Loading...
1981-07-15316 July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-20. Sallie and Joe Gieck. Rezone 13.33 acres from RA to HC. Property is located on Route 250 East, south of the 1-64/Route 250 Interchange. CountH Tax Map 78, Parcel 33A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1981.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: HC Highway Commercial Acreage: 13.33 acres (Lot 1 - 2.356 acres; Lot 2 - 10.871 acres) Existing Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 33A, is located on Route 250 East across from the Sheraton Inn. Character of the Area: A portion of this property adjacent to Route 250 East has been graded in anticipation of development. The rear of the property, which abuts the C & 0 Railroad, remains wooded. The Sheraton Inn, Moore's Well Drilling, single-family dwellings and a mobile home park are across Route 250 East. Properties on the south side of Route 250 East are undeveloped. This property is not located within an Albemarle County Service Authority project area. Therefore, public water and sewer are not available. Comprehensive Plan: This property is recommended as rural land in the Comprehensive Plan. 1-64 is the boundary of the Urban Area. Staff Comment: On the previous zoning map, commercial zoning (including this property) existed at five of the seven 1-64 interchanges in the County. In addition, several petitions seeking to establish commercial uses/zoning at interchanges have been reviewed in recent years. Currently, the Comprehensive Plan does not fully address land use issues at interstate interchanges. Staff would recommend that these questions be vigorously addressed in the current review of the Comprehensive Plan. In regard to this petition, staff cannot recommend favorably, since in staff opinion, considering the acreage involved, this would be a major departure from the Comprehensive Plan. As was stated in recent staff reports for other commercial petitions in this area, amendment of the Comprehensive Plan would be appropriate should the Commission and Board choose to look favorably on this petition. Also, control of access to Route 250 East is important in this area, due to the interchange." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 7, 1981, unanimously recommended denial of ZMA-81-20. Mr. Tucker then noted letter from the H±ghway Department dated July 7, 1981 which indicates that the property has adequate frontage along Route 250 for a commercial entrance but access at the crossover may not be suitable. Based on such indication, Mr. Tucker felt the Highway Department would not approve an entrance at the crossover for this development or any other development. Mr. McCann asked the previous zoning of this property. Mr. Tucker said it had been B-1 ~i~968. Miss Nash asked if the rezoning could be C-1 instead of Highway Commercial. Mr. Tucker said yes if the Board so desired because Highway Commercial is a more intensive use and C-1 is less intensive. Miss Nash then asked if the flat part of the property fronting on Route 250 could be zoned C-1 and the remainder zoned RA. Mr. Tucker said that is possible but it could not be done tonight without the proper plat being drawn. Dr. Iachetta then asked if Mr. Tucker's appraisal of the amendment to the plan is not altered by a lesser intense designation of C-1. Mr. Tucker said it would be appropriate to amend the Comprehensive plan but if that were done, the entire interchange should be examined. Dr. Iachetta said his question was based on the comment to Miss Nash's question about rezoning the property to C-1. The general comment seems to be one that precludes any change from RA to a more intensive use without changing the Comprehensive Plan itself. Mr. Tucker said he always supports changing the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan simultaneously if they are different. He noted that this is not mandatory but is legally safer. Mr. Fisher said during development of the Comprehensive Plan for this area there were a number of discussions about how the area should be zoned. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Joe Gieck, applicant, was present. He noted that this property was originally zoned commercial and he had invested $30,000 in the property anticipating development of same. Mr. Gieck said the land cannot be farmed nor can a house be built on the property since the railroad is in the back of the property and the highway in the front. In conclusion, Mr. Gieck said he has spent a considerable amount of money on this property and if this request is not approved, then the only thing he can do is pay taxes on it. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom noted that a lot of time has been spent discussing this particular interchange and he felt the entire question of zoning at interchanges should first be considered before consideration of this particular request. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial of ZMA-81-20. Dr. Iachetta asked if the motion meant denial and not consideration of the staff's recommendation for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom felt that suggestion was only if the Board desired to rezone the property. Hearing no second, the motion died. Miss Nash did not feel this particular area on Route 250 could be used for anything other than a commercial use. Therefore, Miss Nash felt the Board should discuss the entire question of zoning at interchanges and perhaps change the Comprehensive Plan wherever there are nonusable parcels of land. Mr. McCann was not in favor of changing zoning all along Route 250 or all along any highway and could not support anything beyond this piece of property on this side of the highway and nothing beyond Lowe's on the other side of the highway. Mr. McCann said he had argued for leaving this property zoned the w~ay it was during the Zoning Ordinance work sessions because he felt this property was best suited for commercial. Mr. Henley did not feel the Board should rezone the property but did agree that the interchange should be examined because some of the property should be zoned commercial. also noted that he had not supported the way it is now shown in the Comprehensive Plan. He July 15~, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) After a brief discussion, Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission has stated their intent to examine the interchanges during their work on the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review. Dr. Iachetta noted concern with thee· comment in the staff report regarding the fact that the staff does not feel the Comprehensive Plan fully addresses land use issues at interstate interchang~es. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan is silent on interchanges and this comment has been made before. Mr. McCann did not object to deferring ZMA-81~20?i'~r a few months in order to allow examination of interchanges. Dr. Iachetta said in fairness to the applicant the matter should be deferred until the Board has discussed what to do with the interchanges in general and to establish a general policy in order to treat all requests alike. He then offered motion to defer ZMA-81-20 and request the staff and the Planning Commission to proceed promptly with that part of the review of the Comprehensive Plan which deals specifically with the question of the interchanges on 1-64. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney if a date had to be set for the deferral. Mr. St. John said the Board has a year to act on the request. Mr. Fisher felt a date should be attached to the deferral. Dr. Iachetta then added to his motion that the deferral be for ninety days. Mr. McCann accepted that amendment to his second. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley', Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-81-28. Olga Deanna Wood. Petition to locate a gift, craft and antique shop (buying and selling antiques and used furniture part-time) on 12.850 acres zoned RA. Located o£f of Route 29 South, one-half mile on Route 708. County Tax Map 88, Parcel 9A. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Antique Shop Acreage: 12.83 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: property, described as Tax Map 88, Parcel 9A, is located on the north side of Route 642, west of the Southern Railroad. Character of the Area: This property contains a single-family dwelling, a portion of which would house the antique shop. Two other single-family dwellings and a church exist along Route 642. The Southern Railroad and Red Hill quarry are also in the area. Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to use about 225 - 250 square feet of the dwelling to house an antique shop, dealing primarily in furniture. The shop would be operated on an appointment-only basis with no employees. In addition, no outdoor display, signs or auctions are proposed. Advertisement would be by newspaper. Adequate parking exists for this use. In recent years, several special permits for gift, craft and ~antique shops have been approved in rural and village locations. To staff knowledge, no complaints have been received and these uses have apparently not caused problems in these areas. Given the applicant's description of the use and the proximity of the railroad and quarry, staff opinion is that the antique shop would not be obtrusive or detrimental to the area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: (1) No signs or outdoor display of merchandise; (2) No auctions; (3) Antique shop to be limited to 250 square feet of floor area open to public; (4) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the entrance to Route 642; (5) No employees other than family members." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its July 7, 1981, meeting unanimously recommended approval subject to conditions I, 2, 3 and 5 of the staff report. Mr. Tucker said condition four has been satisfied as indicated by letter from the HighwaY Department that the existing entrance is adequate for the part-time use as requested. Dr. Iachetta asked the purpose of the 250 square foot limitation of floor area. Mr. Tucker said the applicant indicated that was all the square footage he intended to use. also noted that this has been the limitation in the past by the Board. He The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Wood, husband of the applicant, was present and noted agreement to the conditions recommended. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-81~28 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-81-30. Edward Cleveland and Sharon K. Davis. Petition to permit six lots of less than 21 acres, one lot to be 14.51 acres, five lots of unspecified acreage. Located south of Route 660 at the end of Route 661, adjoining Charlottesville Reservoir, consisting of 704.580 acres zoned RA. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 1. Charlotte District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: To permit six lots of less than 21 acres pursuant to Section 10.5 of the Areas District. One lot to be 14.51 acres; five lots of unspecified acreage. Acreage: 704.58 acres. Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: The proposed 14.51 acre tract, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 1 (part), is located at the end of Route 661 adjacent to the South Rivanna Reservoir. 