1981-09-09 :UOT~od~u~& pu~
@~ff) p~o~ @~PT~ aOUTW pu~ (¢~I e~noH e~) p~oH PI@TJ~¢@~
· UOT~Oesae~UT S~T jo aeuaoo ~s@~M~aou @q~ ~ (¢~I @~no~
:~p~o~
~UTmOIIOJ @M~ EJT~UePT o~ su~T~ ~@@~s ~oj po~aoa~ ueeq s~q ssenba~
· s~senb@H U~T~ ~ee~$~ :~Pue~V ~ue~uo0 I'E 'oNme$I ~pue~V
· auoN :~XVX
~UTmOIIOJ eq2 Kq pgTEa~o pu~ Cuu~ooM 'EM Kq p@puoogs ¢~22@qo~I 'E~ Kq pgE@jjo ~a ~(~oIgq
P@IT~2@P) ~pug~ 2ug~uoo @q2 jo I~Aoadd~ EoJ UOT~OM '8%oA pu~ UOT2~EePT~UOO s~pE~o~ eq% EoJ
~pug~ 2ugsuoo mg%T ×T¢ ~ pgsue~ead Eou~v 'EM :~Pu@~v 2ugsuoD 'E 'oM mg2I ~Pug~v
Kq ¢'m'~ Z0:6 %~ EapE0 02 p@YI~O s~ ~u72agm ami
X%uno0 Cuqof '2S 'K g~EogD ~@Ay~no@x~ ~2unoo e'Er ¢~ou~v
· Usam 'A ugIIZ ssyM pu~
¢~uTPITn~ go%JJ0 K%uno0 gq2 jo mooH peso5 gU% u7 'M'V 00:6 %~ ¢I~6I ¢6 Egqmg%dgs uo
· pguEno[p~ KIg2~TPgtma! pu~ uo!ssss ugdo o2u7 p@U@AU00OE pJ~0~ @M% ¢'M'~ ~0:II %V
'@uox
:gXVN
:SZXV
,,gAygG g~IpooM 9~ 'sguE~ '0 Kpnf
· qonm ~EaA noK ~uwqA
367
.September~9,~1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to~identi~y t~h~e following
roads:
Westfield Road (State Route 1452) and Minor'R±dge COurt (no
state route number) at the northeast corner of its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of
the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of
Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned
street signs.
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following
roads:
Albert Court (State Route 1491) and Whitewood Road (State
Route 1455) at the northwest corner of its western ~ntersection.
Albert Court (State Route 1491) and Whitewood Road (State~
Route 1455) at the northwest corner of its eastern intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of
the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of
Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned
street signs.
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following
roads:
Eastbrook Drive (State Route 1417) and Eastbrook Court (no state
route number) at the northeast corner of its intersection.
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of
the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of
Highways and Transportation:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned
street signs.
Agenda Item No. 2.2 Consent Agenda: The following two letters, dated August 10 and
August 19, 1981, respectively, were received from Mr. Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; as information:
"As requested in your resolution dated June 10, 1981, the following additions
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective
August 10, 1981.
ADDITIONS
WILLOUGHBY SUBDIVISION
LENGTH
Harris Road - From Charlottesville City Limits southeast.
Quince Lane - From Harris Road 0.13 mile to end of cul-de-sac.
Pepper Place - From Quince Road to end of cul-de, sac.
0.12 Mi.
0.13 Mi.
0.04 Mi."
"As requested in your resolution dated May 13, 1981, the following additions
to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective
August 19, 1981.
ADDITIONS LENGTH
LEWIS HILL SUBDIVISION
Holkham Drive - From Route 678 to 0.34 mile northeast Route 678. 0.34 Mi.
Holkham Drive - From 0.34 mile northeast Route 678 to 0.47
mile northeast Route 678. 0.13 Mi.
Holkham Drive - From 0.47 mile northeast Route 678 to 0.65
mile northeast Route 678. 0.18 Mi."
Agenda Item No. 2.3 Consent Agenda: Lottery Permit. Application for a lottery
permit was received from the Stony Point Elementary School P.T.O. for games on October 23,
1981. This permit was approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance
of such permits.
September ~19~81R~ular Da~ Meeting~
368
Agenda Item No. 2.4 Consent Agenda: Statement of Expenses of~the Director of Finance,
Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Jail for August, 1981, were approved as presented.
Agenda Item No. 2.5 Consent Agenda: Statement of Expenses incurred in the maintenance
and operation of the Regional Jail for August, 1981, along with summary statement of
prisoner days and statements of salaries of the paramedics and jail physician, were presented
and approved.
Agenda Item No. 2.6 Consent Agenda: Report of the Department of Social Services for
July, 1981, was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: June 9, June 18 (Afternoon), August 13,
September 3 (Night), September i0 and September 17, 1980. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:14
a.m.) Dr. Iachetta had not read the minutes of June 9 or June 18, and Mr. Lindstrom
stated he had not read the minutes of September 10 or September 17, 1980. Dr. Iachetta
stated he had read the minutes of September 3, 1980, and that he had several corrections
which he felt were necessary as follows:
l)
Page 233, paragraph seven, eighth sentence should read "As he understands,
both operations have grown to be a nuisance to the neighbors and such adds
to the uncertainty of incinerating .... "
2)
Page 233, paragraph seven, eighteenth sentence should read "The sixth issue
is what methods will be used to detect accidents caused by carelessness or
neglect by some researchers, what sort .... "
3)
Page 233, paragraph eight, second sentence should read "The ordinance is
not aimed at the University alone but also the possibility of .... "
4)
Page 233, paragraph ten, eleventh sentence shou~ld read "Dr. Allen said when
the common organic cocktails, which .... "
5)
Page 234, paragraph two, seventh sentence should read "The University
prepared the guidelines to insure that the radiation from this incineration .... "
6)
Page 234, paragraph two, tenth sentence should read "The Commission took
the figures which are thought to be safe for occupational .... "
7)
8)
9)
Page 234, paragraph three, ninth sentence should read "He also noted that
there has been some movement on the part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
sion to change the 'levels for tritium .... "
Page 235, paragraph three, second sentence should read "Therefore, action
taken months from now might be .... "
Page 241, paragraph eight, fourth sentence should read "Reverend King said
if this site plan is denied, he did not know where the congregation could
go nor what he could tell his people how to get their investment back."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minut~es of
September 3, 1980, as corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters, Secondary Road Budget. Mr. Dan Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was present,
and discussed his letter of August 28, 1981, as follows:
"I am certain you are aware of the Department's current finan6ial problems.
These problems have been brought aboUt in part because we anticipated highway
revenues at a certain level and these revenues were not forthcoming. To bring
this problem under control, the Department has curtailed its contract adver-
tisement schedule. This step has not brought about the desired results. I
have, therefore, recently been advised that state force construction must be
curtailed.
More specifically, field forces have been advised to spend only those secondary
funds allocated for state force projects available as of June 30, 1981. This
moratorium on spending 81-82 funds may last until 1982. In Albemarle County the
effect of this instruction is to bring state force improvement projects to a
stop.
As of June 30, 1981, projects designated for state force construction were
running a deficit of approximately $50,000. Since July 1, 1981, up to the date
I was advised to stop, an additional $65,000 had been spent. This $65,G00 was
spent on two projects, those being Routes 717 and 601.
Although I have already overspent the authorized figure by $115,000 the Depart-
ment recognizes that certain obligations must be met. I have, therefore, been
authorized to spend a small additional amount during the coming fiscal year.
These additional amounts are listed below for your information.
369
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
To bed down 717 project
To bed down 601 project
To match County Erosion Control Project
To meet new addition obligations: On 641
On Shawnee Court
On 723
To cover new signs & new entrance pipe costs during 81-82
TOTAL
$9,000
5,000
8,000
4,000
6,000
13,000
11,000
$56,000
I know this letter comes as unpleasant news to you and the Board and I am
certain you will have numerous questions concerning this matter. I suggest this
matter be made an agenda item for the September 9, 1981, Supervisors meeting at
which time I will attempt to answer any questions."
Mr. Fisher said he evaluates the entire problem as there not being sufficient money
collected from gasoline taxes to support the needs of the Highway Department. Mr. Mitchell
Van Yahres, Delegate to the General Assembly was present and stated that he would be in
Richmond in the morning and that he will do everything he can to help out in this situation.
