom of
the barrel; however, this process does clear out a lot of old accounts."
2.~.aM~r. Lindstrom asked if any other departments had a need for these unexpended funds.
Mr. Agnor said he had checked with other departments and reviewed the capital budget, but
the only projects which could be moved forward were far too costly to consider funding at
this time.
Mr. Fisher then asked which portions of the data processing equipment were to be
purchased, and whether or not shift work for employees was considered as an alternative to
buying additional equipment. Mr. Agnor said additional memory units, disk drive and a
faster printer are to be purchased. Mr. Agnor said shift work was considered, but it
would not work at this time because there is not adequate staff to split, and the work
presently being done requires frequent communications with other departments. Mr. Agnor
also noted that shift work would be an additional operating cost which is not presently
budgeted for this department.
Mr. Fisher then asked about computer response time. Mr. Fred Kruger, Director of the
Data Processing Center, stated that current projects are overtaxing the "automatic paging
system" which is degrading the performance of the equipment.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the
transfer of funds in the amount of $81,766.29 for the purpose of purchasing equipment to
upgrade the Data Processing equipment. The funds are to be transferred from Capital
Project accounts as stated in.Mr. Ray Jones' memorandum of January 7, 1983, and added to
the present balance of $4,556.71 in Capital Improvement Account 9700,7060,02, Data Pro-
cessing. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session. At 12:20 P.M., motion was offered by Mr.
Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of
discussing personnel, property acquisition and legal matters (Monticello Memor~ Gardens
vs. the Board of Supervisors, Otis Lee vs. Gutierrez et. al., and Jones vs. the Jail
Board). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:53 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: Budget Amendment for contracted services-road.
(AdVertised in t~e Daily Progress. on January 4, 1983.)
Mr. Agnor said the request is for $12,503.86, the amount deposited in the General
Fund when two bonds were foreclosed for Ashmere Road in Ashmere Subdivision. The road
bond amount to $11,003.86 and there was a soil erosion bond in the amount of $1,500. An
appropriation is needed so the Director of Finance can disburse funds for a bid taken by
the County Engineer to complete the construction of Ashmere Road with the bond proceeds.
The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the
budget amendment, the public hearing was closed.
4
Ja~t~.ary 12..1_9_8~ ¢t~eg_u_l_ar Day M_eet_in~l
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, Hirginia,
that $12,503.86 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General
Fund Balance and coded to 4100-3099.04 -- Contracted Services - Road;
said appropriation to complete construction of Ashmere Road in Ashmere
Subdivision.
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized
to amend the Revenue section of the 1982-83 County Budget by adding
$12,503.86 to Code 11402.010 -- Redemption of Road Bonds - General Fund-
Appropriated from Fund Balance; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval shall be effective on
January 19, 1983.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 14a.
deficit.
Presentation by Charles Tolbert of report re:
School Fund
Mr. Fisher recognized Dr. Charles Tolbert, School Board member, and noted that Mr.
Lindstrom had requested that this item be placed on the agenda.
Dr. Tolbert said when he became a member of the School Board in January 1982, he
was made aware of a deficit in the School Fund. An auditing firm from Richmond had been
hired to examine the situation and determine whether there was a deficit or not. The
firm concluded that there was not a deficit. Dr. Tolbert said he personally did not
feel there was a deficit in terms of funds being embezzled or in bills being unpaid.
However, he himself did not thoroughly understand what had happened and decided to
research the matter. Dr. Tolbert said he has submitted to the Board of Supervisors and
School Board a report dated December, 1982 which contains his personal findings after
researching County audits over the last seven years. He then reviewed the appendices
attached to the report. (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office.) Dr. Tolbert said upon
calculating the receipt of revenues and disbursement of funds, and calculating the
status of the School Fund since 1976, the School Fund has been in a deficit condition
every year. He concluded that a deficit of $1,094,000+ has been accumulated during that
time period. He then related that there have been over $116 million in expenditures
during that period of time and noted that the deficit is only about one percent of the
total expenditures. Dr. Tolbert felt that the one percent is a manageable amount so is
not a problem with mismanagement of funds. Dr. Tolbert said he then examined the problem
further to determine why the deficit existed and what caused the School Fund to remain
in debt each year. Dr. Tolbert felt there were three items which contributed to this
condition,. One, State funds were never received equal or near the School Board's
estimates of such funds. Even though there is this problem with the receipt of State
funds, Dr. Tolbert did not feel that was the source of the debt. Dr. Tolbert said
another contributor is Federal funds which are received late and not in the amounts
estimated, but he did not feel this was the main source of the problem. Dr. Tolbert did
say that in the last few audit reports, Federal funds were hard to distinguish from
other funds and he felt something should be done about that immediately. Another
possibility of the source of the debt are overexpenditures. Dr. Tolbert said in three
of the seven years, the School Fund was $500,000 in debt in a given year. He analyzed
those three years and discovered that there were overruns in seven major items totalling
$1.4 million. Dr. Tolbert said with the exception of those seven items which included:
fixed charges (changing the medical insurance carrier), transportation (gasoline price
increases) and plant operations (fuel oil increases), he felt the School System has done
a reasonably good job of matching expenses to revenues. Dr. Tolbert felt control of
these three items was beyond the control of the School Board and should have been brought
to the Board of Supervisors for a supplemental appropriation. Instead, the overexpenditures
were simply rolled over into the next fiscal year. Then funds were borrowed from one
fiscal year to the next to cover the amount and the problem continued to grow. Dr.