318 July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Introduction: As RA special permit petitions are reviewed, unforeseen aspects arise. In this case, the applicant desires to purchase a 14.5 tract; however, the current owner does not desire to use a 'development right' in creating the parcel. Staff has envisioned special permit petitions for subdivisions in only two cases -.where a single development proposal would exceed development permitted by right or where by-right development was exceeded by a series of divisions. In either of these cases, the proposal would be fairly definitive and special permit criteria could be applied accordingly. This petition does not fit either of these two anticipated cases and complicates staff review, particularly in regard to concerns of physical design, since the other five smaller lots and larger tracts, which could subsequently be developed by right, are of unspecified location and acreage. In view of this circumstance, staff review will be brief. Character of the Area: The 704 acre parent tract is open pastureland and woodlands. The proposed 14.5 acre parcel is primarily open pasture, sloping to a stream on the western boundary and the reservoir on the southern boundary. This site is the end of a ridgeline; Route 661 runs along the ridgeline to Route 660. Comprehensive Plan: Because this site is in a reservoir watershed, the Comprehensive Plan recommends a density of one dwelling per ten acres. The 14.5 acre tract would be in compliance with this recommendation. Staff Comment: Approval of this petition would not increase the total number of parcels which could be realized from the 704 acre parent tract. (In either case, 38 parcels could be divided.) Therefore, Criteria 6, 7 and 8, which relate to scale of development will not be addressed. Staff has requested the applicant to respond to Criteria 1, 2, 3 and 9. In terms of character of the area (Criteria 4 and 5), this property is located in an active agricultural area with seventy percent of the land within a mile radius under preferential taxation for forestry or agricultural. Land Use Summary: Developed land (Parcels less than 5 acres) Undeveloped land (Parcels greater than 5 acres) Preferential Tax - Agricultural/Forestry Total Acres % Total 11.5 297 18.5 1,123 70.0 lOO.O Staff recommends approval for the following reasons: l) 2) 3) The 14.5 acre tract is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommended densities for agricultural areas and for reservoir watersheds; No increase in the total number of lots is requested; The 14.5 acre tract has adequate acreage to remain under the land use program as pasturetand. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1) 2) Not more than one dwelling unit shall be located on the 14.5 acre tract. No further division of the 14.5 tract without special use permit approval." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 7, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of SP-81~0 with the above two conditions. Mr. Tucker then summarized for the Board the types of soil on the property which are Hayesville, Ashe and Chester. He also noted that the property is mostly in pasture land at the present time. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. George McCallum, attorney representing the applicant, was present. Mr. McCallum said the request is for only one parcel of fourteen and one-half acres, leaving the owners with their remaining parent tract and five development rights intact.~Mr~_~McC~lu~.sai~he J~b~et property is about three hundred and twenty feet short of the reservoir.- He noted that the property has been used for many years as pasture land and there is a gorge on the eastern side of the property. He noted that the applicant intends tb build a single-family residence on the ridge and also intends for the driveway into the property to be gravel. The impervious cover, which is assumed to be twenty-five hundred square feet, will be limited to the one single-family residence and accessories thereto. He also noted that the applicant intends to only disturb the existing vegetative cover to the extent necessary for constructing the residence. Mr. McCallum concluded by stating that the applicant is in agreement with the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mrs. Peggy King, representing the League of Women Voters, was present. She said the League has some concerns about the precedent that approval of this request may create. The League understood that the intent of special permit review in the RA District was to consider the entire by-right development of a property including locations and acreages. Judging the impact of development on a property as a whole would appear to be difficult if application were not smaller than twenty-one acres but greater than five in number and were considered without specification of locations and acreages of the other divisions of the property. This is of particular concern to the League since the property in question is close to the reservoir. Mr. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, was present and noted that his organization is in agreement with the concerns of the League. Mr. Patterson said the one question is whether or not this procedure will lead to violations of the Zoning Ordinance in enlarging the right to subdivide beyond the scope described in the ordinance. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. July 1~5 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 319 · Mr. Lindstrom did not feel there was any problem with this request because he did not know of anything in the ordinance that would prevent a person from requesting one lot at a time. He was confident that there is no intent on the part of the owner to subvert the ordinance by a little bit at a time. With respect to the 14.5 acres, he felt such acreage was sufficient and would be a buffer to any surrounding properties. Dr. Iachetta felt this is a way to create many lots between the minimum of two acres and the maximum of twenty-one acres and still keep the development rights. He said this could be done as many times as the Board is convinced to issue a special use permit. He did not feel that is~the intent of the RA, and if lots are going to be created which are less than twenty-one acres in s~ze; a development right should be used. He felt this is a way of circumventing what the Board thought it had done by limiting the number of small parcels in an area. Miss Nash asked if development rights would go with property if the landowner sold the applicant twenty-one acres. Mr. Tucker said it could. Mr. Henley and Mr. McCann agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-81-30 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann. Dr. Iachetta and Miss Nash (who said she did not understand the petition). Agenda Item No. 6. SP-81-31. Charles R. and Sharon L. Jones. Petition to locate a child care center on the lower level of the Four Seasons Clubhouse. Located at the Clubhouse, Four Seasons Drive in Four Seasons Subdivision, consisting of 11.939 acres, zoned PUD-R6. County Tax Map 61X1, Parcel 4. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1981.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Child Care Center Acreage: 11.939 acres Zoning: PUD Location: This property, described as Tax Map 61X(1), Parcel 4, is the clubhouse property on Four Seasons Drive. Staff Comment: SP-80-53 (American Federal Savings and Loan) was a request for a 175-child day care center on this property, which was approved by the Board in June, 1980. A condition of approval of that permit made the permit nontransferrable. The current applicant proposes to operate a State-licensed day care facility for not more than 80 children on the lower level of the Four Seasons Clubhouse. Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: (!) Compliance with 5.1.6 (Supplementary regulations for day care and nursery facilities) of the Zoning Ordinance; Limit of one sign on the property with a maximum area of four square feet per sign face; (3) Administrative approval of children's play area to include ~location, playground equipment, and fencing from other activities. (This approval may be sought after State licensing; if desired.); (4) Virginia Department of Highways and TransPortation approval of a commercial entrance; (5) Fire Official and Building Official approvals. Note: In addition t'o the day care facility, the applicant proposes to operate a programmed, family-oriented 6ommercial recreational facility in the remainder of the building. The Planning and Zoning staffs have discussed this matter and believe such use to be consistent with past uses of the property." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 7, 1981, unanimously recommended approval with the conditions listed in the above staff report. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department indicated in letter dated July 7, 1981 that the design of the entrance as proposed by the applicant is appropriate as a commercial entrance. Dr. Iachetta asked what vacates the special permit, SP-80-53 which was approved in June 1980. Mr. Tucker said a new applicant is involved thereby transferring such would automatically vacate it. The public hearing was then opened. The applicant,~Mr. Charles Jones, was present and said he did not object to the conditions imposed by the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta asked if the applicant had contacted the highway department about the commercial entranc, e and knew what was involved. Mr. Jones said yes; a one hundred foot deceleration lane and widening of the entrance is required and he agrees to that requirement. Speaking next in support of the petition was a parent whose two children currently stay at one of the two existing day care centers that the applicant operates. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition', the public hearing was closed. 3.20 Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve SP-81-31 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher noted for the record that approval of this petition runs with the land and is transferrable. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance in the appropriate sections in order that ali residential areas where churches and adjunct cemeteries are presently permitted by right, be changed to by special use permit only. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1981.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has deferred this amendment and requested the planning staff to prepare some supplementary regulations for the uses. Since the Planning Commission is not scheduled to review these amendments until the first meeting in August, he requested that the Board defer action until September. Mr. Fisher~t ~ban asked For motion to defer this public hearing to September 2, 1981. Motion to that effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. LindstrOm, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for control of access to multi-laned divided highways in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's recommendations in the U.S. Route 29 North Corridor Study. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 1 and July 8, 1981.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report and noted that the amendment is basically a housekeeping procedure: "On June 2, 1981, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the site plan ordinance to provide for control of access to multi-laned divided highways in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's recommendations in the U.S. Route 29 North Corridor Study. The old Zoning Ordinance was amended in November, 1979, to include this provision. However, the text was not included in the new Zoning Ordinance. The primary purpose of these amendments is to control access within 500 feet of a median crossover as a matter of highway safety. Such provision would: reduce rapid cross-cutting, limit side friction near crossovers, reduce U-turning movements, and generally protect the functional integrity of crossovers through controlled access. Additionally, these amendments would codify Commission review and approval of access to public roads. Staff recommends the following amendment: 32.5.8.01. Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and from each development shall be subject to the approval of the commission upon the advice of the Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. In the case of any mu!ti-!aned divided highway, no such entrance which is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any such highway shall be permitted within 500 feet of any such crossover except upon findings by the Commission that (1) there is no other reasonably practicable access to such development except within 500 feet of any such crossover; (2) that no reasonable means of alternative access is available to such development; and (3) that the provision of an entrance within ~00 feet of any such crossover wilt be consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 7, 1981, unanimously recommended approval of the above amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to amend the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Section 32.5.8.01 set out above. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing to amend Chapter 6 of the County Code re: Boundaries of the Magisterial and Election Districts. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 9, 1981.) Mr. St. John said the ordinance for the Board's consideration tonight is actually a codification of what the Board has already done by resolution. Mr. Fisher said this ordinanc~ also includes delineation of precinct lines which were not included in the resolution. The public hearing was opened. the public hearing was closed. With no one present to speak for or against the ordinanc~ ___ Jul~y_~_5~__~_98_l (Re_guitar Night Meeti~g~ 32 1 Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following ordinance. Mr. McCann said since he had abstained from voting on the resolution, he would abstain from voting on the ordinance. Roll was then calleH and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ENACT CHAPTER 6 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE (ELECTIONS) TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MAGISTERIAL AND ELECTION DISTRICTS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND THE VOTING PRECINCTS AND POLLING PLACES THEREIN BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 6 of the Albemarle County Code, Sections 6-1 through 6-8, are hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: Sec. 6-1. Establishment and boundaries of magisterial and election districts. The County shall be divided into six magisterial districts which shall be named and bounded as shown on a certain map entitled "Redistricting Plan for Albemarle County, No. 6 Revised," dated February 25, 1981, prepared by the Albemarle County Planning Department, on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, a copy of which is attached hereto as a part of this ordinance, and as foZlows, and which shall be the election districts for the county within the meaning of section 15.1-571.1 of the Code of Virginia: (a) Charlottesville Magisterial District, to be bounded as follows: Beginning at the Charlottesville Corporate Limits inter~eeti~n~ with State Route 631 and the Southern Railway right-of-way, then starting in a northwesterly direction, follow the Corporate Limits line across the north boundary of the City to its intersection with State Route 654; then northwest on State Route 654 to its inter-section with State Route 656; then northeast on State Route 656 to its intersection with State Route 743; then north on State Route 743 to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir; then meandering in a northerly direction with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 660; then northeast on State Route 660 to its intersection with State Route 743; then southeast on State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route 643; then south on State Route 643 to its intersection with Schroeder Branch; then south with Schroeder Branch to its confluence with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering in a southeasterly direction with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with the Southern Railway right-of-way; then in a southwest direction with the Southern Railway right- of-way to its intersection with the Charlottesville Corporate Limits and-State Route 631, the point of beginning. (b) ~ack Jouett Magisterial District, to be bounded as follows: Beginning at Ray's Ford Bridge, the intersection of State Route 660 and the South Fork Rivanna River; thence downstream with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 743 at Hydraulic; thence in a southerly direction with State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route 656 at Georgetown Green; thence in a southwesterly direction with State Route 656 to its inter- section with State Route 654; thence in a southeasterly direction with State Route 654 to its intersection with the western Corporate Limits of Charlottesville; thence in a southerly direction with the Corporate Limits of Charlottesville to its intersection with the abandoned roadbed of former.State Route 782, Stadium Road extended; thence west and south with the former State Route 7-82 to its intersection with U.S. Route 29 Business, Fontaine AVenue; thence west with U.S. Route 29 Business to its intersection with the U.S. Route 29 Bypass; thence in a northerly direction with the U.S. Route 29 Bypass to its intersection with State Route 601 (Old Garth Road); thence in a northerly direction with State Route 601 to its intersection with State Route 676 at Woodson's Store; thence west with State Route 676 to its intersection with State Route 614 at Owensville; thence west with State Route 614 to its intersection with the Mechum River; thence downstream in a northerly direction with the Mechum River to its confluence with the Moormans River at the origin of the South Fork Rivanna River; thence downstream with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 660 (at Ray's Ford Bridge) the point of the beginning. (Also included in the Jack Jouett Magisteri&l District shall be all grounds, walks and other lands owned by the Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, a corporation, which although embraced Within the Corporate Limits of Charlottesville, is part p2~t~eo~e~tory of Albemarle County.) (c) Rivanna Magisterial District, to be bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the A!bemarle/Fluvanna County line and the Rivanna River, then meandering in a northwesterly direction along the Rivanna River to the Charlottesville Corporate Limits; then west with the Charlottesville Corporate Limits to the Southern Railway right-of-way; then in a northeast direction on the Southern Railway right-of-way to its interesction with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering in a northwesterly direction with the South Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with the Schroeder Branch approximately 800 feet from the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir Dam; then north with Schroeder Branch approximately 400 feet to State Route 6.43; then north on State Route 643 to its intersection with State Route 743; then in a northerly · 322 July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) direction on State Route 743 to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County line; then east with the Albemarle/G~e~m© County line to the Albemarle/ Orange County line; then continuing east with the Albemarle/Orange County line to the Albemarle/Louisa County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/Louisa County line to the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line; then continuing southwest with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line to the'Rivanna River, the point of beginning. (d) Samuel Miller Magisterial District, to be bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 636 and the Albemarle/ Nelson County line, then east on State Route 636 to the intersection with State Route 691; then north on State Route 691 to the intersection with U.S. Route 250; then east on U.S. Route 250 to its intersection with Interstate Route 64; then east-southeast on Interstate Route 64 to the Mechum River; then meandering in a northeasterly direction along Mechum River to its intersection with State Route 614; then east on State Route 614 to its intersection with State Route 676; then east on State Route 676 to its intersection with State Route 601; then southeast on State Route 601 to its intersection with U.S. Route 250/ Route 29 Bypass; then south on the U.S. Route 250/Route 29 Bypass to its intersection with U.S. Route 29 Business; then east on U.S. Route 29 Business to its intersection with the abandoned roadbed of former State Route 782; then north and east with former State Route 782 to the Charlottesville Corporate Limits; then south and west with the Charlottesville Corporate Limits to State Route 780; then southwest on State Route 780 to its intersection with State Route 631; then in a southwesterly direction on State Route 631 to its intersection with State Route 633; then continuing in a southwesterly direction on State Route 633. to its intersection with U.S. Route 29; then north on H.S. Route. 29 to its intersection with State Route 633; then west-southwest on State Route 633 to its intersection with the Albemarle/ Nelson County line; then north with the Albemarle/Nelson County line to State Route 636; the point of beginning. (e) Scottsville Magisterial District, to be bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 633 and the Albemarle/Nelson County line; thence in an easterly direction with State Route 633 to its intersection with U.S. Route 29; thence in a southerly direction with U.S. Route 29 to its intersection with State Route 633;~ thence in a northeasterly direction with State Route 633 to State Route 712; thence in an easterly direction with State Route 712 to its inter~eetiSm~with State Route 631; thence in a northeasterly direction on State Route 631 to its intersection with State Route 780; thence in an easterly direction with State Route 780 to its intersection with the southern Corporate Limits of Charlottesville; thence in an easterly direction with the Corporate Limits to its intersection with the Rivanna River; thence downstream with the Rivanna River to the Albemarle,/ Fluvanna County boundary; thence in a southwesterly direction with the Albemarle/ Fluvanna County boundary to the James River; the Albemarle/Buckingham County boundary to its intersection with the Rockfish River, the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary; thence in a northerly direction with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary to its intersection with State Route 633, the point of beginning. (f) White Hall Magisterial District, to be bounded as follows: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 636 and the Albemarle/Nelson County line, then east on State Route 636 to the intersection with State Route 691; then north on State Route 691 to the intersection with U.S. Route 250; then east on U.S. Route 250 to its intersection with Interstate Route 64; then eastsoutheast with Interstate Route 64 to the Mechum River; then meandering in a northeasterly direction along the Mechum River to its confluence with the Moormans River where they form the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering in a southeasterly direction along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 660; then northeast on State Route 743 to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County line; then west along the Albemarle/Greene County line to the Albemarle/Rockingham County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/ Rockingham County line to the Albemarle/Augusta County line; then continuing southwest with the Albemarle/Augusta County line to the Albemarle/Nelson County line; then southeast with the Albemarle/Nelson County line to its intersection with State Route 636, the point of beginning. Sec. 6-2. Voting precincts and polling places -- Charlottesville Magisterial District. The Charlottesvi~lle Magisterial District shall include one voting precinct coextensive with such district, bounded as hereafter set out, and named Woodbrook Precinct, ~ith a polling place at Woodbrook School: Beginning at the Charlottesville Corporate Limits intersection with State Route 631 and the Southern Railway right-of-way, then starting in a northwesterly direction, follow the Corporate Limits line across the north boundary of the City to its intersection with State Route 654; then northwest on State Route 654 to its intersection with State Route 656; then northeast on State Route 656 to its 2~ht~rsection with State Route 743; then north on State Route 743 to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir; then meandering in a northerly direction with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 660; then northeast on State Route 660 to its intersection with State Route 743; then southeast on State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route 643; then south on State Route 643 to its intersection with Schroeder Branch; then south with Schroeder Branch to its confluence with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering in a southeasterly direction with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with the Southern Railway