Mr. Fisher stated he received a telephone call from a property owner on Route 717
(Sand Road), who was upset because work ha'd been started on hard surfacing this road, and
now that it has been forced to a halt, the entrance to his home will be left blocked. Mr.
Fisher asked if anyone else was present to speak regarding this particular road.
Mr. James Sprouse said he thought it would cost more to "bed down" the road than it
would to just complete the project.
Mr. Abe Watkins said he is also a resident of Route 717. Mr. Watkins said the con-
struction has not yet reached his home, but that the condition of the road is worse now
than when the work crew started.
Mr. Edward Chester said that even though his home is about 450 feet off the road, the
dust during dry weather is a tremendous health hazard. He said the dust creates visibility
problems, and that it is unsafe for two cars to pass each other because of the soft
condition of the shoulders.
Mr. Rey Barry informed the Board of the very long history of the road stating that it
was originally ordered constructed in 1738.
Dr. Iachetta asked if Mr. St. John could check into the possibility of the County
financing the completion of this road and the Highway Department reimbursing the County at
a later date. Dr. Iachetta added that the problem stems from the more fuel efficient cars
which cause about half the normal amount of tax to be collected.
Mr. Lindstrom said more and more agencies are being forced to turn to local govern-
ment because support of same is being refused by the State and Federal governments.
Miss Nash said the property owners have worked for more than five years to get to the
point of construction on this road, and felt the State and the Board of Supervisors had a
moral obligation to carry this project to completion.
Mr. Roosevelt said he intends to put stone on the road which will hold it through the
winter. Mr. Roosevelt added that although there is a moral obligation there is also a
legal obligation to only spend those funds which are available. He emphasized that this
project is not being "shelved", only put off until additional funds are available.
Miss Nash asked how two school buses are expected to pass at that point. Mr. Roosevelt
said Mr. Basley, a property owner would not donate the right-of-way at that point on the
road, therefore the road will be more narrow at that point. Mr. Roosevelt said school
buses will still have to stop and let the other pass at that point, even when the total
construction project is completed.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. McCann stated they would not be in favor of having the County
finance road projects. Miss Nash suggested the Board adopt a "strong resolution" to give
to delegate Van Yahres to present to the House in Richmond. Mr. Van Yahres said he felt
the adoption of a resolution would be helpful. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash,
seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution:
WHEREAS the County of Albemarle has received notification from the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation that there are limited
funds available for the remainder of this fiscal year for Secondary Road
improvements; and
WHEREAS, State Route 601 and State Route 717 were under construction
at the time of this announcement, and hence will be left in an incompiete
state for an indefinite period of time; and
WHEREAS, it is the feeling of this Board of Supervisors that it is
economically impractical tO "bed-down" partially completed projects at
substantial cost, when those costs could be applied toward completion of
the projects; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors believe that incompletion of these
roads could present a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare of
travelers of these roads.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors does hereby request Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr., and
Delegates James B. Murray and Mitchell Van Yahres to intercede on behalf
of. Albemarle County to obtain sufficient funds to complete these
highway projects.
September 9,1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
370
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 4b. Other Highway Matters. Miss Nash requested Mr. Roosevelt to
repair pot holes on Route 717, between 712 and 708. Mr. Roosevelt agreed to view the
area.
Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion: Oversized Utility Lines. This item was deferred
from August 12, pending a written opinion from the staff as to whether the Service Authority
can legally require the oversizing of lines at the edge of its present service areas based
on a feeling that at some future time beyond the twenty-year Comprehensive planning
~period, the service area will be enlarged and the oversized lines will be needed to serve
new areas. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of two letters which follow, the first from Mr.
George St. John, County Attorney, dated August 17, 1981 and the second from Mr. Robert W.
Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, dated August 31, 1981, in response to how oversized
utility lines would affect County growth in relation to the Comprehensive Plan. ~ _[ ~.~ ~-
"It is my understanding that the Service Authority may desire, from time to
time, to install utility lines of a size greater than that necessitated by
future demand for a given area as projected by the Comprehensive Plan. The
purpose of this "oversizing", as I understand it, is to anticipate additional
future demand, beyond the term of the Comprehensive Plan but well within the
expected life of the lines themselves. The Authority views this as a good
investment since, if the additional capacity is never needed, the incremental
initial cost is small and the line perfectly functional. On the other hand, if
the demand projected by the Plan is exceeded at ~a time past the time limits of
the Plan, service will be adversely affected and necessary replacement costs
radically increased.
As you know, utility lines may only be installed to the extent that they are
substantially in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Virginia Code Section
15.1-456). Since the lines as projected by the Service Authority will, by
definition, provide service adequate for the demand contemplated in the Plan, it
is my opinion that the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may re-
asonably find such~ lines to be in substantial compliance with the Plan. However,
any such approval should be qualified to note that the additional capacity of
the lines is recognized to contemplate possible development beyond the time
frame of the Plan, and that such additional capacity may not be exploited
consistently with the Plan.
To put it another way, comparing the Service Authority's planning to that of the
County may occasionally be an "apples and oranges" situation. Accordingly,
while the comparison must still be made, it is both proper and necessary to take
account of the differences in order to obtain a meaningful comparison.
Review procedures as described hereinabove will, I think, serve to negate an
argument that a given utility may have been improperly approved or that the
Board has effectively abrogated the Plan by allowing the installation of the
"oversized" line."
"You have requested staff comment with regard to the Comprehensive Plan's
projections beyond the present twenty-year design period. Based upon prelim-
inary population projections and growth rates, it appears that the boundaries of
our present growth areas are capable of handling anticipated growth beyond 1995.
Those boundaries could be altered, however, during the upcoming Comprehensive
Plan review - depending upon any change in growth policy direction which may be
proposed by the Board or Commission.
In regard to Mr. Brent's letter concerning the sizing of lines near a growth
area boundary, staff would concur that community facilities in general and
utility infrastructure specifically, should be sized beyond the Comprehensive
Plan design year. Staff would recommend that the Albemarle County Service
Authority staff consult with the Planning staff to determine adequate sizing of
a line as each proposal arises.
Finally, staff is of the opinion that as long as the County controls the project
areas of the Service Authority, and the project areas generally conform to the
growth area plans adopted by the County, the oversizing of utility lines would
not by itself be an incentive to growth."
Mr. Fisher said, if the Board is in agreement, a motion should be considered to
concur with the staff reports that have been received. Mr. Lindstrom said he would make
that motion. Mr. Lindstrom added that he appreciated the cooperation exhibited by Mr.
Brent in bringing this request to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to add as part
of his motion that the Service Authority continue to cooperate with the Planning Staff.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Agnor asked the Board to set a public hearing to amend the service areas of the
Albemarle County Service Authority to include the Piney Mountain Restaurant on Route 29
North. Mr. Agnor said he was aware this was not an agenda item, but felt since Mr. Brent
was present it was an appropriate time to discuss same. Mr. Agnor explained that several
weeks ago a request for public water was received from the owner of the Piney Mountain
Restaurant because of insufficient potable water from the well on the property. He noted
that the Health Department was attempting to close the facility. Mr. Agnor said that a
Service Authority line comes directly to the edge of the lot, but turns at that point,
which makes it impossible for this property to hook-up. He added that the Service Authority
has granted the Piney Mountain Restaurant a temporary emergency hook-up to the water line,
with the understanding that the owner apply for an amendment to the service area which
would allow permanent hook-up for this property.. Mr. Agnor said that is what is being
requested today, and that he would like the Board to. adopt a resolution of intent to cover
this request.
Dr. Iachetta said he has spoken to the owner of the Piney Mountain Restaurant, a
foreign gentleman with a very limited understanding of the english language, and he felt
the Board should take the initiative in this instance and initiate the procedure to provide
service to the lot in question. Dr~ Iachetta then offered motion to set October 14, 1981,
at 11:00 A.M. as the time of public hearing to amend the service areas of the Albemarle
County Service Authority to include the Piney Mountain Restaurant. The motion was seconded
by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing to amend Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions
for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, of the Albemarle County Code, by adding a new
Section 8-26.1, to provide that mobile homes shall be real estate for the purposes of
Article II provided that certain conditions are met. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on
August 26 and September 2, 1981.)
