Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1980-07-09
July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 9, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the'County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. ~-~_ .... The meeting was called to order at 9:ll A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: September 26 and October ll, 1979. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the minutes of September 26, 1979 as presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. The minutes of October ll, 1979 had not been read by Mr. Lindstrom and were deferred to a later date. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Take road into the State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor noted request dated May 13, 1980, from Mr. Richard L. Nunley, President of Progress Homes, for two roads in Section III of Camelot Subdivision, to be taken into the state secondary system. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in_Section 3 in the Camelot Subdivision: Camelot Drive -- Beginning at station 0+78 of Camelot Drive, a point common to the end of the state maintained portion of Camelot Drive (State Route 1510); thence with Camelot Drive in a northerly direction 485.32 feet to station 4+07.32, the end of Camelot Drive in Section 3 of Camelot. Jester Lane -- Beginning at station 0+18 of Jester Lane, a point common to the edge of pavement of Camelot Drive (station 2+67.32) and the centerline of Jester Lane; thence with Jester Lane in a southwesterly direction 1399.31 feet to station 14+17.31, the end of Jester Lane in Section 3 of Camelot. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 653, page 79. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3b. Letters from Highway Department. Mr. Agnor then presented the following letters received from Mr. Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer for the Department of Highways and Transportation: "June 12, 1980 As requested in your resolution dated October 10, 1979, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective July l, 1980. ADDITION OAK FOREST SUBDIVISION Pin Oak Court - From Oak Forest Circle to end of cul-de-sac. LENGTH 0.04 Mi." "June 16, 1980 As requested in your resolution dated February !3, 1980, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective July 1, 1980. ADDITION LENGTH MARSHALL MANORS SUBDIVISION Forrest Road - From intersection of Routes 1801 and 1802, southerly 0.13 mile. 0.13 Mi." Ju~y 9,. 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher then noted letter dated July 7, 1980 from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, regarding the 1980-81 Secondary Road Improvement Budget. Mr. Roosevelt was present and noted that the Six-Year Highway Plan does not have to be formally revised by the Board until 1982. Therefore, the purpose of the letter is to illustrate how the changes made at the last Board meeting affect future plans. (Copy is on file.) Agenda Item No. 3c. Other Highway Matters Not on the Agenda. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Engineering Department had any more information about the cul-de-sac in Jefferson Village which is not in the secondary system; such request was received from Mr. William Eagan. Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, was present and said he had examined the situation with the Highway Department and informed Mr. Eagan of the items which were necessary to be corrected before any acceptance of the cul-de-sac 6ouldabe made. However, Mr. Eagan was not very pleased and Mr. Williams had suggested he contact Dr. Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta said he had not heard anything else from Mr. Eagan. Dr. Iachetta then noted pot holes at the end of Route 651, which was paved last summer. Mr. Roosevelt said plans are underway for plant mix from the end at the Route 29 Bridge up to the intersection of Route 643. Dr. Iachetta then noted appreciation for the improvement of the entrance at Route 643. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any accident records for the traffic at the Fashion Square Mall. Mr. Roosevelt said no. However, the traffic through the sections in front of the mall seem to be running smoothly with less accidents than had been anticipated. There have been some problems south of the mall at the intersection of Hydraulic and Greenbrier Roads. Hopefully, the signal can be improved at these intersections before the Christmas season. Dr. Iachetta said the Transportation Safety Commission received a request about the left turn signal for traffic moving northward at the Shopper's World entrance. The situation is one that when the light turns green, one cannot turn left unless there is right-of-way. Therefore, traffic is confused about which move to make. The request is for the signal to be one which allows a left turn on the arrow and nothing else. Mr. Roosevelt said the signal was set up for left turn on green and he will discuss this with the traffic engineer because it was agreed that after six months the situation would be reviewed to determine if the signal were functioning properly or if such signal was needed. Dr. Iachetta said the Shopper's World merchants feel they are being discriminated against since traffic cannot go straight across from Shopper's World to the mall or vice versa but such can be done from Albemarle Square to the mall. Mr. Roosevelt said there is a double left turn out of Fashion Square to go southbound and a left turn out of Shopper's World. The entrances are such that one can go from Shopper's World, turn left and go further up 29 into the north entrance. The same thing is true when coming out of the north entrance of the mall and into Shopper's World. He did not feel such is that inconvenient. The deletion of through movement