right-of-way; then in a southwest direction with the Southern Railway right-of-way to its intersection with the Charlottesville Corporate Limits and State Route 631, the point of beginning. July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 32:3 Sec. 6-3. Same -- Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The Jack Jouett Magisterial District shall include one voting precinct coextensive with such district, bounded as hereafter set out, and named Jack Jouett Precinct, with a polling place at Jack Jouett Middle School: Beginning at Ray's Ford Bridge, the intersection of State Route 660 and the South Fork Rivanna River; thence downstream with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 743 at Hydraulic; thence in a southerly direction with State Route 743 to its intersection with State Route 656 at Georgetown Green; thence in a southwesterly direction with State Route 656 to its intersection with State Route 654; thence in a southeasterly direction with State Route 654 to its intersection with the western Corporate Limits of Charlottesville; thence in a southerly direction with the Corporate Limits of Charlottesville to its intersection with the abandoned roadbed of former State Route 782, Stadium Road extended; thence west and south with the former State Route 782 to its intersection with U.S. Route 29 Business, Fontaine Avenue; thence west with U.S. Route 29 Business to its intersection with the U.S. Route 29 Bypass; thence in a northerly direction with the U.S. Route 29 Bypass to its intersection with State Route 601 (Old Garth Road); thence in a northerly direction with State Route 601 to its intersection with State Route 676; thence west with State Route 676 to its intersection with State Route 614 at Owensville; thence west with State Route 614 to its intersection with the Mechum River; thence downstream in a northerly direction with the Mechum River to its confluence with the Moormans River at the origin of the South Fork Rivanna River; thence downstream with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 660 (at Ray's Ford Bridge) the point of the beginning. (Also included in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District shall be all grounds, walks and other lands owned by the Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia, a corporation, which although embraced within the Corporate Limits of Charlottesville, is parE of the territory of Albemarle County.) Sec. 6-4. Same -- Rivanna Magisterial District. The Rivanna Magisterial District shall be divided into four voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out, and named as follows: (a) Keswick Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Keswick: Beginning at the intersection of the Albemarle/O~ange/ Louisa County boundaries; thence in a southwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Louisa County boundary to its intersection with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County boundary; thence continuing in a southw~ster!y direction with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County boundary to its intersection with the Rivanna River; thence upstream in a northwesterly direction with the Rivanna River to Shadwell Creek; thence in a northeasterly direction with Shadwell Creek to its origin at the ridge of the Southwestern Mountains; thence in a northeasterly direction with the ridge of the Southwestern Mountains to the Albemarle/Orange County boundary; thence in a southeasterly direction with the Albemarle/Orange/Louisa County junction, the point of beginning. (b) Stony Point Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Stony Point: Beginning at the intersection of the Southern Railway tracks and the North Fork Rivanna River (0.7 mile southwest of the intersection of State Route 600 and the Southern Railway tracks); thence in a southwesterly direction ~ith the North Fork Rivanna River to its confluence with Red Bud Creek, 1000 feet south of the confluence with the South Fork Rivanna River; thence in an easterly direction with Red Bud Creek to its origin near the ridge of Wolfpit Mountain of the Southwestern Mountain range; thence in a northeasterly direction with the ridge line of the Southwestern Mountain range to the Point where it crosses the Albemarle/Orange County boundary approximately one mile northwest of State Route 645; thence in a northwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Orange County boundary to its intersection with the Southern Railway tracks, 0.5 mile northeast of Burnleys; thence in a southwesterly direction with the Southern Railway tracks to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River, the point of beginning. (c) Hollymead Precinct, with the polling place at Ho!lymead Elementary School: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 743 and the Albemarle/Greene County boundary; then in a southeasterly direction with the Albemarle/Greene County boundary and continuing on the Albemarle/Orange County boundary to its intersection with the Southern Railway tracks; then in a southwestern direction along the Southern Railway tracks to its intersection with the Rivanna River; then upstream with the RiYanna River to its confluence with Schroeder Branch near the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Dam; then upstream along Schroeder Branch to its intersection with State Route 643; then in a northerly direction with State Route 643 to its intersection with State Route 743; then in a northerly direction with State Route 743 to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County line, the point of beginning. (d) Free Bridge Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the Free Bridge area: Beginning at the intersection of the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line and the Rivanna River; then upstream in a northwesterly direction to its confluence with Shadwell Creek; then upstream with Shadwell Creek to its origin at the ridge line of the Southwestern Mountains; .then along the ridge line of the Southwestern Mountains in a northeasterly direction to the Albemarle/Orange County line; then continuing east with the Albemarle/Orange County line to. the Albemarle/Louisa County line; then southwest with the Albemarle/Louisa~County line to the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line; then continuing sauthwest with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County line to the Rivanna River, the point of beginning. 3; 4 July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Sec. 6-5. Same -- Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Samuel Miller Magisterial District shall be divided into three voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out, and named as follows: (a) Ivy Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Ivy: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 614 and the Mechum River; thence in an easterly direction with State Route 614 to its intersection with State Route 676 at Owensville; thence in an easterly direction with State Route 676 to its intersection with State Route 601 at Woodson's Store; thence in a southea~$e:rly.~direction with State Route 601 to Zvy Creek and continuing with State Route 601 in a southerly direction to its intersection with State Route 754; thence in an easterly direction with State Routes 754 and 601 to their intersection with the U.S. Route 250/Route 29 Bypass; thence in a southerly direction with the U.S. Route 250/Route 29 Bypass to its intersection with U.S. Route 29; thence in an easterly direction with U.S. Route 29 to its intersection with the western Corporate Limits of Charlottesville; thence in a southerly direction with the Corporate Limits of Charlottesville to its intersection with State Route 780; thence in a southerly direction with State Route 780 to its intersection with Interstate Route 64; thence in a westerly direction with Interstate Route 64 to its intersection with the Mechum River; thence downstream in a northerly direction along the Mechum River to its intersection with State Route 614, the point of beginning. (b) North Garden Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the Red Hill area: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 780 and Interstate Route 64, following State Route 780 in a southerly direction to its intersection with State Route 631; thence in a ~so~h~westerly direction with State Route 631 to its intersection with State Route 712; thence in a westerly direction with State Route 712 to the intersection with State Route 633; thence in a southwesterly direction with State Route 633 to its intersection with U.S. Route 29; thence in a northerly direction with U.S. Route 29 to its intersection with State Route 633; thence in a westerly direction with State Route 633 to its intersection with the ridge line of the Heards Mountain; thence in a northerly direction with the ridge line of Heards Mountain, continuing in an easterly direction with the ridge of Moses Mountain, joining the ridge of Castle Rock following an easterly direction; thence in a northerly direction with the ridge of Long Arm Mountain and continuing in a northeasterly direction with the Israel Mountain ridge; thence continuing in a northeasterly direction with the ridges of Martins Mountain and Taylors Mountain to the swale where Broad Axe Creek begins; thence in a northerly direction with Broad Axe Creek to its intersection with Interstate Route 64; thence in an easterly direction with Interstate Route 64 to its intersection with State Route 780, the point of beginning. (c) Batesville Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Batesville: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 633 with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary; thence in a northwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary to its intersection with State Route 636; thence in an easterly direction with State Route 636 to its intersection with State Route 691; thence in a northerly direction with State Route 691 to its intersection with U.S. Route 250; thence in an easterly direction with U.S. Route 250 to its intersection with Interstate Route 64; thence in an easterly direction with Interstate 64 to its intersection with Broad Axe Creek; thence in a southeasterly direction with Broad Axe Creek to the point of its beginning at the ridge of Taylors Mountain; thence continuing in a southwesterly direction along the ridge lines of Taylors Mountain, Martins Mountain, Israel Mountain, Long Arm Mountain, Castle Rock, Moses Mountain and Heards Mountain to State Route 633; thence in a westerly direction with State Route ~33 to the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary, the point of beginning. Sec. 6-6. Same -- Scottsville Magisterial District. The Scottsville Magisterial District shall be divided into four voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out, and named as follows: (a) Scottsville Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Scottsville: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 620 with the Albemarle/F!uvanna County boundary; thenCe in a southwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County boundary to the James River, the Albemarle/Buckingha~ County boundary; thence with the Albemarle/Buckingham County boundary to its intersection with State Route 627; thence in a northerly direction with State Route 627 to its intersection with State Route 626; thence in a ~heasterly direction with State Route 626 to its intersection with State Route 20; thence in a northwesterly direction with State Route 20 to its intersection with State Route 712 at Keene; thence continuing in a northwesterly direction with State Route 712 to the point where the easternmost ridge line of the Fan Mountains crosses State Route 712 and continues in a northeasterly direction with the ridge line of Ammonett Mountain; thence in a northeasterly direction with the ridge line of Ammonett Mountain and continuing in a straight line beyond the ridge line to State Route 708 (approximately 0.2 mile southeast of the intersection of State Route 708 and State Route 631); thence in a southeasterly direction with State Route 708 to its intersection with State Route 620 at Woodridge continuing in an easterly direction with State Route 620 to the intersection