The Ordinance as advertised reads as follows:
BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that Article VII, Chapter 8, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for
Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, of the Albemarle County Code is
hereby amended by adding a new Section 8-26.1 to provide that mobile homes
shall be real estate if certain conditions are met, as follows:
Section 8-26.1. Mobile homes; eligibility; restrictions.
For purposes of this Article, mobile homes shall be real estate if the
owner's intention that it be permanently affixed is shown by the facts
that (t) it is located on land belonging in whole or in part to the
owner of the mobile home, his spouse, parent, or child, and is con-
nected to permanent water and sewage lines or facilities; or (2)
whether or not it is located on land belonging to persons described in
subsection (i), it rests on a permanent foundation, and consists of
two or more mobile units which are connected in such a manner that
they cannot be towed together on a highway, or consist of a mobile
unit and other connected rooms or additions which must be removed
before the mobile unit can be towed on a highway.
Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, stated that this ordinance is a result of a
change in the Code of Virginia. Wording in Section 58-760.1(f) used to state "may adopt
an ordinance granting relief for the elderly and handicapped". An amendment to this
section of the Code, which was brought about by a change in the Constitution, now states
"shall include mobile homes as real estate..." Mr. Jones qualified the exemption by
stating that for the mobile home to qualify for relief, the mobile home must be owned by
the owner of the propertyon which the mobile home sits. This would disqualify mobile
homes located in a trailer park.
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There was no one present wishing to
speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public
hearing closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the ordinance
as advertised and set out above. There was no discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion, Business License re: Rental Property. Miss Nash said
she requested this be placed on the agenda, and asked Mr. Jones if this ordinance is
suddenly being applied retroactively, and how this affects people who rent areas in their
private homes. Mr. Ray Jones said that Section 11-71 of the Code of Albemarle requires
that aperson in the business of renting houses, apartments, or commercial property apply
for a business license. This section has been in the Business License Tax Code since the
ordinance was adopted in 1973. Sections 11-12(c), ll-15(a) and ll-22(a,b,c and d) set
out procedures for the Director of Finance to follow in assessing the tax under this
ordinance. Mr. Jones stated that for the last two years the County has been receiving a
copy of Schedule C of the Federal income tax statements for persons residing in the
County. Information available from this tax form has lead to the discovery that many
county residents deal in the rental of property. Thus, those persons are being taxed
under this ordinance.
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
37.
Dr. Iachetta asked if this ordinance applied to persons renting private rooms in
their home. Mr. Jones said if gross receipts equal $2,500 and the rooms are completely
self-contained (meaning that bath and cooking facilities are immediately available within
the rented space). Mr. Jones said he is allowed to go back three years for the assessment
and collection of the tax and that this regulation conforms to state license regulations.
Mr. Bill Coburn of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Realtors Association said he was to
have presented a resolution to the Board today, but it was not prepared in time. Mr.
Coburn said it is the consensus that the section which allows collection retroactively be
eliminated from this ordinance, because many people do not know about this tax, have never
been sent any license forms or notified of the tax by the County. Mr. Coburn said it is a
nuisance tax as far as taxing private home owners, and he said the resolution was also to
contain that statement.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to receive information from Mr. Jones about the
collection procedure, the notification procedure, and whether or not the retroactive tax
can be waived or eliminated for private home-owners. (Note: Mr. Henley arrived at 10:25
A.M.)
Agenda Item No. 8. Henry Javor Site Plan Appeal. (Site Plan drawn by Stephen A.
Phillips, P.E., prepared on July 20, 1981 and revised August 7, 1981.)(NOTE: A verbatim
transcript has been prepared on this discussion and is on permanent file in the Office of
the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Fisher said he had requested that this site
plan be appealed in his memorandum to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning,
dated August 28, 1981, as follows:
"I have carefully reviewed the record of this site plan application ap-
proved by the Planning Commission on August 18, 1981. I hereby request a
formal review by the Board of Supervisors, with staff input on the fol-
lowing concerns:
1)
No provision for public water and sewer facilities; use of parking
areas for drainfields.
2)
Applicant has provided no statement of intended use for the proposed
structures; Planning Commission has required individual determination
of suitable occupancy for each of the thirty-two units.
3)
Applicant has charged the planning staff with last minute changes in
its recommendations to the Planning Commission.
4)
Effect of this development on public reservoirs has not been reviewed;
severe slopes.
5) Need for separate entrance vs. use of existing adjacent entrance.
6) Effect of this development on scenic highway and need for screening."
Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the list of conditions imposed by
the Planning Commission, following its approval of this site plan on August 18, 1981, as
follows:
Location: Parcel 23B on tax map 59, Samuel Miller District; located on the
north side of 250 West between Kirtley & Rothwell Distributing Companies.
Acreage: 5.02 acres.
Zoning: LI, Light Industry.
History: The Planning Commission at its meeting on June 21, 1977 approved
with conditions SP-77-30. This was a request to locate a veterinary
hospital on a portion of the property. The special permit was deferred
indefinitely, at the applicant's request, from the Board of Supervisors
meeting.
The Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 26, 1978, deferred
indefinitely Henry Javor Warehouse Facility Site Plan at the request
of the applicant. This was a request to locate a 16,000 square foot
building on this property.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February
17, 1981, deferred indefinitely the Henry Javor Warehouse Facility
Site Plan. This was a proposal to locate a 40,000 square foot ware-
house facility on 5.02 acres.
The Planning Commission at its meeting on July 21, 1981, deferred this
site plan to the August 18, 1981, meeting at the request of the applicant.
The Board of Zoning Appeals at its meeting on August 11, 1981 granted
VA-81-46. This was a request for a 74 foot variance from the 150 foot
scenic highway setback.
Proposal: To locate thirty-two units totalling 57,600 square feet on a
5.02 acre parcel. (See Staff Comment for discussion of proposed use).
Topography of Area: Moderately rolling, however, there are some areas with
severe slopes at the northern property line and eastern boundary line.
September 9~ 1981 (Regular Da~ Meeting)
Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 250 West
currently carries 6,095 vehicle trips per day.
Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna Watershed.
Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soil in this area
consists of a deep well drained clay soil.
Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/conservation with a recom-
mended density of one dwelling unit per five acres.
Type Utilities: Public water is available from an 8 inch line in Ednam
Forest property near the southern edge of Route 250 West. This is
approximately 1400 feet from Folly Road. Public sewer is not available.
Staff Comment: The Highway Department has recommended that full frontage
development with CG-6 curb and gutter be required. The Planning
Commission may want to consider requiring these recommended improve-
ments as a condition of approval. The Highway Department had issued,
prior to Planning Commission review of this site plan, a commercial
entrance permit covering a deceleration lane but no curb and gutter,
for this property. This permit was issued based on the approval of a
previous site plan. However, the Planning Department has informed the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation that no site plan
for this property has yet received final approval. The Highway Depart-
ment, as a result of this information, has requested the applicant to
cease any and all work on the entrance.
The Planning Commission may want to consider requiring the applicant
to access the property from Folly Road rather than having direct
access onto Route 250 West as presently shown on the site plan. The
Staff had previously recommended as a condition of approval~for SP-77-
30, a proposal to locate a veterinary hospital, that access to the
property be restricted to Folly Road. This was consistent with the
Planning Commission's policy of minimizing entrances on major roadways.
The Planning Commission, however, approved the SP-77-30 for the
veterinary hospital limiting the access Route to 250 West to one
entrance only to serve the entire 5.02 parcel. Due to this previous
action of the Planning Commission, the Staff did not include in the
recommended conditions of approval for the Henry Javor Site Plan a
condition restricting access to Route 250 West.
The Fire Official will review the provisions for the handicapped when
the applicant proposes specific uses for the units. A memo has been
submitted by the Fire Official to the Planning Department detailing
his concerns with the development of this property. Specifically, the
Fire Official recommends that the applicant hook up to public water
and that no further commercial development be allowed in this area
until better fire protection is available.
The Health Department has commented that based on the percolation test
results and soil study of this site, it will be possible to install
the required amount of septic system for the thirty-two units. The
area computations for the drainfields were based upon an estimated
maximum of four employees per unit per day or eighty gallons per unit
per day. The Health Department has also commented that if any condi-
tions on the site are changed, the drainfield area could be adversely
affected. Grading in the drainfield area should therefore be closely
monitored.