between the two shopping centers allows the signal to operate more efficiently out of Shopper's World. A straight movement cannot be allowed with a double left turn lane because such confuses traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said at Albemarle Square there is only a single left turn out and one lane of straight through traffic. Dr. Iachetta asked why the right hand side with the double left lane could not have straight through capability. Mr. Roosevelt said such causes a conflict with left turn movements. If the one lane were allowed to go straight through, the signal would have to be changed and traffic coming out of Shopper's World would have to yield to the through traffic and that would result in a longer waiting period. The signals were set up to allow as much time as possible for through traffic on Route 29. Mr. Roudabush noted letter dated June 27, 1980 from Dr. Bruce Bateman to the Highway Department concerning the speed limit on Route 22 in Keswick. Dr. Bateman feels that R~ute 22 from Shadwell to Cismont is a very dangerous road with sharp curves, hills and many private driveway entrances. He felt the fifty-five miles per hour speed limit should be reduced to f~rty-five miles per hour and was very concerned that nothing could be done to reduce the limit. Mr. Roudabush then asked if there was any different information about reducing~the speed limit than had been reported earlier. Mr. Roosevelt said said no. The only thing that can be done to help reduce speed is the fear of getting caught for speeding and there are no places along this intersection for a radar. Mr. Roosevelt said he and the traffic engineers feel that reducing the speed limit will just enhance the speed from the present limit to ten more miles per hour. The area is too wide open and one tends to get above fifty-five miles an hour without thinking about it. Mr. Henley then asked when the Mint Springs Road (Route 684) will be completed. Mr. Roosevelt said the contractor is having financial problems and the Highway Department has been pushing him to progress on the project. Mr. Roosevelt assured the Board that the project will be finished this year even if his crews have to complete the work. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Petition re: request for public sewage disposal - N0rthfields Subdivision. Mr. Agnor requested this matter be delayed until Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority could be present. July 9,_ 1980 (R~_~egular Da~yy Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5a. Agreement: AHIP/Self-Help Housing Program. Mr. Agnor then presented the following agreement concerning the self-help housing' program. THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 3rd day of July, 1980, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as "County", and ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, INC , hereinafter referred to as the "AHIP" ' WI TNE S SETH: WHEREAS, the County has applied to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for block grants (Community Development Block Grants) (CDBG) pursuant to Title I of the Housing and~Community Development Act of 1974 in order to receive funds for self-help housing in the County of Albemarle; and WHEREAS, AHIP is a corporation incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of Virginia and qualifies for tax exempt status pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the registered agent.is Francis L. Buck, whose address is 400 Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia; and WHEREAS, AHIP is the mechanism by which the County will implement a self-help housing program for which the community development block grant funds will be used; and WHEREAS, the County intends to transfer ownership of certain real property acquired with the community development block grant funds to AHIP in order that AHIP may carry out the purposes of community development block grant No. B78DN510037; NOW, THEREFORE, inconsideration of the mutual covenants and conditions as herein set forth, it is provided as follows: 1. AHIP agrees that the real property to be conveyed will be used to carry out the purposes of the community development block grant program. 2. AHIP agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of the requirements of the community development block grant No. B78DN510037 and the Farmers Home AdministratiOn (United States Dep~artment of Agriculture) Section 523 Technical Assistance Grant. 3. AHIP agrees to oversee all aspects of the self-help housing program; agrees to make approval of apPlicants for the program; and agrees to verify applicant's financial eligibility. 4. AHIP further agrees to abide bY the following conditions 'as they may reiate t© the effectuation of this agreement: a) The work to be performed under this contract is subject to the requirements of Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 which states that: 'No person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, national origin or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds available under this title.' b) In carrying out the contract, AHIP shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. AHIP shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants for employment are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, ~religion, sex, or national origin. Such a~tion shall incl'ude, but not be limited to, the following: employment, up-grading, demotion, or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. AHIP shall post in conspicuous p~aces, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the Government setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. AHIP shall state that all qualified applicants will r~eceive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. c) The work