with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County boundary, the point of beginning. (b) Monticello Precinct, with the polling place at Piedmont Virginia Community College: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 780 and the southern Corporate Limits of Charlottesville; thence in an easterly direction with the Corporate Limits of Charlottesville to its intersection with the Rivanna River; thence downstream in a southeasterly direction with the Rivanna River to its intersection with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County boundary; thence in a southwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Fluvanna County boundary to its ~t~section with State Route 620; thence in a northwesterly direction with State Route 620 to its intersection with State Route 708 at Woodridge; thence in a northwesterly direction with State Route ~708 to its intersection with State Route 631; thence in a northeasterly direction with State Route 631 to its intersection with State Route 780; thence in a northerly direction with State Route 780 to its intersection with the southern Corporate Limits of Charlottesville, the point of beginning. (c) Porter's Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Esmont: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 627 and the Albemarle/Buckingham County boundary; thence in a southeasterly direction with the James River (the Albemarle/Buckingham County boundary) to its confluence with the Rockfish River (the Albemarle/Nelson Count~ boundary); thence in a northwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary to the point where the easternmost ridge lines of the Fan Mountains, Appleberry Mountain and Butler Mountain cross the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary; thence in a northeasterly direction following the easternmost ridge line of said'mountains to the point where the ridge line continuing to Ammonett Mountain crosses State Route 712; thence in a southeasterly direction with State Route 712 to its intersection with State Route 20 at Keene; thence continuing in a southeasterly direction with State Route 20 to its intersection with State Route 626; thence in a southerly direction with State Route 626 to its intersection with State Route 627; thence in a southeasterly direction with State Route 627 to its intersection with the Albemarle/Buckingham County boundary, the point of beginning. (d) Covesville Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Covesvi!le: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 633 with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary; thence with State Route 633 in an easterly direction to its intersection with U.S. Route 29; thence in a southerly direction with U.S. Route 29 to its intersection with State Route 633; thence in a northeasterly direction with State Route 633 to State Route 712; thence in an easterly direction with State Route 712 to its intersection with State Route 631; thence in a northeasterly direction with State Route 631 to its intersection with State Route 708; thence in a southeasterly direction with State Route 708 approximately 0.2 mile to the point where a straight line extended from~the easternmost ridge of Ammonett Mountain, the Fan Mountains, Appleberry Mountain, and Butler Mountain intersects State Route 708; thence in a southwesterly direction with such line and the easternmost ridge line of said mountains to the point where the ridge line intersects the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary; thence in a northwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary to its intersection with State Route 633, the point of beginning. Sec. 6-7. Same -- White Hall Magisterial District. The White Hall Magisterial District shall be divided into two voting precincts, bounded as hereafter set out, and named as follows: (a) Crozet Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Brownsville: Beginning at the intersection of State Route 636 with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary; thence in a northwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary to its intersection with the Albemarle/Augusta County boundary; thence in a northeasterly direction with the Albemarle/Augusta County boundary to its intersection with the Albemarle/Rockingham County boundary; thence continuing in a northeasterly direction with the Albemarle/ Rockingham County boundary to the gate on Skyline Drive (0.4 mile north of Blackrock) where the Jones Fall Run and the Falls Trail originates; thence in an easterly direction with Jones Fall Run to its confluence with the Doyles River; thence downstream in a southeasterly direction with the Doyles River to its confluence with the Moormans River; thence in an easterly direction with the Moormans River to its intersection with State Route 671 at Millington Bridge; thence in a southwesterly direction with State Route 671 to its inter- section with State Route 614; thence in a southeasterly direction with State Route 614 to.its bridge over the Mechum River; thence upstream with'the Mechum River to its 'intersection with Interstate Route 64; thence in a westerly direction with Interstate Route 64 to its intersection with U.S. Route 250; thence in a westerly di'rection with U.S. Route 250 to its intersection with State Route 691; thence in a southwesterly direction with State Route 691 to its intersection with State Route 636; thence in a westerly direction with State Route 636 to its intersection with the Albemarle/Nelson County boundary, the point of beginning. (b) Free Union Precinct, with the polling place to be located in the community of Free Union: Beginn±ng at the Albemarle/Rockingham/Greene County boundary (the northernmost corner of Albemarle County); thence in a southwesterly direction with the Albemarle/Rockingham County boundary to the gate on Skyline Drive J(approximately one mile south of the Dundo Overlook) where the Jones Fall Run and Falls Trail originates; thence in an easterly direction with Jones Fall Run to its confluence with the Doyles River; thence downstream in a 326 July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) southeasterly direction with the Doyles River to its confluence with the Moormans River; thence in an easterly direction with the Moormans River to its intersection with State Route 671 at the Mitlington Bridge; thence in a southwesterly direction with State Route 671 to its intersection with State Route 614; thence in a southeasterly direction with State Route 614 to its bridge over the Mechum River; thence downstream in a northeasterly direction with the Mechum River to its confluence with the Moormans River, the origin of the South Fork Rivanna River; thence downstream with the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with State Route 660 at Ray's Ford Bridge; thence in a northeasterly direction with State Route 660 to its intersection with State Route 743; thence in a northeasterly direction with State Route 743 to its intersection with the Albemarle/Greene County boundary; thence in a north- westerly direction with the Albemarle/Greene County bOundary to the northernmost corner of Albemarle County, the point of beginning. Sec. 6-8. Establishment of voting facilities. In all polling or voting places designated by this chapter, the facility for voting shall be established by the county electoral board in accord with the provisions of section 24.1-97 of the Code of Virginia. At 8:50 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 10. Route 29 North Bus Service Contract. Mr. Agnor said at the May 13, 1981, meeting the Board approved an alternative #3 which was an extension of the City's trunk route presently operating to and from the Downtown Mall, the University of Virginia, Barracks Road and K-Mart to include Albemarle Square (See Minute Book 20, May 13, 1981 Meeting). Mr. Agnor then reviewed the contract which has been prepared based on the Board's request of May 13, 1981. Mr. Agnor noted that the beginning date in the contract has been left blank and the recommendation is for the commencement date of August 1, 1981 with termination on July 31, 1982. Mr. St. John has recommended that the Board adopt by reference to the agreement, alternative 3 which was approved at the May 13, 1981 meeting as well as the letter dated May 14, 1981 from Barbara J. Flammia, Deputy Clerk to Mrs. Helen Poore, Transit Manager which spells out the alternative and the costs. Mr. Agnor said the City has had difficulty changing the marking on the outside of the buses and therefore agrees at County costs to provide signs at the bus stops affected by this route north of Rio Road and provide an informational bulletin inside the buses themselves. Dr. Iachetta asked about the statement in the contract about insufficient fuel. He was concerned about the statement because it does not specifically relate to a fuel supply emergency and leaves the decision of sufficient fuel up to the City. Mr. Agnor felt the statement is related to the supply and not the cost of fuel. Dr. Iachetta said another problem he had with the statement was that the City could decide when there is sufficient fuel and did not feel such statement meant a national fuel supply emergency. He felt the municipal transportation system should be able to function when there is a national fuel shortage. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested changing "conclusive" in paragraph 8 to "prima facie evidence of the sufficiency of fuel". Mr. St. John said the burden of proof is still on the County to show that fuel is available but it will not be cut off. Dr. Iachetta said his major concern is that the City can decide that the fuel it has is for other routes which the City feels are major routes. Mr. St. John said the language suggested by Mr. Lindstrom enables the County to have some say about the fuel. The burden would still be on the County to show that the City does have fuel but the County could not be foreclosed. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to authorize the County Executive to execute the following contract with the suggested amendment in paragraph 8 with the contract being effective August 1, 1981. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta then asked if the motion included the documents suggested by Mr. St. John. Mr. Lindstrom said yes. Mr. St. John then suggested adding a paragraph #13 to the contract as follows: "The following documents are incorporated by reference herein as part of this agreement: . . ." and then the reference to include the documents. Mr. Lindstrom accepted such to his motion and Miss Nash accepted same to her second. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Henley and McCann. THIS AGREEMENT made this 15th day of July, 1981, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the "City"). WI TNES SETH WHEREAS, Albemarle County desires to enter into an agreement with the City of Charlottesville to provide mass transit service for that portion of U.S. Route 29 between the City limits and Albemarle Square Shopping Center; subject to certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the County Executive of Albemarle has been authorized to enter into this Agreement by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville has authorized the Mayor to enter into this Agreement. July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 327 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations of each as hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows: (1) The City, through Charlottesville Transit Service, shall provide bus service between the downtown area of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle Square via the extension of the CTS Trunk Route. The service will operate on thirty (30) minute headways during the peak periods and on one (t) hour headways during off-peak periods, as outlined in the attached exhibit. (2) Subject to the City's other equipment and manpower commitments, upon seven days prior written notice to Albemarle County, reasonable modifications may be made in the proposed bus schedules which are shown in the attached exhibit which vary the times of service and/or routes. (3) In order to provide satisfactory services, the City shall provide, operate and maintain buses suitable for such operation. The City shall also provide the personnel to operate and maintain the buses, and the City shall have full control over and be responsible for the hiring and supervision of such personnel, as well as for the payment of all salaries and wages, and all other employee benefits of such personnel. (4) The City shall provide liability insurance coverage in the same amount as it provides for operations within the City limits. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the COunty against and from any and all claims, damages, costs and expenses because of bodily injury or death of persons or damage to or destruction of property, or for any other cause, resulting from or arising out of the City's negligence in connection with its performance under this Agreement, provided such- indemnification is limited to the extent of the aforesaid liability insurance coverage. (5) The City shall have no responsibility for the creation, maintenance or upkeep of any parking facilities related to this service. (6) The City shall be compensated for the service to the County as follows: a) Fares The City shall charge the following fares for the transportation service provided during the term of this agreement: (1) Forty cents (405) regular fare. (2) Twenty cents (205) elderly and handicapped fare. The City shall be entitled to keep all fares collected. b) Payment by County The County will pay the City a total of $14,596 for the term of the contractural agreement. This sum is payable, in m~nthly increments of $1,216.33, payable on the first day of each month, without demand. c) Federal and State Subsidies The City expects to receive reimbursement for fifty percent of the operating deficit and eighty percent of administrative costs of its transit operations from the federal and state governments through the Section 18 funding program. The City shall be entitled to keep all federal and state reimbursement received. (7) (8) If the City shall fail to comply with its undertakings herein and such failure shall continue for ten days after written notice from Albemarle County specifying such failure, then the County may terminate this Agreement, provided however that the City shall incur no financial liability of any kind arising out of such termination or any termination or in any event under any provision of the entire Agreement. In addition to the rights of termination provided herein, either party shall have the right to terminate or suspend service by giving 30 days' written notice to the other party of its intentions to do so, provided, however, that the City may suspend such service immediately upon written notice to the County that the City does not have sufficient fuel to perform its obligations herein. The City's determination as to whether it has sufficient fuel shall be prima facie evidence of the sufficiency of fuel. (9) The failure of either party to observe and perform its obligation hereunder shall not be deemed a default or breach hereof if such failure is the result of fire, explosion, flood, work stoppage, riot, communications or power supply failure, failure or malfunction of equipment or other cause beyond the party's control. But written notice of such cause shall promptly be given by it to the other. 328 July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Nevertheless, if any failure so caused has continued or clearly will continue, for a period of at least 30 days, the party entitled to notice hereof may, by written notice to the other, promptly given, terminate this Agreement as of the date specified therein. (10) No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions hereof shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the parties hereto. Except as herein expressly provided to the contrary, the provisions of this Agreement are for the benefit of the parties hereto and are not for the benefit of any other person and any assignment of this Agreement~by either party without written consent to the other shall be void. (It) The term of this agreement shall be for twelve (12) months, commencing August !, 1981, and ending July 31, 1982. (12) This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The undersigned represent that they have authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties. (13) The following documents are incorporated by reference herein as part of this agreement: Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission report dated May 8, 1981, listing four alternatives and a letter dated May 14, 1981, from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors to the Transit Manager noting approval of Alternative #3, "Trunk Extension" IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their names to be signed in duplicates hereof, each of which shall have the force and effect of the original and the respective seals to be thereto affixed and attested, by their duly authorized officers. Attest: (Signed by Linda W. Leake) Deputy Clerk, Board of County Supervisors (Signed by Guy B. Agnor, Jr.) Albemarle County, Virginia (Signed by Cole Hendrix) City of Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. Agnor then requested an appropriation be made in the amount of $14,596.00 for the Route 29 North Bus Service as contained in the agreement. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle-County, Virginia, that $14,596.00, be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 6105-4108--Route 29 North Bus Service. Agenda Item No. 11. Appropriation: Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor then presented the following memorandum dated July 8, 1981, from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, requesting appropriations for the Capital Improvements Program: CIP ITEM DESCRIPTION AMOUNT I-2 "BUDGET CODE 9700-7060.01 County Office Building Phase II Architects' Fees $100,000 9700-7060.88 I-6 Juvenile Court Building 2,647 9700-7060.20 IV-3 Radio Relay Tower 7,000 19.!9C.1 III-2 Albemarle High School-Phase III 50,000 19.19E III-3 Broadus Wood Planning Funds 30,000 19.33 III-11 Energy Conservation Projects 75,000 19.17K III-12 Miscellaneous Repairs-Schools 75,000 9700-7060.14 VIII-1 Piedmont Virginia Community College 28,742 9700-7060.07 VIII-4 Data Processing (hardware and software) 350,000 9800-7080.40 X-1 Ivy Landfill Road 173,118 $891,507 The above projects and programs will start incurring expenditures in the next thirty to sixty days. Most of the requests are for completing prior commitments such as the Juvenile Court Building, Radio Relay Tower, PVCC site costs, Data Processing and Ivy Landfill Road. Only the Energy Conservation Projects will be reimbursed to the County (it will be shared fifty percent ($37,500) by the Federal Government). The Ivy Landfill Road will be funded from General Revenue Sharing monies and the other projects listed will be funded from the General Fund Capital Outlay Fund." Mr. Agnor recommended that the data processing appropriation be deleted until the staff has complied additional information, however, he did request appropriations for the other projects and programs. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the money for the Georgetown Road project shown in the 1981-82 Capital Improvements Program has actually been appropriated. Mr. Agnor said the project is listed in the program but the funds are not being requested since right-of-way acquisition has not been resolved. July_~. 19~81 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern about the need for repairs to Meriwether Lewis School in order that the building can be usable. He was curious to know if the $75,000 for miscellane school repairs would be sufficient to make the building usable for an indefinite period of time. He then suggested asking the School Board what they felt needed to be done in the way of repairs and maintenance of the building. Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Agnor if he ,would recommend in 1983-84 a split tax collection to fund the Capital Improvements Program~ Mr. Agnor said the split tax collection is an alternative available to the County. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor to check to see how inflation will affect.the funds necessary to do projects for 1983-84 which projects are being deferred to 1985-86 against the one-time benefit of a split tax eollection. Mr.. Agnor said the County does not have the capability to do that on existing computer programs for assessments. Dr. Iachetta did not feel the School Board has really presented adequate evidence about Meriwether Lewis School. Mr. Fisher said that building is not in very good shape and it will not get any better. Dr. Iachetta said the issue is still before this Board and he is not convinced that the numbers justify the proposed construction. Back to the original question about the $75,000 inc.luded in the Capital Improvements Budget for repairs, Mr. Agnor said there are also several hundred thousand dollars included in the School Budget for such needs. Motion was then offered by Mr. to request the School Board to review the needs for maintenance and repair of the Meriwether Lewis School Building on the assumption that there will not be a new school built for at least the next five years. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the recommendation of the County Executive and adopt the following resolution for appropriations of the Capital Improvements Program, excluding the appropriation for the data processing program. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Jones requested that the Ivy Landfill Road be funded by revenue sharing funds. Dr. Iachetta amended his motion to that effect. Mr. Lindstrom accepted such to his second. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, HenleY, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $541,507 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated as follows: From the General Capital Outlay Fund to the following codes: 9700-7060.01 9700-7060.88 9700-7060.20 9700-7060.14 County Office Building, Phase II, Architects Fees Juvenile Court Building Radio Relay Tower Piedmont Virginia Community College $100,000 2,647 7,000 28,742 From the School Construction Capital Outlay Fund to the following codes: 19.19C.1 Albemarle High School, Phase III 50,000 19.19E Broadus Wood Planning Funds 30,000 19.33 Energy Conservation Projects-Schools 75,000 19.17K Miscellaneous Repairs-Schools 75,000 From the General Revenue Sharing Fund to Code 9800-7080.40--Ivy Landfill Road, $173,118. Mr. Lindstrom said he had expressed concern last week during the discussion of the Capital Improvements Program about the indefinite deferral by federal and state agencies of the Crozet Interceptor project. For all the reasons he had stated then, Mr. Lindstrom felt it would be a mistake to indefinitely avoid the issue and would like to propose the following for establishment of a committee to study the status of and alternatives to the Crozet Interceptor; said committee to be composed of two board members, the county executive and the watershed management official. He handed out the following suggested proposal: "Purposes - Responsibilities 1. Determine present condition of reservoir, is it improving or deteriorating? 2. Try to determine status of Morton's aw Effluent levels; Present treatment type and capacity; Existing agreements with Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority; Terms and status of existing consent decree. Determine present and future needs of Crozet as a development community for treatment facilities. Determine the current status .and history of the proposed interceptor and funding therefor. Determine present and anticipated sources of funds for the interceptor and status of such funds in the future. Determine estimated present cost of interceptor and estimated inflation rate. What is the local share? 7. Determine cost of other components of the system, e.g. collection system. 33O July5, ~981 (Regular Night Meeting) Determine what the sources of funds for components identified in the seven above might be. In what ways has the new Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant been designed in anticipation of the interceptor? What would be the impact on efficiency, rates and bond retirement if the interceptor is not built? 