The applicant has obtained a 74 foot variance from the 150 foot scenic
highway setback. A letter from Mr. Evans, the Deputy Zoning Adminis-
trator, is attached and notes that the variance allows "structures
(service offices) to be located 76 feet from the right-of-way."
The Planning Staff, the Zoning Administrator and the applicant met in
July to review this site plan. At the first and following meetings
with the applicant, the intended uses for the property were discussed.
The applicant was advised that the use must comply with the light
industrial zoning. Uses such as warehouse facilities or wholesale
business would be permitted only by special use permit. It was
initially the Staff's understanding that the applicant intended to
apply for a special use permit for wholesale purposes. The amount of
required parking was thus based on this proposed use. In subsequent
meetings with the applicant, the Staff came to understand that the
applicant was unable to specify an exact use for the thirty-two units.
It is the Staff's understanding that the applicant intends to comply
with the LI zoning but is unable to state who will occupy or what uses
will be housed in the thirty-two units. The Staff has therefore based
the required parking on the highest use, regarding parking space
requirements, allowed by right in a light industrial zone. Parking
spaces required were based on one space per two hundred square feet of
net office area. Using a figure of 1200 square feet for the net
office space, 192 parking spaces will be required and, in addition,
five loading spaces.
As presently shown, Mr. Javor could have any use permitted by right in
the LI zone on this property. The Planning Commission may wish to
consider limiting some of the uses permitted on this property or
requesting that certain uses not be permitted without further review
of the site plan. For example, a contractor's office and storage yard
is one of the most obvious uses which would necessitate a revision to
the present plan's design.
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
The County Engineer has commented that the pavement specifications
need to be revised to show six inches of stone. The County Engineer
has also suggested that the pavement specifications be designed
according to the most intensive use permitted by right on the pro-
perty. A drop inlet and pipe leading to the detention basin also
needs to be shown on the site plan.
The landscaping is shown on the site plan for the ?lanning~Commission's
review. The Staff has recommended that the applicant note on the site
plan existing vegetation which is not to be disturbed. This vegetation
is primarily on the eastern and western property line and would serve
as a buffer from adjacent property. If this vegetation is removed,
the Staff recommends that the applicant plant trees along these ~
boundaries.
This site plan will meet the requirements of Article 32 of the Zoning'
Ordinance and the Staff recommends approval subject to the foliowing:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
A building permit can be processed when the following conditions have
been met:
de
ge
Fire Official approval of handicapped provisions and dumpster
location;
Fire Official approval of fire protection measures;
Staff approval of landscape plan and screening along eastern and
western property lines;
Provide schedule of parking required and provided, and note
location;
Note location and dimension of loading spaces;
Pavement specifications to be designed according to most inten-
sive use and approved by the County Engineer;
Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance.
Note drop inlet and pipe size;
County Engineer approval of drainage plans and curbing;
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance and turn lane;
A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following condition
has been met:
a. Fire Official approval of fire flow, if necessary.
At its meeting of August 18, 1981, the Planning Commission approved this site plan
with conditions l(a) through l(k) recommended by the staff and changed or added the
following conditions:
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a
commercial entrance, turn lane and full frontage improvements;
Note correct building setback and reference variance;
Note on the site plan that approval of site plan does not include
authorization for contractor's office and equipment storage yard;
A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions
have been met:
Fire Official approval of fire alarm system;
Written Health Department approval of use for each individual
unit;
e
Fire Official approval, when public water is available, of hydrant
location and fire flow.
Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission Chairman, Mrs. Norma A. Diehl,
wrote a letter to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department, stating the Commission's
reasons for proposed condition 2(b) "Written Health Department approval of use for each
individual unit". Mr~ Tucker read the letter addressed to Mr. Jack Collins, dated August
26, 1981, as follows:
"On August 18, 1981, the Planning Commission approved the Henry Javor site
plan subject to various conditions. One condition of approval states that
before a certificate of occupancy can be issued, Health Department approval
of the use will be required for each individual unit.
Jeff McDaniel of your Department had stated, in a letter dated August 6,
1981, that it would be possible to install the required amount of septic
system for the thirty-two units. It is the Commission's understanding that
the area computation for the field was based on an estimated maximum of
four employees per unit per day or eighty gallons per unit per day. As you
are aware, this site plan does represent a departure from most site plans
reviewed since the plan does not indicate a particular use for each unit.
The Commission is concerned about receiving plans which do nov specify
intended uses, and, in our approval, required that the amount of parking
required, pavement specifications and other items be designed or sized for
the maximum allowed usage permitted in the Light Industrial Zone. In
addition, the Fire Official's approval is tied to each units' use. It is
the official request of the Planning Commission that the Health Department
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day)
also grant approval for each unit based on the actual use of that unit.
This review and approval by the Health Department is required before a
certificate of occupancy can be issued for the unit. We feel that this
condition will insure that adequate septic sizing for each individual use
is accomplished. It is a concern that using an average figure to size the
septic system may prove to be inadequate to provide for some uses permitted
by right in light industrial zoned property."
Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Tucker ever remembered someone filing a site plan where the
use of the building was unknown. Mr. Tucker said only with retail shopping centers. (Mr.
Lindstrom left at 10:44 A.M.) In that case, it is not knowing exactly the type of retail
space. If public water and sewer were available to this property, there might not be the
same problems, but there are uses in the LI district which require more water than what is
calculated for a typical maximum standard. That might create a problem. Dr. Iachetta
said the applicant could always hook to the public water line nearby, but more importantly
Dr. Iachetta said he was concerned about the septic system capacity.
Miss Nash asked if there was adequate parking. Mr. Tucker noted that the Commission
was requiring maximum parking for this site plan and indicated the location~ of parking
spaces. Miss Nash stated her concern that some of the parking was to be located directly
on top of proposed septic fields.
Mr. Fisher read from the Zoning Ordinance a list of uses by right in the Light Indus-
trial district. Mr. Fisher pointed out that some of those allowed uses require great
quantities of watery far more than the amount calculated for flushing toilets. (Mr.
Lindstrom returned at 10:47 a.m.)
Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and
Transportation to comment on the proposed entrance. Mr. Roosevelt said initially he was
under the impression that there was no available access onto Folly Road. Mr. Roosevelt
said that access now is available, but he felt that if the proposed turn lane into this
site could be constructed and connected with the turn lane already present at the Kirtley
site, it would offset any possible congestion that an additional entrance would cause.
Mr. Roosevelt emphasized that he is recommending full-width frontage development a~n~ not a
deceleration lane; also that he is recommending curb and gutter and that storm sewer or
substantial ditching may be required to handle water drainage.
Mr. Fisher asked for Mr. Javor's comments regarding the requirements of the Highway
Department. Mr. Paul Peatross, attorney representing Mr. Javor, said his client is here
today to receive approval of the site plan which was approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Highway Department will be able to require storm drainage. Mr.
Roosevelt said he only has the power to require a deceleration lane and curb and gutter,
that the Board would have to require storm drainage. Dr. Iachetta noted that if the
entrance is required off Folly Road, it would cause a serious drainage problem because of
the very steep terrain. Miss Nash stated her concern about the potential hazard full
frontage development would create in causing a "criss-cross pattern" between the Javor and
Sieg properties~
Mr. Fisher next asked about screening for this site. Mr. Tucker said a standard
condition was set by the Planning Commission for staff approval of these plans. Mr.
Fisher noted receipt of a letter from the League of Women Voters requesting that this site
plan be consistent with the Scenic Highways Designation of Route 250. Mr. Steven Phillips,
engineer for Mr. Javor, said the deletion of landscaping on the revised site plan was
strictly an oversight, that it was the intention to plant trees to provide screening of
this property.
Mr. Fisher next noted a communication received from Mr. J. Ashley Williams, regarding
runoff control review, dated August 31, 1981 as follows:
"The Engineering Department has reviewed the referenced plan with regard to
the runoff control ordinance. It appears, from our preliminary review,
that there is ample room on this site to have an adequate detention pond to
meet the requirements. As you are aware, a portion of this site is in the
watershed for the stormwater detention review."