to be performed under this contract is on project assisted under a program Providing direct Federal financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and is subject to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701u. Section 3 requires that to the greatest extent feasible opportunities for training and employment be given lower income residents of the project area and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part by persons in the area of the project. d) AHIP will comply with the provisions of said Section 3 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development set forth in 24 CFR 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the Department issued thereunder prior to the execution of this contract. AHI? certifies and agrees that it is under no contractual or other disability which would prevent them from complying with these. requirements. e)~ AHIP will send to each labor organization or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, if any, a notice advising the said labor organization or workers representative of his commitments under this Section 3 clause and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment or training. July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) f) AHIP will include this Section 3 clause in every subcontract for work in connection with the self-help program and will, at the direction of the application for~or receipt of Federal financial assistance, take appropriate action pursuant to the subcontract upon a finding that the subcontractor is in violation of regulations issued by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 24 CRF 135. AHIP will not subcontract with any subcontractor where it has notice or knowledge that the latter has been found in violation of regulations under 24 CRF 135 and will not let any subcontract unless the subcontractor has first provided it with a preliminary statement of ability to comply with the requirements of these regulations. g) Compliance with the provisions of Section 3, the regulations set forth in 24 CRF 135, and all applicable rules and orders of the Department issued thereunder prior to the eXecution of the contract,i shall be a condition of the Federal financial~ assistance provided to the self-help program, binding upon the applicant or recipient for such assistance, its successors, and assigns, to those sanctions specified by the agent or loan agreement or contract through which Federal assistance is provided; and to such sanctions as are specified by 24 iCRF 135. h) AHIP shall comply withlthe applicable regulations of the Secretary of Labor, made pursuant to the so-called 'Anti-Kickback Act' of June 13, 1934 (48 Stat. 948; 62 Stat. 862; Title U.S.C., Section 87 and Title 40 U.S.C., Section 276c), and any amendments or modifications thereof, shall cause appropriate provisions to be inserted in subcontracts to ensure compliance therewith by all subcontractors subject thereto, and sha be responsible for the submission of affidavits required by subcontractors thereunder, ex¢ as said Secretary of Labor may specifically provide for reasonable limitations, variations tolerancea, and exemptions from the requirements thereof. i) No members of the governing body, officer, or employee of the County of Albemarle, or its designees or agents, and no other public official of such locality who exercises any functions or responsiblities with respect to the Community DeveloPment Block Grant Program, during his tenure or for one year thereafter, shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this contract or any subcontract, or the proceeds thereof. j) The County of Albemarle, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have access to any books, documents, papers, and records of AHIP which are directly pertinent to this contract for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions. k) Ail construction of residential structures provided under this contract shall comply with the provisions of the 'Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act' (84 Stat. 2 42 U.S.C. 4841(3) and the regulation thereunder (24 CFR part 35). 5. The aforementioned provisions of this agreement and any others implied for the successful implementation of HUD grant B-78-DN-51-0037 shall terminate upon the expenditure of all grant funds and the completion of all auditing requirements as set fort by HUD. ~ 6. In the event of any violation of the terms of this Agreement or the communitY development block grant No. B-78-DN-51-0037 by AHIP, AHIP will indemnify the County for any liability, costs or damages sustained by the County as a result'~of or in connection with such violation. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the foregoing agreement and authorize the Chairman to execute same. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5b. Public Hearing on Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Seven Parcels of Land in Bishop Hill Subdivision to AHIP. Mr. Agnor said the following resolution authorizes the Chairman to sign the deed of conveyance on behalf of the County in which i~ the fact that the seven lots will be used to fulfill the purpose of the Community Block Grant and refers to the foregoing agreement. The public hearing~ was then opened. matter, the public hearing was closed. With no one present to speak for against the Miss Nash asked if construction had begun. Miss Ann Paul, Director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, was present and stated that construction should begin within the next two weeks. The reason for delaying the construction was the pending approval of this land transfer. .Miss Nash then asked how the water situation is for t~e project. Miss Paul said a group well drawdown was done and after a forty-eight hour test, the results were a little above eleven gallons per minute. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to authorize the Chairman to execute the following resolution and deed. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: _=--AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. g e. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby authorize' the transfer of all those seven (7) certain lots or parcels of land in Albemarle County, Virginia, more particularly described as Lot 7 and Lots 9-14, Bishop Hill Subdivision, as shown on a.plat of Wm. Morris Foster, C.L.S., dated March 14, 1980, .and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 693, page 765, to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Inc., in order to carry out the purposes of community development block grant No. B78DN510037. A copy of the proposed deed of conveyance is attached to this resolution. The Chairman .of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to sign the deed of conveyance in behalf of the County of Albemarle and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby authorized to attest to the Chairman's signature and to affix the county seal to the deed of conveyance. THIS DEED, made and entered into this 9th day of July, 1980, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and the ALBEMARLE HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, INC., a Don-profit, charitable corporation, Grantee; WI TNE S SETH: WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has received a community development block grant No. B78DN510037 to carry out a housing program until ~Title I of the United States Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Inc., a non-profit, charitable corporation, have entered into an agreement dated July 9, 1980, which agreement is incorporated into and made a part of this deed, in which the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Inc. has agreed to carry out the purposes of the community development block grant program; and WHEREAS, using community development block grant funds, the County of Albemarle has purchaSed certain property described herein and desires now to transfer such property to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, Inc., which in turn will use such property to carry out the purposes of community development block grant No. B78DN510037; NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and Ten Dollars ($10.00) cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the County of Albemarle hereby GRANTS, BARGAINS, SELLS and CONVEYS with Special Warranty unto the Albemarle Housing I~provement Program, Inc. all those seven (7) certain lots or parcels of land in Albemarle County, Virginia, more particularly described as Lot 7 and Lots 9 through 14, Bishop Hill Subdivision, as shown on a plat of Wm. Morris Foster, C.L.S., dated March 14, 1980, and recorded in the Clerk's office Of the C~rcuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 693, page 767, being in a 1 respects the same property conveyed to the County of Albemarle by deed of Wm. Morris Foster, et al., dated April 30, 1980, and recorded in the aforesaid Clerk's office in Deed Book '693, page 765. The property herein conveyed is subject t© all easements, covenants, reservations, restrictions and conditions contained in duly recorded deeds, plats, and other instruments constituting constructive notice in the chain of title to the above-described property which have not expired by time limitatiOns contained therein or otherwise have becOme ineffective. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Northfields Subdivision. Petition re: request for public sewage disposal - Mr. Fisher said a petition was presented at the June 25, 1980, meeting from eighty families on Northfields Road and Huntington Road, concerning the need for public sewage service. At that time, the Board decided to turn the matter over to the Albemarle County Service Authority for their consideration. He then recognized Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, and asked him to brief the Board on the following letter dated July 3, 1980 from Mr. Brent to Dr. Iachetta. "The attached petition from residents of Northfields was presented to the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority at the meeting on June 19, 1980. Mr. and Mrs. Dwight Cragun appeared before the Board to request the inStallation of sanitary sewer in Northfields and to attest to the failure of septic systems in this area. The Board has instructed me to make a recommendation on initiating an engineering study of this area for their consideration at their meeting scheduled for July 17, 1980." Mr. Roudabush asked if. public sewage would serve the entire subdivision of Northfields or just limited areas. Mr. Brent said the entire sUbdivision is being considered. He noted the following related matter also contained in the letter: "Thei~[.B~e~d..i~,~fiii~rectDrs has also approved a staff recommendation to abandon plans for a pumping station to serve a portion of Westmoreland. Instead, a gravity line will be built from the proposed pump site to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's intercepto line on the east side of the Southern Railway tracks. Although this interceptor line is presently not in service because the AWT plant is not completed, the line would be in service by the time the Westmoreland lines are completed. We hope to advertise Westmoreland I and II (minus the pump station) by the end of July. The third section of line will be designed and advertised as soon as possible." July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Brent said when sewer for the Westmoreland Subdivision was first discussed, the completion date for the AWT plant was a few years in the future. However, it has taken quite a few years