Tolbert said that the deficit is not the fault of the School Board but rather in areas
beyond the School Board's control; the School Board was not alerted when the problems
developed. Dr. Tolbert concluded by stating that the million dollar deficit in the
School Fund is real and has been largely caused by major overruns in successive years in
a few line items which he does not feel were controllable by the school administration.
The overruns were not requested for supplemental appropriations in the years in which
they occurred but rather became a part of the rollover at the end of each fiscal year.
Dr. Tolbert said he feels this debt is due largely to real costs and not by a person or
persons in the school system or the County finance office. In conclusion, Dr. Tolbert
said the problem needs to be resolved. He recommended that the Board of Supervisors
dissolve the debt in order that the School Board can concentrate its attention on the
education of the County's children. He noted that the School Board adopted a resolution
Monday night to request the Board of Supervisors to take appropriate action to remove
the deficit in the School Fund as soon as possible.
January 12: _l~83_(Regular Day Meeting)
585
(Note: Letter from Charlotte Self, Clerk of the School Board dated January 11,
1983 contained the following:
"The following motion was unanimously approved by the School Board at
their January 10, 1983 meeting.
On the basis of this report, it would appear that the debt
status of the School Fund is the result of a few expenditure
overruns which were beyond the control of the school system.
These overruns should have been covered by supplemental
appropriations in the years in which they occurred, rather
than 'rolling' them over into future years.
In recognition of these conclusions, we call on the Board
of Supervisors to take appropriate action to remove the
debt status of the School Fund as soon as possible.")
Mr. Fisher said he did agree with some of Dr. Tolbert's statements in his report.
Also, he does not feel that annual reports of the auditors can be used as a management
tool since expenditures and revenues need to be tracked more frequently than once a
year. He also felt the crux of Dr. Tolbert's report is that the School Board did not
request funding to cover overruns. Mr. Fisher said he feels the School Board is responsible
for keeping track of its expenditures and revenues and if expenditures exceed revenues,
then the School Board should seek a special appropriation.
Mr. Lindstrom said he hopes this is a means of getting the last kick at the "political
football". He felt Dr. Tolbert has clarified the areas of disagreement and felt it is
time to stop trying to determine whose fault this deficit is and move forward to resolve
the matter. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the budget should have an amount built in to
take care of shortfalls and unanticipated increases. Mr. Lindstrom said the School
Board ended $262,000 in the black last year and nothing has been said about that. He
personally feels that indicates a new administration which is trying to correct deficiencies
in school operations. Mr. Lindstrom then extended his appreciation to Dr. Tolbert for
his report.
Mr. Fisher said he did not share the view that cost increases cannot be absorbed in
the year in which they occur. Mr. Lindstrom said he and Mr. Fisher have never seen eye-to-eye
on school matters since he first became a Board member and that has not changed. He
resents very much this one issue that has become a political football and a battle-axe
that he feels Mr. Fisher is trying to use for some purpose which is unclear to him. He
feels Mr. Fisher is trying to lay the blame on the School Board and he feels that is not
fair. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel there was any reason to belabor the point if the
school administration and general staff are willing to keep track of these items as they
so indicated during the past year.
Mrs. Cooke said she is concerned about a personnel matter and felt it should be
handled in executive session. Mr. Henley asked if it were something that would prevent
this matter from moving along. Mrs. Cooke said no, the matter is one of clarification.
Mr. Henley said the County Executive and the Superintendent of Education were requested
to bring back a solution to this problem, but he is willing to wait for that response.
He personally did not feel there was any need to debate this matter anymore.
Miss Nash agreed and felt the new school administration will help solve~this problem.