Mr. Fisher said his third reason for requesting this appeal (Applicant charged that
the planning staff made last minute changes in its recommendations to the Planning Commis-
sion), should be dropped. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Department had allowed the appli-
cant to see a draft of those recommendations, which was incomplete at the time and the
applicant assumed it was the final list of recommendations. Mr. Fisher noted that the
applicant does not wish to follow up on those charges.
Mr. Fisher next asked Mr. Jeff McDaniel of the Thomas Jefferson Health District, how
having a septic system located beneath a paved parking area would be affected. Mr. McDaniel
said it is allowed in the State regulations governing the location of septic systems
and that having the surface unexposed to rain actually helps the drainfield. Mr. Fisher
asked how possible leaks would be discovered. Mr. McDaniel said problems with the asphalt
would most likely occur. Mr. McDaniel also noted that locating septic systems under
parking areas would be expensive to repair, but that few problems have occurred resulting
from the weight of vehicles traveling on the surface. Mr. Fisher asked if oxygen were
necessary for the system to work. Mr. McDaniel said yes, but it has been found that
oxygen travels laterally as well as ~ertically. Dr. Iachetta asked if evaporation was
necessary for the efficient use of a septic system. Mr. McDaniel said no, only a small
percentage of the moisture is removed through evaporation, the bulk is absorbed through
the ground. Mr. McDaniel noted that percolation tests were conducted in his presence by
Mr. Phillips, engineer for Mr. Javor, and those tests indicated proper soils for septic
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
systems. Mr. Fisher asked if ~here were any limiting physical factors as to the location
of the septic systems. Mr. McDaniel noted that the "auxiliary site" is an area proposed
for possible road cuts. If those "cuts" are made, it would remove much of the good,
tested soils and would require retesting for an auxiliary septic system site. Mr. McDaniel
also noted that the drainage pond at the back of the property and a stream located nearby
the Javor property would have to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Fisher next noted receipt of two memoranda from Ira B. Cortez, County Fire
Official, dated July 14 and August 17, 1981, respectively, as follows:
"1.
In accordance with 32.5.18, Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, hydrants
shall be provided by the developer as required by ISO standards.
Where there is no alternate source of water in this highly developed
and commercial area of the County, I feel very strongly about requiring
the placement of a hydrant system before any further development
should be permitted.
Though this would be an extreme burden on Mr. Javor, I believe some
solution could be attained with the cooperation of the Service Authority
and all of the commercial property owners in the area.
A potentially hazardous condition exists in this area due in part to
the types of occupancies, but also because of the long response time
of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. (Crozet is the fire depart-
ment for this area.)
It is not recommended to allow any further commercial development in
this area until better fire protection can be provided."
"Please add the following to my memo dated July 14, 1981.
In the case of Mr. Javor's site, where he plans to place fire walls at
less square footage than required (10,000) and the construction is of
non-combustible materials (masonry), an approved early warning fire
alarm system connected to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Fire Depart-
ment station, would be a viable alternative. However, when public
water is available, hydrants with a fire flow of 1500 GPM ~ 20 PSI
would be required."
Mr. Cortez was present and stated he would very much~like t° see public water made
available in this area, but since Mr. Javor has confirmed that fire safety walls will be
built between units at this proposed site, he is not opposed to a well system.
Mr. J. W. Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority, confirmed that water is
available at Ednam, and that adequate pressure is there to provide domestic and fire
supression capabilities to the Javor site. Dr. Iachetta asked the aPproximate cost for a
line from Ednam to the Javor site. Mr. Brent said approximately $25,000 to $30,000.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. McDaniel the basis for determining the size of the well for this
proposed site. Mr. McDaniel said the Health Department was working on figures provided by
the County at four persons per building, twenty gallons of water per person, per day for a
total of eighty gallons per day per unit. Mr. McDaniel said he would like to see additional
plans for the site before final figures are recommended. Mr. Fisher said he was very
concerned because there is the unknown factor of water usage far exceeding drinking water
and toilet facility usage. Mr. McDaniel said, many times permits are issued on an average
water consumption figure. Mr. McDaniel added that the Health Department monitors occupa-
ncy permits to insure that water consumption is not exceeded, but he stressed that if any
of those leased properties change hands and then exceed those capabilities, he has no way
of knowing about it unless he receives a complaint. Mr. Tucker said his office did not
give the Health Department the figure of four persons per building, and that those figures
were only in use at the time this property was being considered for a wholesale warehouse.
Mr. Peatross said this site is to be developed in phases, and that since an occupancy
permit must be received from the Health Department prior to occupancy, once available
water quantities are used, no more occupancy permits will be issued. Mr. Fisher said he
is not concerned about the number of employees, he is concerned about industrial usage of
water and how to keep track of those'users. Dr. Iachetta said he is concerned not only
about the water supply but the drainfield being able to handle that water. Mr. Phillips
suggested the possibility of placing meters not only on each unit's water supply, but also
on meters leading into the drainfields which could be monitored and figures submitted to
the State Health Department on a regular basis, to control the potential for overloading
the drainfield.
Mr. Fisher said the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Frederick W. ?ayne, had advised the
Planning Commission that it would be unlawful to approve this site plan unless some
general use for each unit is stated. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission did not take
that advise. Mr. Lindstrom said that even if a general use is known at the time of site
plan approval, there is no guarantee that those uses will still be there in the future;
and the only way he knows to guarantee a use is through a proffer. (At 11:40 A.M., Mr.
Frederick W. ?ayne, Deputy County Attorney arrived). Mr. Fisher said he does not un-
derstand how the Health Department can design a well which will supply 360 gallons per day
per unit and the septic drainfield is only required to handle 80 gallons per day per unit.
Mr. Fisher suggested the possibility of having the Health Department monitor all future
occupants for this site in order to be certain that the drainfield is not over used. Mr.
McDaniel said there is nowhere else in the County that such a requirement has ever been
placed. Mr. Javor said he plans to build this complex in phases and that if the drain-
field's capacity is met before the project is completed, then he will not be able to
construct any more buildings. Mr. Javor added that if there are any problems with the
drainfield once the buildings are occupied, the Health Department has the ability to close
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
his facility down. Mr. Cortez suggested that the Health Departmen~ be added to a basic
list of County Departments which must give approval before a change in occupancy is
granted at any business location. Mr'. Cortez said currently the Z~ning Administrator, the
inspections department, and fire official are on a check list for
he felt the Health Department could be added to that list with lit
Cortez added that he is aware of several buildings in the County w.
tenants and the ~ew~t~nant uses substantially more water than what
ved. Mr. Payne said he views the problem of monitoring future occ
problem. He stated that it is clearly stated in Zoning Ordinance
general use for each structure is required as part of the site
use (Section 32.2.1) must also be reviewed; if this is not being d
enforcement problem. Mr. Payne added that this is the reason he s
Commission that a site plan presented for approval without stating
structure would be illegal. Mr. Payne said the Planning Commissiol
plan by attempting to require the maximum use for each requirement
fire control requirements, etc. Dr. Iachetta said that parking do~
health, safety and welfare, water and sewer do affect the public.
placing a condition on this site plan approval which would limit
one which would not exceed certain gallonage quantities into the d~
asked where the nearest sewer line was located. Mr. Tucker said a'
Interceptor.
Mr. Fisher suggested the addition of two more conditions unde
being:
o. Well supply system is to have an operating meter.
p. Usage of water on the site shall be limited to 2,560 gal~
~ business license and
~le difficulty. Mr.
~ich have changed
was originally appro-
~pants as an enforcement
3ection 32.4.30 that a
~ and that any change in
~ne, then it is an
~ated to the Planning
a general use for each
approved this site
i.e. parking, water,
s not affect public
Mr. Payne suggested
~e use of each unit to
~ainfield. Dr. Iachetta
Ednam, the Morey Creek
number one, that
ons per day.
Mr. Payne said the zoning ordinance requires 60,000 square feet per establishment and
it could be interpreted that each unit is a separate establishment.
Dr. Iachetta said he would like to' see the staff resolve the water capacity this site
will require and come back with a recommendation on September 16th, and offered motion to
defer action on this site plan appeal. Mr. Fisher said he would also like to see the
legal staff resolve how the zoning ordinance applies to this particular site plan. The
motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how the Board can have the Health Department placed on the
Business License "check list". Mr. Fisher said he felt this could be handled adminis-
tratively.