to get the Westmoreland project to the present bidding stage. Mr. Brent said hopefully the Service Authority will b'e able to connect into the interceptor line by the time the collector lines are constructed in Westmoreland. The Board of Directors for the Service Authority has voted to connect to that line rather than to build a temporary pumping station to serve the Northfields Road and Huntington Road areas. Mr. Brent felt building a pumping station would be a waste of money since the pumping station would have to be relocated anyway. Mr. Roudabush asked if mandatory hook ups were going to be required. Dr. Iachetta felt mandatory hook ups are going to have to be required in areas similar to this area. Situations are such that one-half of an area desperately needs the service and the other one-half has functioning systems. Mr. Fisher did not feel this agenda item was for a debate on the issue of mandatory connections. He felt Mr. Brent should communicate Dr. Iachetta's feelings to his board of directors. Mr. Fisher also emphasized that he was in no way prepared to require m~mda~y~o~necti~n~aca~n~y~w~de~'~at this time. He felt the Northfields area problem is being examined by the Albemarle County Service Authority for a method to solve the problems and that was the purpose of today's discussion. Agenda Item No. 6. Report: Emergency Services Study by Charlottesville Social Develop- ment Commission. The Board had requested Mr. Agnor to review the study which was smbmitted by the Oh Charlottesville Social Development Commission. Mr. Agnor then discussed the following memo- randum: "A letter from Mayor Brunton dated June 13, 1980, requests review of a report entitled ~Emergency Services in Charlottesville', and further requests participation by Albemarle County in the creation of a City-County Coordinating Council for Emergency Services. This memorandum summarizes the report which recommends the formation of this coordinating council. The study of emergency services was conducted by the Charlottesville Social Development Commission, and is one of a group of studies of social problems examined by this commission since its inception in 1974. A task force of the Commission conducted the study with a focus on personal emergencies, although large scale disasters were also included. Services to meet personal and community emergencies were examined, the agencies which provide these services were studied, and emergency operating plans were reviewed. Twenty-five agencies were involved, and the various services were divided into information, medical, counseling, food, clothing, housing, financial assistance, safety and disaster. Some unmet needs were found, principally in access to services and in emergency housing. Lack of coordination and awareness by some agencies of the services provided by other agencies was apparent. Many services are being provided as a response to needs as perceived by individual agencies. ~ Three recommendations were made: 1. Establish a Coordinating Council for Emergency Services for the Charlottesville- Albemarle area to provide a forum for emergency care providers to meet, share information, discuss problems, explore solutions, and make recommendations for improvemen' of services. 2. Establish a 911 emergency telephone system with centralized answering and dispatch for emergency service providers, with appropriate modification for individual agency needs. 3. Provide for a range of emergency housing options with a single telephone access number to handle emergency housing referrals on a twenty-four hour basis. Recommendation number one is the subject of Mayor Brunton's letter with the composition of the council described in his letter. Recommendation number two has been acted upon by the Board and City Council prior to completion of the report. Recommendation number three, I assume, would be a task for the Coordinating Council to address." Mr. Agnor then briefed the following letter dated June 13, 1980, from Mayor Laurence Brunton: "On May 19, 1980, the City Council reviewed the Emergency Services Study, which was submitted to us by the Social Development Commission. I would like to draw your attention to the recommendation on pages 30-31 to create a jointly appointed City-County 'Coordinating Council for Emergency Services.' The role of this council would be to prov~ a forum for emergency care providers in the area of medical, social and disaster services to meet, to share information, to discuss problems, to explore solutions, and to make recommendations for the improvement of services. It was felt that the Emergency Services Coordinator of the City and County, Ms. L. Peacock, could provide staffing to this Counci Furthermore, it was suggested the following groups and/or agencies be considered for representation on the Coordinating Council for Emergency Services: 1) Law Enforcement: City Police, County Sheriff's Office and the University of Virginia Police; 2) Rescue Squad; 3) Fire Departments; 4) EMS Council; 5) Red Cross; 6) Salvation Army; 7) City and County Departments of Social Services; 8) Health Department; 9) City/County Emergency Services Coordinator; 10) University of V~rginia Hospital (Emergency Room); 11) Region Ten Community Services Board; and 12) a consumer or citizen-at-large." July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Fisher said University officials were asked to incorporate in the design of their new ~ telephone system a provision for the 911 system and he understands such has been done. Mr.