10. What are the implications for the Comprehensive Plan if the interceptor is not built? What changes would failure to build the interceptor require in the plan? 11. What alternatives to the interceptor exist? Evaluate in terms of: Cost Treatment efficiencies Capacities What agency approvals are necessary? Possible funding sources. Potential objections. 12. Recommendations The committee shall consult with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County Service Authority and other relevant agencies. The committee shall reduce its findings and recommendations to writing and submit them to the Board of Supervisors no later than Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board has put a lot of effort into land use regulations to prevent deterioration of the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom said the Interceptor project has increased considerably in price during the last couple of years. He felt a committee is necessary. Mr. McCann did not object to the committee but felt the matter should be examined with the State Water Control Board to determine if alternative methods would be allowed. Mr. Lindstrom felt all available information should be compiled and presented to the State Water Control Board. Dr. Iachetta agreed with the need to refocus on the question and noted that the present population projections for Crozet in the Comprehensive Plan are based on there being an Interceptor. Therefore, considering the problems with funding by the State Water Control Board, perhaps the Board is at a point where a decision will have to be made as to whether this project should be funded locally. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint a committee with the purposes and responsibilitie outlined in the above memo and a reasonable date be set for obtaining a response. Mr. Agnor said most of the information on the matter exists and it is only a matter of assimilation. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to set October 1, 1981 as the date for a response. Dr.~ Iachetta seconded the motion. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 12b. End of Year Financial Report: Carry-Over Balance. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present and presented the following memorandum dated July 15, 1981, regarding the Carry-Over Balance: "The Carry-over balance for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1981, on a cash basis, is $650,000 computed as follows: REVENUES General Fund Revenues School Fund Revenues $23.66 Million 8.83 Million $32'.49 Million EXPENDITURES General Operations School Operations Debt Service $ 9.69 Million 20.28 Million 1.87 Million $31.84 Million Carry-Over Balance $ .65 Million The annual audit is performed on an accrual basis which will change the above numbers somewhat. The changes will be due to the recording of accounts payable as expenses and receivables as revenues. The carry-over balance should increase by at least $100,000 bringing it to over $750,000. The carry-over balance was created primarily by excess earnings on investments and excess collection of local property taxes over original estimates. The fiscal year 1981-82 budget allocated $132,077 of this carry-over balance and $500,000 is anticipated to be used for the Capital Improvements budget." Mr. Fisher asked how figures for revenues and expenditures compared with budgeted figures. Mr. Jones said general fund revenues exceeded the budgetary estimates. The school July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) fund revenues did not meet the budgeted estimates, so a shortfall occurred in the school fund. Mr. Jones said the general operation expenditures were lower than the revenues, but school operation expenditures were over revenues by about $212,000. Dr. Iachetta said it appears that whatever carry-over balance there is, is fully committed. A brief discussion followed and Mr. Jones noted that this report is just for informational purposes and no action is necessary. Agenda Item No. 12c. End of Year Financial Report: tures for Fiscal Year 1981. Approval of Transfers and Overexpendi Mr. Jones presented the following memorandum dated July 13, 1981, regarding the transfers required for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1981: "In General Operations, which had an appropriation of $11,812,925.85, $11,607,202.49 was expended (98.25%) leaving an unexpended balance of $203,394.05 at the end of the year. There were twenty-four separate departments and functions which had unexpended balances (allocated money left over). Of the ten departments and functions with over-expenditures on June 30, 1981, all but three can be solved by transfers from line item 1203-1007 Salary Adjustments which was budgeted and allocated to cover merit increases given during the year. Therefore, $36,799.37 is requested to be transferred from Code 1203-1007, Salary Adjustments to the following codes: 1302 Board of Elections-Registrar $ 1,398.39 2106 Clerk of the Circuit Court 4,654.86 3102 Sheriff 25,772.12 3501 Animal Control 1,622.81 8101 Planning Department 1,145.10 8103 Housing Office 992.61 8203 Soil Conservation (Soil Survey) 232.65 8300 Extension Service 980.83 Total $36,799.37" Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to approve the transfers as requested above. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Jones then continued with the portion of his memorandum regarding overexpenditures for the year ended June 30, 1981: "Overexpenditures occurred in two departments, (Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney), and one service operation, (refuse disposal): Commonwealth's Attorney - This department had a total expenditure of $120,579.53 against an appropriation of $118,889, producing an overexpenditure of $1,690.53. This was the result of overexpenditures in fringe costs, medical insurance, ihom~a~ subscriptions, travel and furniture and fixtures. If there had not been a savings in workmen's compensation insurance costs of $4,270 ~me to the change in policy dates in April 1981, the overexpenditure would have been larger, however, the actual overexpenditure is only 1.42% of the total budget. Sheriff - After applying the requesed transfer of $25,772.12 from Salary Adjustments, there will remain an overexpenditure of $33,427.60 (6.56%). This overexpenditure is primarily due to costs of operating automobiles; this category was underestimated in the budget. The total cost of operating the Sheriff's Department in Fiscal Year 1980-81 was $961,102.72. The State of Virginia reimbursed the County $633,804.23 or about 66%. Even with House Bill 599, about one-third of the Sheriff's costs are still local costs. Refuse Disposal - The overexpenditure in Refuse Disposal is in the amount of $22,190.08 (7.25%) due to operation of the Ivy Landfill. The cost of operating this joint facility is charged to the City and County on a tonnage use basis. The County's share is increasing each year as well as the per ton costs. Projecting last year's cost into F. Y. 1981-82 indicates an overexPenditure will occur again in the current year. Therefore, official action is requested for approval of the following overexpenditures: Budget Code Description Amount 2201 Commonwealth's Attorney $ 1,690.53 3102 Sheriff 33,427.60 4204~ Refuse Disposal 22,190.08 ~$57,308.21" Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded~by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ~irginia, that $57,308.21 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to the following: AYES: NAYS: .Code 2201 Commonwealth's Attorney $1,690.53 Code 3102 Sheriff 33,427.60 Code 4204 Refuse Disposal 22,190.08 Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. -332 ~t 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) July?_~ 5~, Agenda Item No. 12a. End of Year Financial Report: Adjustments in School Operations. Mr. Jones then presented his memorandum dated July 15, 1981, as follows: "SUBJECT: End of Year Adjustments in School Operations At the end of the 1980-81 year, there were financial problems in School Operations resulting from overestimates of revenues, overexpenditures of appropriations, and an increased deficit in the School Fund Balance. EDUCATION REVENUES According to the records in the Bookkeeping Department as of June 30, 1981, there was a combined overestimate of revenues in the amount of $683,742.98. This figure includes federal, state and local sources. Overestimates of school revenues as of June 30, 1981 occurred in State Sales Taxes, Basic Aid, Incentive Payments, Foster Home Children, Free Textbook Rentals, In-Service Training, Learning Disability and Handicapped (UVA), Learning Disability and Handicapped (State), Pilot Studies, Special Education, Vocational Education, and FICA reimbursement, which are all state shared costs and categorical aids. Federal sources of revenue which were either overestimated or have yet to be received are: Title I (Low Income); Title IV-B (Libraries); Title VI (SEECC); Title IVC (ELII); and Crime Resistance (TIPS). During the fiscal year, $907,488.75 in expenditures was charged to the Federal Programs and only $777,396,83 received in revenue. This created a significant deficit of approximately fifteen percent. State revenues were only five percent overestimated. I know that sincere efforts are made to accurately project revenues in original budget estimates, and there is no way to adjust to a change in circumstances when notice of reductions is received several days after the finish of fiscal year operations. (Memo from the State Department of Education dated July 2, 1981, states that revenues are short compared to appropriations, therefore reimbursement to School divisions will be made at approximately 93%.) SCHOOL EXPENDITURES The total expenditures for Education, inclusive of federal programs, amounted to $20,282.761.11, which is an overexpenditure of $212,134.42 above the appropriated amount. Overexpenditures occurred in the following categories: 17A School Administration $12,595.26 Due to costs of accrued annual leave payment to the former superintendent, the cost of locating the current superintendent, and payment of legal fees. 17B1 Instruction Regular Day $26,750.54 Due apparently to underestimate of salaries and substitute teacher costs. 17B2 Other Instructional Costs ~$29,896.97 Due to costs of tuitions paid other divisions for handicapped students. According to the assistant superintendent, one student in the County cost $27,000 last year. 17C2 Activities - Albemarle High School $5,825.91 This appears to be due to a miscoding of salaries. Correction of the coding error would not change the total overexpenditure but just shift it to another function in Education. 17Fl Operation of School Plant $7,539.10 Due to combined impact of overruns in custodial salaries, cleaning materials, and fuel costs. 17F2 Maintenance-School Plants $17,904.16 Due to underestimates of service contracts that were renewed during the year at considerably higher costs. 