Agenda Item No. 10. At 12:00 Noon, motion was Offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr.
Iachetta, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing legal matters.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
At 2:31 P.M., the Board reconvened back into open session.
return for the remainder of the meeting.)
(Mr. Henley did not
Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Amend ZOning Ordinance, Natural Resource Extraction;
Exploratory Drilling. Mr. Fisher said he had requested that this matter be discussed by
the Board. He then asked Mr. St. John to explain his proposed wording for natural resource
extraction regulations in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. St. John said his office had first
thought that exploratory drilling would best be covered in an ordinance separate from the
Zoning Ordinance, but have since decided that the definition in the Zoning Ordinance for
natural resource extraction should be revised.
Mr. Fisher said he has become concerned about natural resource extraction because it
has recently come to his attention that thousands of acres in Albemarle County are cur-
rently under lease with large companies for the purpose of exploring for oil and natural
gas. Mr. Fisher felt that any type of boring would require heavy machinery, removal of
trees, road building, etc., and felt this should be thoroughly covered in the Zoning
Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said he did not think too many deep borings would occur in this
county because of the prohibitive costs, but felt that the more shallow mining processes
could cause environmental damage if not properly regulated.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution of intent:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend the definition of "Natural
Resource Extraction" in Section 3.0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to read as follows:
NATURAL RESOURCE EXTRACTION: The process by which coal, sand, gravel,
ore or other minerals is removed from any open p2t or any underground
workings and produced for sale, exchange or commercial use and all
shafts, slopes, drifts or inclines leading thereto and including all
buildings, structures and!equipment above and below the surface of the
ground used in connection with such process. Natural resource extrac-
tion as defined herein shall include all exploratory activities designed
to determine the presence of coal, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals,
including, but not limited to, excavation, drilling, boring and core
boring; provided, however, that natural resource extraction shall not
include the drilling or boring of wells for the purpose of obtaining
water.
September 9, 1981 (Regular D~ Meeting~)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle Counvy Planning Commission
is hereby directed to hold public hearings on this proposed amendment and
to return its recommendation to this Board as soon as possible.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Vivarium Study. Mr. Fisher read the following
letter, dated September 8, 1981, from Mayor Francis L. Buok:
"This letter is to confirm that the City Council is interested in retaining
another consultant to study and assess the disposal of radioactive waste at
the University's incineravor. We feel that the report by the previous
consultant raised issues about the safety of the installation which we
cannot allow to go unanswered. Unfortunately, so many questions have been
raised as to our consultant's credentials, we do not feel that we can
proceed further in discussion with the University.
Therefore, the City plans on retaining another consultant. If the County
would like to join in this effort, we would split the costs as before.
Please let me know the Board's position."
Mr. Fisher said he felt more should be known about the potential consultant before
that person is hired, and also the fee involved before the Board makes a decision. Mr.
Lindstrom said he felt the City should be more specific on their proposal. Miss Nash and
Mr. McCann said they would also be willing to discuss this matter further with the City.
Dr. Iachetta said he would not be in favor of hiring another consultant, or splitting the
costs with the City; that he feels the nuclear experts at the University are about as
expert as can be found anywhere in the country and that if the County feels the Vivarium
is creating air quality hazards or other similar problems, there are appropriate State
agencies that can be contacted to investigate those problems.
Mr. Fisher said he will respond to the City requesting additional information and
when that information arrives, the Board can make a final decision.
Agenda Item No. 12. Annual Report: Watershed Management Official. Mr. Agnor
presented the second annual report of the Watershed Management Official for the period
July, 1980 through July, 1981, in accordance with the contract which established this
position. Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, was present. Mr. Fisher
thanked Mr. Norris for his services during the year. Mr. Fisher asked if a final report
has yet been received on a study entitled "Chapel Hill Study". Mr. Norris said the report
is in press and should be received shortly. Mr. Norris said this report will be a case
study of watershed management methods used in Albemarle County as well as several other
areas throughout the state.
Miss Nash asked Mr. Norris' opinion of the 5% exclusion in the Runoff Control Ordinance.
Mr. Norris said there have been a few cases recently which have caused great concern not
only to the Board but to citizens, and he felt it should be reviewed during the upcoming
year. Dr. Iachetta said he never favored the 5% exclusion and felt a much lesser figure
should be used for areas directly adjacent to the reservoir.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Employee Health Insurance Program. Mr. Agnor read
his memorandum dated September 3, 1981, to the Board of Supervisors as follows:
"The Superintendent of Schools, Director of Finance, Executive Director of
the Service Authority, Administrator of the Joint Security Complex, and the
County Executive have completed a review of the health insurance program
experience from July, 1980, through June, 1981, in preparation for the
contract anniversary of the program October 1. The experience of the
program has improved over last year as follows:
County Group Ail County Group
80-81 Blue Cross Variance 79-80 Variance
Admissions/1000 95 111 - 16 118
members
23
Inpatient days/ 600 744 - 144 810
1000 members
210
Average length 6.31 6.72 - 0.41 6.86
of stay
- 0.55
You will note that the rate of admissions and days per thousand are lower
than the average Blue Cross groups, and considerably lower than last year.
Financially the group plan has also improved over last year. The current
rate structure, adopted in February, 1981, is estimated to end the contract
year in September with a deficit of $36,592 in paid claims compared to a
$341,376 deficit last year. This $36,592 deficit represents a 4% shortfall
of the group plan's income, and can be recovered in the rate structure to
be considered effective October 1. It represents approximately one-half
month of income of the plan. It should be noted that this deficit repre-
sents the cash position of the plan, i.e., the claims filed and paid
matched against the income of the plan.
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
There are incurred liabilities of the plan which represent claims that have
occurred during the contract year, but will not have been filed for payment
by the end of the contract year on September 30. These claims can be
referred to as "in the pipeline" and will always exist as long as the plan
is a continuing benefit program. The incurred claims are estimated to be
$174,519 which represents about two months of the income for the plan.
The plan has been administered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield for a cost of
$16,158. They have offered to continue the plan for next year at an
estimated cost of $17,225, a 6.6% increase over the current year. This
cost represents 1.7% of the plan's total estimated income for 81-82.
A comparison of the rate schedules of other local governments and school
divisions with similar health plans within the County's employment area was
made by the committee. The comparison indicates that the current County
rates are lower than the others, and proposed rates should remain com-
petitive, depending on the changes in the rates of other plans.
Recommendation: The committee recommends that the present plan be con-
tinued for another year at the following rates:
Monthly Rates - Twelve Month Payment
Current Proposed Increase
Rate Rate $ %
Subscriber
Subscriber w/1 Minor
Subscriber w/Family
36.66 42.80 6.14 16.7%
51.38 59.98 8.60 16.7%
103.46 120.80 17.34 16.7%
Employer Cost
Employee Cost w/Minor
Employee Cost w/Family
36.66 42.80 6.14 16.7%
14.72 17.18 2.46 16.7%
66.80 78.00 11.20 16.7%
Monthly Rates - 10 Month Payment (School System)
Subscriber
Subscriber w/1Minor
Subscriber w/Family
46.98 51.36 4.38 9.3%
65.80 71.98 6.18 9.4%
132.82 144.98 12.16 9.2%
Employer Cost 46.98
Employee Cost w/Minor 18.82
Employee Cost w/Family 85.84
51.36 4.38 9.3%
20.62 1.80 9.5%
93.62 7.78 9.1%
These rates are calculated to recover the paid claims (cash) deficit of the
plan, and provide for an estimated inflation factor in health care costs of
26%. Projections of the inflation factor are similar to other economic
projections, and may be incorrect. Medical costs are rising faster than
any other element of the State budget according to the Secretary of Finance
and Administration in a meeting this week. If the projections are wrong,
the plan being experience rated annually, will be adjusted next year. It
is believed the estimate will keep the plan in a sound cash position. To
further insure the financial condition of the plan, it is proposed to
continue to provide an insurance reserve allocation in the fiscal budget
for 82-83.