At 2:30 P.M., Mrs. Cooke offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss
personnel matters. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. He then asked Mr. ~gnor if a
recommendation will be received from he, Dr. Gutierrez and Mr. Ray Jones. Mr. Agnor
said yes, a list of corrective actions is being compiled and is near completion. Roll
was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
The Board reconvened into open session at 2:58 P.M. Mrs, Cooke then extended
appreciation to Dr. Tolbert for presenting his report in a form which she could understand.
Mr. Fisher then noted receipt of a memorandum dated January 11, 1983 entitled
"Revenue Projections FY 82-83 and 83-84" from the County Executive.
Mr. Agnor then read the following:
"Attached for your information are three memorandums exchanged among
the staff for budget management and planning purposes, which are
highlighted as follows:
1) Memo of January 7 prepared by the Director of Finance and his
staff indicating that General Fund revenues in this fiscal year may
fall short by $424,161 or 1.53% based upon mid-year collections.
The same memo provides revenue projections for FY 83-84 of $1,661,389
based upon existing tax rates and the recent reassessment of real
property, plus a small increase from new construction in 1983.
Calculating changes in the land use tax assessments and the City
revenue sharing factors, plus the loss of savings now being enjoyed
from the FICA pay plan will leave $1,036,389 of new General Fund
Revenues for operations, debt service, and the capital improvement
program.
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
2) Memo of January 10 from this office to the Superintendent of
Schools recommending the division of these projected revenues for
budget planning purposes, which could result in $666,000 for school
operations and debt service, and $334,000 for general government
operations. The school operations would net a 4.8% increase over
the 82-83 General Fund appropriation for operations, and the general
government operations a 4.6% increase under this proposal.
3) Memo of January 11 from this office to the Superintendent of
Schools advising of the potential shortfall in FY 82-83 General Fund
Revenues and calculating the School Fund appropriation may be reduced
by $191,241 under the provisions of the appropriation ordinance.
These estimates will be updated at the end of the third quarter on
March 31."
Mr. Agnor said that operations will be carefully watched on a monthly basis and if
at the end of the third quarter of the Fiscal Year, the expected shortfall is greater
than expected, the unallocated balance of the general fund may have to be used. Mr.
Agnor said this is not desirable because the auditors, indicate that the General Fund is
at a level with just enough cash to meet monthly obligations.
Mr. Fisher asked that the Board stay advised of the amount of the expected shortfall
in revenues this fiscal year. He also noted that there will~joint public hearing by
the Senate Committee for Finance and the House of Delegates Committee on Appropriations
on the State 1983-85 biennial budget on January 17, 1983, in Richmond.
Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments.
Mr. Fisher said a recommendation has been received to appoint Ms. Linda Richter
Davies to the Emergency Medical Services Council. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to appoint Ms. Davies to the Emergency Medical Services Council
with the term beginning immediately and expiring on December 31, 1985; said appointment
to replace Mr. Fisher. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mr. John
Stewart Darrell to the Industrial Development Authority with said term expiring on
January 19, 1987. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to reappoint Miss Nash
as the Board's representative on the Planning Commission with said term expiring on
December 31, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Butler.
ABSTAIN: Miss Nash.
Mr. Fisher said a new committee needs to be established as the result of applications
being made to the County to establish two Agricultural and Forestal Districts as authorized
by State Code Section 15.1-1506. A memorandum dated January 7, 1983 from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, has been provided for the Board to explain the procedures
and the timetable required by State Code Section 15.1-1510 when such applications are
received. (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Fisher then submitted the following
names for the Board's consideration: Active Farmers--E. N. Garnett, Bruce Hogue, Steven
Murray; Other County Freeholders--William Washington, Babs Huckle, Lindsay @. Dorrier, Sr.;
Boar~ of Supervisors member--James R. Butler. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint
the above named persons to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee.
Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Butler.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not on the Agenda.
Mr. Fisher noted letter dated December 14, 1982 from Ms. Betty Tatum, Supervisor in
Lou~oun County, requesting Albemarle County's support of enabling legislation on a local
tobacco tax for consideration by the 1983 session of the General Assembly. He asked if
the Board desired to take any action on this request. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to
support the enabling legislation for a local tobacco tax. Mr. Henley was not in favor
of supporting a new tax without knowing the pros and cons of same. Mr. Fisher then
asked that the motion be withdrawn and placed on the Board's agenda for consideration on
January 19, 1983. Mrs. Cooke then withdrew her motion.
January 12, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher then noted that over 350 applications~$are received for the position of
Executive Director of the National Association of Countmes. The candidate for the
position will he announced in the January 17, 1983 issue of NACo News. Mr. Fisher also
noted a reorganization of NACo staff.
Mr. Fisher said memo has been received from the Virginia Employment Commission
regarding unemployment figures for the various counties and Albemarle County now has
five percent unemployment.
Agenda Item No. 16.
P.M.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:36