17G Fixed Charges. $313,994.95 Due to increases in employer's cost of medical insurance combined with underestimates of FICA and retirement costs. These fringe costs would be much less difficult to analyze and monitor if they were distributed and budgeted into the salary codes rather than coded to a single code. There were fourteen other educational categories that did have unexpended balances at the end of the year amounting to $202,372.47. July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) '33'31 Analysis of expenditures for School Operations pointed out that $3,262,506.78 of the total $20,282,761.16 expenditures in Education, occurred in the month of June (16.09% of the total). This is in some way due to the ten-month work year and twelve-month pay period plus various stipends paid in June, but not totally. Approval by the Board of Supervisors for $212,134.42 in overexpenditures which occurred in the fiscal year ended June 30, 1981, is requested. The overexpenditures may be shown as follows: Total Appropriations Total Expenditures $20,070,626.74 20,282,761.16 ($ 212,134.42) (1.06%) SCHOOL FUND BALANCE The School Fund Balance is a control ledger account in which all expenditures and receipts are entered on a cash basis. The deficit on June 30, 1981, was $1,218,446.40 which was the result of overestimate of revenues, overexpenditures of appropriations, excess expenditures in federal programs, plus the advance in July of 1980 in the amount of $835,665.00. This problem is compounded by special appropriations being made during the year for programs that begin to make expenditures in that year but the reimbursement comes in the following year. Usually, state and federal revenues are not made available "up-front" prior to beginning the program. A good example is the TREES program recently approved by the Board of County Supervisors where the expenditures will be incurred before billings to other localities are made. In other words, Albemarle County provides the operating capital which is never totally reccvered as long as the program continues. Another example of funding "front-end" costs in the School Fund will be the operation of the Central Garage which will provide service to other County"departments. The cost of labor, parts, insurance, and payroll costs will be incurred as transportation costs of Education and charges for service be shown as receipts. This will not only balloon the Education Budget but place a burden on the School Fund Balance due to the lag-time between expenses and receipts. This garage should be operated as a Central Garage Service Fund where only actual charges would go in as expenditures against the schools. In fact, the State Auditor's Guide states that this facility must be operated as a Central Garage Service Fund or the County will be written up each year in the annual audit report as having an exception to generally accepted accounting principles. There is no simple solution to solving prior years deficits of this magnitude; however, something has to be done. After discussing this problem with the County's auditors, approval of the Board of Supervisors is requested for the following action: *Receivables **Cash Transfer from School Construction Fund ***Advance on Fiscal Year 1981-82 $ 179,305.09 600,000.00 439,141.3.~ $1,218,446.40 *Under the permissive current accounting procedures, receivables that are ~'known and measurable' can be credited. The above figure is known and measurable because notices have been received from the State showing exact amounts which should be received any day. **Review of the fund balance of the School Construction Fund reveals a cash balance of slightly over $600,000 above original appropriations for the projects currently underway. The actual money represents investment returns over the past years of the total funds in the account. No project overruns were allowed in making this determination. ***The advance is a method commonly used especially when a portion of it represents prior years overexpenditures and overestimates of revenues. The only other alternative available is a cash transfer from the General Fund which is not recommended at this time because all excesses in the General Fund are anticipated to be used in the Capital Improvement Budget. *The above provides a permanent solution to about two-thirds of the problem and the advance is only temporary." A brief discussion followed on projections and the money management for the School operations. Dr. Iachetta asked if the County's new data processing equipment will be able to provide a better idea of short term projections. Mr. Jones felt it would aid. Mr. Lindstrom said from what Mr. Jones has said, he would assume that even if the school budget had been accurate and followed it would still have been $800,000 short because the County had advanced that amount last year. Mr. Jones said that was essentially true. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the $439,141.31 which is requested as an advance can come out of the School budget for 1981-82. Mr. Jones said this would give the school administration an opportunity to monitor receipts and expenditures and attempt to recover some of these funds. Mr. Jones said a lot of this money is tied up in federal programs which are on a different fiscal year with reimbursements being made on a different basis. Mr. Jones said last year when he had recommended that the advance be made, he had stated that some day this advance would have to be made available from local cash sources if there was no possibility of recovering from this situation. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern about the advance made last year with another such request this year. Mr. Fisher strongly objected to advancing any funds from the School 334 Jul~¥1~81 (R_fie~ular Night Meetin~_ Construction Fund. Mr. Jones said the funds in the school construction fund are unallocated. Mr. Fisher said the interest earned on construction funds should be used to fund capital needs and every penny in the school construction fund will be needed to build the schools listed in the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Fisher then asked if it were possible for the County to advance the $1,039,141 (the amount not anticipated from receivables) out of this year's school operating funds to cover last year's deficit in order to clear that account. Then if the school administration can work on developing an accounting system that will prevent a similar situation from occurring at the end of the 1981-82 fiscal year, then considertion can be given an appropriation made later in the year to cover a portion of this loss from some source. He felt the School staff needs some motivation to get an accounting system to help get this problem straight. .Dr. Iachetta said it is clear that whatever procedures that have been used have not been adequate. Mr. Fisher asked what happens if no funds are approved and there is the million dollar deficit on the books. Mr. Jones said this would hurt if the County went into the bond market. Also, the funding responsibility is the Board of Supervisors'. Mr. Fisher felt that at the end of this fiscal year, a reduction of 25% out of 1981-82 appropriation should be made, then if the funds are managed reasonably, in four years this debt can be eliminated. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Mr. Fisher to not take funds from the Capital Improvements Program. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstro~ to approve the following appropriation: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $212,134.42 be appropriated from the School Fund and transferred to the School Fund to cover overexpenditures in that Fund as of June 30, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said action is also necessary to zero out the School Fund Balance as of June 30, 1981. He recommended that there be no cash transfer from the School Construction Fund, but rather there be an advance from the General Fund to the School Fund in the amount of $1,039,141.31 as follows: $600,000.00--from the General Operating Fund and $439,141.]l-- from the General Operating Fund which is an advance on the Fiscal Year 1981-82 School Fund Appropriation; also the $179,305.09 in school fund reimbursements received after July 1, 1981 should be be credited to the School Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1981. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to this effect. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Roll was called ~n~ the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher then asked for nominations for the two vacant positions on the Advisory Council on Aging. Dr. Iachetta nominated and offered motion to appoint Mr. James A. Kerr to the Advisory Council on Aging to replace Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle with said term to expire on Jun$ 1, 1982; and Mr. William K. Ewell to replace Mr. John W. Burns with said term to expire on June 1, 1983. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher then asked for nominations for the vacancy on the Youth Services Board. Miss Nash offered motion to appoint Mr. Donald A. Byers to the Youth Services Citizens Board with said term to expire on June 1, 1984. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to appoint Mr. Charles William Sublett, Jr., to the Visitors Bureau for an unspecified term; said appointment to replace Ms. Peggy Denby. Mr. M¢Cann seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said when the Committee was making a decision to purchase and renovate the Market Street Post Office Building as the regional library, it was agreed by the Committee that the site had some advantages over other sites because the building could be used in conjunction with the o%d M'cIntire Library for library purposes. He said this was written into a memorandum of understanding by the City Manager and submitted to the Committee before any final recommendation was made to the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said he has recently read about the possibility of the old McIntire Library building being used for other purposes.. He feels the Board was lead to believe that the building would be available for library purposes at any time the Library Board so choose. Therefore, August 5, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) July 15, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 335 he felt it appropriate to request City Council to recall that part of the agreement and to honor the agreement by not signing any leases that would preclude the use of the building for library purposes. Dr. Iachetta concurred and offered motion to ask the city to reserve the old McIntire Library Building for library purposes. Miss Nash saconded the motion. Even though Mr. McCann agreed to request the City to .review the agreement, he felt the new library is suffici, ent for the next thirty years. Mr. Fisher disagreed. Mr. McCann felt the old library building should be used for something. Mr. Fisher said the Library Board is concerned about loosing the building. Mr. McCann said he would like to hear their concerns. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Agnor said the Chamber of Commerce is planning a trip for City, County, University officials and local membe'rs-of the Chamber to Lexington, Kentucky to review their aspect of consolidation between the city and county. Mr. Fisher said he would go on this trip. Mrs. Peggy King, representative of the League of Women Voters, was present and read a statement expressing the League's concern about the lack of an ordinance in the County concerning exploratory drilling. Therefore, the League urges the County to adopt such an ordinance as soon as possible to ensure protection of the County. Mr. Fisher said he had discovered that many acres of land in the County are under lease for oil and gas exploration, so he alao is concerned. He then asked if the County Attorney's office had done any research on the question. Mr. St. John sa~ork~has been done and an ordinance can be drafted if the Board so desires. Mr. Fisher asked if there are not regulatiol in the Zoning Ordinance covering same. Mr. St. John said extraction is covered, but not exploration. After a brief discussion, Mr. St. John said an ordinance would be drafted and submitted on exploratory drilling as soon as possible. Agenda Item No. 14. At 10:47 P.M., with no further business, the me.eting was adjourned. AuguSt 5, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on ~ugust 5, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. in the ~lbemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arrived at 7:45 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (Arrived at 7:45 P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton Ro McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash Absent: None. Officers Present: St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and Comity Attorney, George R. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman~ Agenda Item No. 2. At 7~31 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn to the County Executive's Conference Room in the County Office Building. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda It~m[No.i.3. At 7:40 P.M., the Board reconv~med in the County Executive's Conferen Room and motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adjourn into executive session for legal and personnel matters. ROll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded~ vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Hen!~y and Iachetta. (Messrs. Henley and Iachetta arrived at the meeting at 7:45. P.M.) The Board reconvm~d into open session at 10:20 P.M. Agenda Item No. 4. With no further business, the meeting~was-adjourned.