The impact on the 81-82 General Fund budget of these proposed rates is 3%
over the budget estimate. The plan is budgeted at $470 per employee, and
the rate proposed to change October 1 calculates to $485 per employee for
the budget year. The $15 difference per employee will be absorbed in the
department budgets from other line item appropriations.
Lsstly, it should be reported that the payment of last year's $341,376 cash
deficit was completed in early August as authorized. The distribution of
this deficit was spread over two budget years as follows:
Fund Ratio 80-81 81-82
General Fund
School Fund
Jail Fund
Service Authority
Vo-Tech School
16.6% $ 28,334 $ 28,334
75.6 129,040 129,040
3.0 5,120 5,120
2.5 4,268 4,268
2.3 3~926 3,926
100.0 $170,688 $170,688
The $28,344 General Fund payment was paid with a $20,000 insurance reserve
that was budgeted, and the $8,344 balance allocated to departments at
$40.46 per employee to be paid from salary savings of attrition, cuts in
travel accounts, or other line item adjustments. The total impact there-
fore on General Government 81-82 departmental budgets will be $55 per
employee ($15 rate adjustment plus $40 payment of deficit).
The $129,040 School Fund payment was paid with a $60,000 budgeted insurance
reserve, and the $69,040 balance charged to the School Fund Insurance
Premium appropriation. These distributions were made in accordance with
the approval made in January."
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to renew the health
insurance plan with the rate schedule as listed in the memorandum presented. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
September 9 1981 (Re~uiar Da~Mee_t~a~
38(
Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion: Usage of Meadows Community Center. Mr. Agnor read
from a memorandum from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Recreation Program Coordinator for the
Department of Parks and Recreation, dated September 3, 1981, as follows:
"It is my understanding that the Jefferson Area Board on Aging Board, due
to a reduction in funding, has voted to discontinue its operation of the
Meadows Community Center effective September 30, 1981. As you know, there
has been a proposal made that our Department take over the operation of the
Center, and at your request we have considered this proposal.
The annual operating budget of the Meadows Center is $7,621. The County is
currently paying for the electric service'for the building which averages
approximately $60.00 per month. Funding of the Center for the period of
October 1, 1981 through June 30, 1982, would be approximately $5',700.00 in
addition to the electrical services already being paid by the County.
The programs at the Meadows center are designed primarily for Senior
Citizens and are attended by both the tenants of the Meadows and senior
citizens from the community. The number of seniors from the community is
gradually increasing as the programs become more popular. In addition to
the activities offered, the Meadows Center serves as a gathering place
where senior citizens can come and meet other seniors, have conversation
and develop friendships. The Center has also been used as a rental facility
for various outside groups.
As we have found through our own experiences, it takes time for new pro-
grams to develop, and I think the potential is there for the Meadows to
become a valuable senior citizen facility. However, our Department is
currently involved in a second year lease on the Greenwood CommunitY
Center, and we are working very hard to make it a successful operation in
terms of attendance and revenues produced. We are expecting some sort of
indication during the budget planning proceSs in a few months about the
status of the Greenwood Center. At this time, we do not want to make a
request for any additional facilities until a decision is'made on the
continued operation of the Greenwood Community Center.
Due to the time factor involved, if the Board of Supervisors does wish to
continue the operation of the Meadows, the most reasonable solution would
be to allocate ~funds to JABA to allow them to continue to operate the
facility until other arrangements can be made."
'~Mr. AgnorAthere are one or more private organizations which may be interested in
assuming the responsibility of the Meadows Center. Mr. Agnor recommended that the Center
be funded until such time as the County has completed its review of the Greenwood Community
Center and pursue the possibility of having the Meadows operated by some other organization.
He then recommended that an appropriation be made to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging for
the remainder of this calendar year, in the amount of $1,850. Mr. Agnor said a number of
letters have been received from organizations and citizens requesting this senior center
be allowed to remain open.
Mr. Agnor then noted that County staff has begums/the process of analyzing the dimin-
as -
ishing federal~_~ds of a number of agencies~s the~turn to Albemarle County ~or sis
on
public ~.~,, ~
Hr. ~±sher said he notioed several people present regarding this ~tem. Mr. ~isher
also noted that although Mr. ~enley was not present, he had informed the Chairman of. his
support of Mr. Agnor~s reoommendation.
Mr. Roy Patterson said this is a very active facility which is a credit to the
community and County. Mr. Patterson said he wished to see this center remain open.
Mr. James Baldwin said he is the past president of the Meadows Community Center
group. Mr. Baldwin said this center is a model of senior centers and he hoped the County
would allow it to continue in operation.
Mr. Blair Funkhouser said there is a great deal of volunteer work which takes place
at the Center, and he noted items such as a piano and a freezer which have been donated by
local citizens for their use. Mr. Funkhouser said he hoped the County would allow this
good work to continue.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the recommendation Of the County
Executive.
Ms. Lydia Banks said she has been a resident for over two years and wished to thank
the Board for opening the Meadows and asked for the County's continued support.
Dr. Zachetta's motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Agnor said part of his recom-
mendation is an appropriation in the amount of $1,850. Dr. Iachetta said he wished to
include as part of his motion the adoption of the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
that $1,850.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund
and transferred to Code 9103-5632, Jefferson Area Board on Aging in order to
keep the Meadows Community Center in operation from October 1 through
December 31, 1981.
'
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. McCann said he is willing to support this motion and the Meadows on an interim
basis until the findings of the County Staff are completed. Mr. McCann said he would like
to see a volunteer agency run this Center rather than the County because that would create
two community centers in the Crozet area of the County (the second center being Greenwood).
There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
At 3:25 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a short recess.
P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 3:36
Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: Legislative Program, 1982-83. Mr. Agnor said he
has not received any suggestions for legislative programs from the staff and wished to see
this discussion deferred to October 7, 1981. Mr. Fisher said he has one item which he
would like to be considered, that being the election process followed by county govern-
ments. Mr. Fisher said the election process for counties requires candidates to file five
months before election, whereby candidates in cities file less than two months in advance
of the election. Mr. Fisher suggested that Virginia Code Section 24.1 be amended to
provide that for elections in counties holding biennial elections, the filing deadline for
independent candidates and for party nominees selected by any means other than a primary
shall be the second Tuesday in September.
Miss Nash felt it would be a good idea to propose legislation that if a vacancy
becomes available on a local board of supervisors, that an immediate special election
should take place. Dr. Iachetta said he does not feel a temporary appointment to the
board is the proper route, no matter if the appointing is done by a judge or a board of
supervisors. Dr. Iachetta said the law should be made uniform no matter what the level of
elected office. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney to prepare a resolution to be
reviewed on October 7th regarding this possible legislation.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appropriation Requests. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance,
was present to make the following appropriation requests, as described in his memorandum
dated September 4, 1981 as follows:
"There are three separate appropriations necessary in connection with the
move to the Central Office Building in September for (1) payment to the
transfer company; (2) purchase of furniture; and (3) final payments to the
contractors, architects, clerk of the works, etc.
(1) Payment to the Transfer Company - $25~000: The Purchasing Department
took bids on the move and obtained offers from three local movers. The
contract was awarded to the apparent low bidder (Norcross transfer) for
$24,496. The additional money is to pay vendors to dismantle equipment for
the move such as the printing press, bookkeeping machines, etc. The move
is to begin on September 25th at 5:00 a.m. and is to be completed by 12:00
noon on September 27th. The building will be closed on Friday, September
25th with the staff doing some packing in boxes prior to the move dates.
Where necessary, the staff will also do the unpacking on Sunday afternoon,
September 27th.
(2) Purchase of Furniture and Equipment - $49,395: There was no money
allocated for furniture and equipment in the original project appropriation
even though the architects estimated $311,780 (or 7% of the contract). It
was thought at the time that there might be some money left from change
orders and contingencies, but that is not the case.
The County Executive requested department heads to submit furniture requests
to the purchasing agent "only for those items necessary to make the move
from the buildings on Court Square to the Central Office Building on McIntire
Road". The County Executive went on to explain that items should not be
included such as "replacements". Ail furniture items have been priced with
the following summary estimates:
General Government Offices
Education Offices
Common Areas
Data Processing Office & Work Area
$ 9,400
6,500
23,270
i0~225
$49,395
(3) Final payments for the contractor~ architect~ clerk of the works~
computer area and change orders - $73~155: Upon recent analysis of the
project, after adding the cost of the computer room, telephone system and
some 16 change orderS to the construction contract, it appears that a
$73,155 appropriation is needed to complete the project. The total project
will cost $6,737,975. Appropriations to date amount to $6,664,820 leaving
an unappropriated balance of $73,155 which is the amount requested above.