~· Agnor said approximately six weeks ago the Board authorized him, in coordination with the Cit~ Manager, to establish a committee to study the technical aspects of the 911 system as part of the central dispatch system for the new County Office Building. The committee has been formed with coordination by Ms. Peacock. The first item the committee was to address was the renovati n and equipment needs in the second phase of the County Office Building. At the same time, Centel is being asked for~ a timetable and cost factor for the conversion of the telephone system to serve the 911 system. Mr. Agnor did not feel a response time has been established for such but felt within a year all the technical aspects of the equipment needs within the building will be completed. The design of the center in terms of space requirements and the details of the equipment for the 911 system to function has been completed. Mr. Fisher asked if the design is included in the capital improvements program. Mr. Agnor said yes, with an unknown dollar figure until updated information has been received from Centel. Mr. Fisher said another item in the letter was the establishment of a joint committee. He felt Ms. Peacock, the Emergency Services Coordinator who was appointed jointly by the City and County, should be able to organize the necessary group of people and deal with them thro' her office. Mr. Agnor said his concern about the council concept was that it would be a forum for sharing information but without any authority for changes or otherwise. Mr. Fisher voiced his concern aboUt establishing another committee since many existing committees have the same staff people present and such meetings take a great deal of time. He then asked how often the council would meet. Mr. Agnor said the report indicated the council would meet each month and report to the governing bodies annually. Mr. Fisher was concerned about major disasters community wide and was not sure if-needed information is up to date. Dr. Iachetta asked how the existing emergency agencies are funded. Mr. Agnor said most of the agencies operate independently of each other and that is what has been perceived as one of the problems. Dr. Iachetta felt this concept was similar to the Human Resources group several years ago which consisted of agency representatives from several different social services organization. Mr. Agnor said this is a satellite of that organization. This council would operate independently of those in the business of providing emergency type services. The Human Resources Assembly covered all aspects of social providers and the problem with the assembly was that they were only a forum for discussion and did not have authority to change anything. Mr. Fisher suggested Mr. Agnor, the Director of the Emergency Services .spend some time with the group who compiled the report and determine whether he felt it was necessary for the Board to establish such a council. Mr. Lindstrom felt unmet needs should be known. Mr. Roudabush said duplication of services should also be determined. He also suggested that a social planner be included on the planning staff to evaluate such needs further. Mr. Fisher said the third recommendation in the letter was the provision of emergency~ housing options on a twenty-four hour basis. Mr. Agnor said the City and County housing offices do not deal with emergency services but with a broader scale for the whole community. The recommendation is for housing options for temporary needs in emergency situations and such is much broader than the offices now handle. Dr. Iachetta felt the Housing Coordinator should examine housing that is available for emergency needs. Mr. Lindstrom then asked how the housing situations were handled as a result of the fire at the apartments off Hydraulic Road. Mr. Agnor said both housing offices helped relocate the people and that situation was community wide and emphasized that the recommendation in the letter is for individual needs. Mr. Fisher felt more information was needed on this request and asked Mr. Agnor to study the matter further. Agenda Item No. 7. Request from Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Fisher noted letter and materials received from the Industrial Development Authority dated June 27, 1980, requesting the Board's concurrence of the Authority's approval for tax exempt financing for a $2,000,000 office building for Rosser Associates; said building to be located on Route 250 West adjacent to, and west of, Piedmont Tractor Company. Rosser Associate ms a partnership being formed for this purpose by Sprigg Lane Investments Corporation and The Research Group Incorporated to provide new offices for the two organizations. The project will be net leased to Sprigg Lane and the Research Group and will be guaranteed by Sprigg Lane. Mr. Donald Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, was present. He introduced Mr. James Deter, President of Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation, and Mr. Deane Pope, bond counsel for the Authority from the Hunton and Williams law firm. He noted that Sprigg Lane is an established company with a sizable staff of Professionals. The Authority feels this organization will provide additional e~ployment, increase the tax base for the County and increase the general economy of the area. The project is also environmentally desirable since no smoke stacks will be involved. Mr. Donald Holden, Chairman of the Authorit also noted that the building will be constructed by a local building contractor. In con~ Mr. Holden said the request of the Authority is for the Board's approval of the financing and location as well as modification of the Industrial Development ordinance to allow this organi the use of the bonds. Mr. Fisher then questioned the following phrase stated in Mr. Holden's letter "A private placement rather than a public bond issue is contemplated." Mr. Holden said a project can be financed either by the sale of bonds to the public or by the sale of a single bond to an individual investment company, bank or insurance company. This procedure can be