Source of Funds: A portion of the above money needs can be provided from a
"clean-up" of unexpended balances of other programs and projects in Federal
Revenue Sharing. None of these projects have had any activity for twelve
months or more. Also, since the Lane Building was funded partially from
Revenue Sharing, the contracts meet the Davis-Bacon Act requirements.
Therefore, I recommend the following transfers of prior appropriations in
Revenue Sharing Fund:
382
FROM:
CODE DESCRIPTION
9800-7080.05
9800-7080.10
9800-7080.15
9800-7080.20
TO:
9800-7080.25
Fire Hydrants
Radios-Volunteer Fire Company
Collection Containers-Solid Waste
Purchase of Post Office Building
Administration & Court Buildings
AMOUNT
$ 851.30
2,700.00
51,600.00
...17,983.70
$73,155,00
$73,155.00
This transfer will clean up the majority of the unexpended balances in the
Revenue Sharing Fund and meet the money needs of No. 3 above - Final
Payments on the Lane Building.
The other two needs discussed above should be handled as special appro-
priations from the General Fund Balance to Staff Services Department
expendi~ture codes as follows:
4300-7002 Furniture & Fixtures - Lane' $49,395
4300-3005 Contract Services-Move to Lane 25~000
$74,395
Summary: The above transfer ($73,155) in Revenue Sharing on the project
and two appropriations for furniture ($49,395) and moving costs ($25,000)
should complete Phase I of the Central Office Complex."
Mr. Jones then requested that this action be taken in two separate votes by the Board.
Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $73,155 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
following Revenue Sharing Codes, and transferred to Code 9800-7080.25 for
Administration and Court Buildings.
9800-7080.05
9800-7080.10
9800-7080.15
9800-7080.20
Fire Hydrants
Radios-Volunteer Fire Company
Collection Containers-Solid Waste
Purchase of Post Office Building
$ 871.30
2,700.00
51,600.00
17,983.70
$73,155.oo
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $74,395 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund to the Staff Services Department budget as follows:
4300-7002 Furniture & Fixtures - Lane $49,395
4300-3005 Contracted Services - Move to Lane 25,000
$74,395
Mr. Agnor next introduced Dr. Carlos Gutierrez, Division Superintendent of Schools, to
the Board, and presented the following letter dated September 3, 1981:
"As you know, I have been wrestling with the question of how much return we
could expect, in terms of specific information and management suggestions,
from an independent audit of our financial affairs. Interviews have been
held with three firms. In the course of interviewing candidates (nine
finalists) for our administrative opening, we have asked in-depth questions
about audits and the value to be derived from them. The result of this
process is a specific request through you to the Board of Supervisors.
We have two princiPal objectives in mind:
1. To analyze the financial operations of the school system for the past
three years to provide a clear, detailed understanding of the reasons for
the operating deficit.
2. To make an operational study of the system and procedures of our
system in order to receive recommendations for the improvement of the
financial reporting system and improved financial and operational controls.
Our intention is to request that the auditors follow the following plan:
3.
4.
5.
Accumulation and analysis of data
Identification of specific objectives of the project
Definition of problem and opportunities for improvement
Determination of possible solutions and improvements
Evaluation of possible solutions and improvements
3'83
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
We would hope to begin on or about October 1, 1981, and to conclude some
sixty days thereafter. We believe that we can get maximum benefit if the
assistant superintendent for finance and business management, whom we
expect to have on board by then, is able to work with the auditors. I am,
therefore, requesting an appropriation, not to exceed $20,000, for the
purpose of performing an independent audit, with management improvement
emphasis, of all recent and current school division financial affairs."
Dr. Gutierrez said he would like this appropriation to hire a private accounting firm
to help eliminate the current million dollar fund deficit and also to prevent it from
reoccurring. Dr. Gutierrez said in order to better monitor the financial affairs of the
Schools, it is his intent to hire an Assistant Superintendent for finance and business
management; however, since this position is being filled at the beginning of the budget
cycle, it was felt there would be too many duties to handle initially between the budget
and the accounting analysis.
Mr. Agnor said he attended a meeting of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District and
heard a lecture by the Secretary of the Commonwealth for Administration and Finance
regarding funding problems and how they will be dealt with during a special session of the
General Assembly to be held this month. Mr. Agnor said he came away from that meeting
convinced that the budget cycle should be moved away from April 15, possibly as far away
as the middle of June. If this can be done, Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the
new Assistant Superintendent for Business and Finance be authorized to conduct the special
audit and not hire an independent auditor. Dr. Gutierrez said the candidates he has for
the new position are trained in business and financial management and areas of data
processing, but are not accountants by trade, and questioned whether this new person would
have the expertise to perform such an audit.
Mr. Fisher said his initial reaction is not only to hire a consultant auditing firm,
but also to set the budget cycle back to June as suggested by Mr. Agnor. Mr. Fisher said
the budget for education is such a major portion of the entire county's budget, that any
deficit affects the entire county. Mr. Lindstrom said that if the hiring of the con-
sultant is necessary, then he will support the request. Mr. McCann said he hoped that the
person hired to the position of Assistant Superintendent of Business and Finance would be
in a position not only to handle the outlay of money, but the auditing procedures etc.,
which are also necessary to proper business management. Dr. Iachetta said a year ago when
Mr. Ray Jones requested an advance of $865,000 for the School Fund, he was under the
impression that it was due to a cash flow problem and that it was anticipated that the
majority of that money would eventually be recovered. Dr. Iachetta said when Mr. Jones
came back in July and said the deficit was now $1.2 million, he was surprised, but realized
that something was definitely wrong in the forecasting technique. Dr. Iachetta then
offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $20,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the
General Fund and transferred to Code 17A-326.2 for an independent audit of
school division financial affairs.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. McCann said he would support the
motion since it seems essential to have this study in order to avoid a worsening of the
situation during the coming fiscal year.
Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 17a. Appointment, Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Fisher said
he would like to discuss this opening and requested it be placed on the September 16,
1981, agenda.
Agenda Item No. 17b. Appointment, Welfare Board: Motion was offered by Miss Nash to
appoint Mrs. Regina G. Withers of 2527 Hydraulic Road, Charlottesville, to the Welfare
Board for a term scheduled to expire on June 30, 1985. The motion was seconded by Mr.
McCann and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 17c. Appointments, Other: Mr. Agnor recommended that Mr. Patrick
Mullaney, currently the recreation coordinator for the Parks and Recreation Department, be
elevated to the position of Director of Parks and Recreation effective September 9, 1981.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. Mullaney is amply qualified for the position and felt he would serve
very well in that position. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,
to appoint Mr. Patrick Mullaney to the position of Director of Parks and Recreation. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley
September 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. McCann said he has been
requested by a citizen to determine if it would be possible for the County not only to
sell automobile stickers and tags, but also to make refunds on same, using the method
currently used by the State of Virginia.
Mr. McCann said he would like to see the access points to the South Rivanna River
Reservoir better maintained in order to allow better access for fishermen and canoers.
Dr. Iachetta said he has read the minu~es of the Board of Supervisors for June 9,
1980, and has found no errors. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve those minutes
as presented. Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Agnor asked if any Board members would be interested in attending dedication
ceremonies to be held in Washington, D. C. on October 12, 1981, at 2:00 P.M. to initiate
the York Town Festival. Mr. Agnor said a dogwood tree will be planted at the Capitol
Building on that day, and that a bus and lunch will be provided. Miss Nash said she has
contacted Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, person arranging the trip, that she intends to be
present. No other Board members indicated that they would attend.
Mr. Agnor noted a trip to Lexington, Kentucky, for the purpose of examining the
merger techniques accomplished in that area. Mr. Agnor said the new dates set for that
trip are October 27, 28 and 29, 1981.
Agenda No. 19. At 4:20 P.M., motion was offered ~ Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr.
Lindstrom, to adjourn to September 14, 1981 at 3:00 P.M~, in the County Executive's
Conference Room. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Chairman
384