used for tax exempt financing just the same as it can be done for any other kind of financing. Mr. Fisher then asked what the difference was in the interest rate. Mr. Holden said such is hard to determine but more than likely, the interest rate will be less with private placement. Mr. Fisher asked if private placement had to be opened for bids. .Mr. Holden said either bidding or the Authority can direct who buys the bonds without any~public process. Mr. Fisher then asked if the construction of the project had to be bid. Mr. Holden said such can be neg Discussion then followed on the necessity of amending the ordinance to allow issuance of bonds for office buildings. Mr. Holden said the simplest thing for the Board to do would be to modify the ordinance to allow the Authority the range of items that are covered by State Law. Mr. Lindstrom asked who would not be qualified to request the tax exempt bonds if the ion July 9, 19~0 (Regular Day Meeting~ ordinance is modified. Mr. Holden said the Authority exercises the judgment to determine the desirability of the company for the county and also the company's financial soundness. Mr. Lindstrom felt this organization is a purely private enterprise. Mr. Fisher felt the question is whether the Board feels it is in the public's interest to help an existing organization with existing employment and existing assets of seven million dollars to build a building at a reduced mortgage cost which will be passed on to the public to pay more in taxes. Based on that, he had some problems with the request. Mr. James Deter said Sprigg Lane Investment Corporation was formed in this community in 1970 and is the largest legal and consulting firm in the United States. The organization desires to remain in this community but expansion is needed from its current location on Holiday Drive. The organization will double its employment in five years. Mr. Deter felt this business is within the act of the Authority, particularly to provide employment, is research oriented, and will increase the tax base and income to the community and is valuable to the growth of the County. Mr. Deter noted that approximately eighty percent of the ~ organization's gross revenue comes from outside of the state and yet the entire staff is housed in this area which brings in substantial revenues from outside of Virginia. Mr. Fisher asked if the facility will be constructed if this request is denied. Mr. Deter said this financing is necessary to construct a building of this magnitude. He also noted that financing is desired to be as private as possible because certain pressure is taken off of the public market in terms of being competitive. Miss Nash asked if financing is possible without the Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Deter said the facility would have to be decreased a great deal due to the current interest rates if this bonding is not approved. Mr. Fisher said the first step is to set a public hearing to amend the ordinance if the Board so desires. Mr. Roudabush favored amending the ordinance to narrowly define something that would allow the type of activities in which this group is engaged. He felt it was a desirable employment base for the County and felt it was better to encourage research activitie than it was to encourage heavy manufacturing. Mr. Fisher asked if his intention was to exclude other types of office buildings that are not used 'for research. Mr. Roudabush preferred not to open the ordinance up to office facilities and felt this could be distinct from other types. He then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on August 13, 1980, an amendment to the Industrial Development Ordinance (Section~9) to allow this facility to obtain bonding, with said ordinance ~being drafted by the County Attorney. Mr. Holden then distributed a draft ordinance. Mr. Fisher felt'the ordinance was broader than Mr. Roudabush had in mind. Mr. Henley asked if something could be placed in the ordinance to limit the financing to private~ financing. Mr. St. John said that has been questioned as to the power to limit such and in talking to the bond counsel it is not felt the County has that power. Mr. Fisher felt this may be a reasonable request but the main concept of the Authority has gone far from where it originally began and he was uncomfortable about this. The County's finance director is against the Authority because of what it does to public borrowing for schools and other things, in other words, there is competition with limited capital. He felt this request is further away from the concept of serving a direct public need. Mr. Fisher did not feel he cOuld support the request particularly when the Board has been told that the Company's existing assets are over seven million dollars. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to request the County AttOrney to draft an ordinance that will capture the research aspects of this facility to distinguish it from other types of operations and such to be presented for the Board's review on July 16. Mr. St. John then questioned if the building was to be solely occupied by a research group. Mr. Deter said the entire building will be occupied by research activity; seventy-five percent will be legal research and twenty-five percent occupied by other research companies. Miss Nash then seconde~ the motion. Mr. Henley shared Mr. Fisher's concern since he was also on the Board when the Authority was established. However, with the projects that have been brought to the Board, he has changed his feelings and could support a statement in the ordinance to cover research. Dr. Iachetta felt with the University as the main stay of this community, it would be unwise to not broaden the research aspects of the community. Miss Nash noted for the record that this research organization has never done any work for her. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. At 11:17 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:26 A.M. Agenda Item No. 8. Request from Library Board re: State Grants-In-Aid. Mr. Agnor said each year the State Library Board advises the localities of their revenue appropriation to the regional system. Before the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library officials can expend those funds, authorization has to be received from the local government. The amount of state aid this year for the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library is $207,306, said amount will reduce Albemarle's share of funding. He then requested authority to execute a form to enable the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library to expend the above stated funds for Fiscal-Year 1980-81. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to authorize the County Executive to execute the expenditure form and authority for the Jefferson Madison Regional Library to expend $207,306 in state aid for Fi'scal Year 1980-81. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Noise Ordinance. Mr. St. John said he was requested to draft a noise ordinance similar to the one the City has. The ordinance has been drafted. However, Mr. St. John asked that this matter be deferre~ since it was just received by the Board today ~nd the ordinance may create problems since it is basically for an urban community. The Sheriff would like to examine the ordinance closer to determine if the ordinance can be narrowed down to amplify the music aspects or man-made July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) noises. Mr. St. John agreed with that request. He could envision many problems particularly since the ordinance refers not only to residential zones but A-1 land as well and he did not remember many of the complaints coming from A-la~r~as. T~h~r~, he suggested deferral until August 13, 1980, in order to study the drafted ordinance closer. The Board concurred. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Merger of City and County VPI/SU Extension Offices. Mr. ~gnor reviewed the following memorandum dated June 30, 1980: "The Extension Service's District Chairman, Dr. Clark Jones, met recently with the City Manager and County Executive to discuss his proposal to merge the City and County Extension Service offices into a single office, effective as soon as approval can be obtained from the Board of Supervisors and City Council. The City Council has considered the proposal and approved it. The proposed merger is as follows: 1. Programs and administration would merge as soon as approved; recommended July 1980. 2. Physical relocation would occur by January 1, 1981, when the lease for the present City office would expire. The City office would move to McIntire School in space presently occupied by the County office. The merged operation would ultimately be relocated to the County Office Budding on McIntire Road, in Phase II of the building remodeling plan. 3. Elizabeth Payne, County Unit Chairman, would be appointed chairman for the merged unit. 4. The merged unit would consist of ten technicians initially, to be decreased to seven through attrition, and four secretaries, to be reduced to three through attrition. Seven agents, supported with local funds, would be continued. 5. No additional funds would be needed from the County. $1,283 additional appropriatior in FY-81 would be needed from the City. The City's total contribution (with the $1,283) would be $16,000, the County's is $55,931. The ratio is 22% City, 78% County. Beyond FY-81 it is proposed the ratio be 25% City, 75% County, with the County being the local government contact for the Extension Service, the City agreeing to follow the lead of the County on local approprations based on the above ratio. The reasons given by Dr. Jones for the merger are: 1. Avoidance of program duplication. 2. Greater percentage of Zocal dollars supporting programs, not space. 3. Reduction of total administrative time. 4. Expanded program service for the same dollar expenditure. Favorable consideration of the merger is recommended." Mr. Agnor said his perception of the need for the change is that the urban type questions are now referred to the City office because the County office cannot handle them. Other than that the County programs and services presently rendered will not change. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the merger of the Albemarle and Charlottesville Extension Units as recommended by the County Executive and effective this date. Ms. Elizabeth Payne, County Unit Chairman, was present and noted that this merger will be a simplication as well as beneficial to the two extension units. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 24. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of June, 1980 were presented. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 25. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of June, 1980, was presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, this statement was approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 26. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of June, 1980, along with summary statements of prisoner days and salary of the jail physician and paramedics, were presented. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:~ Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 27. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of May, 1980, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 28. Amendment: Pay/C!assifica~i0n~ Plan. Mr. Agnor said the County's Pay and Classification Plan requires an annual review by his office with recommendations for amendments to be provided to the Board. The Plan also includes a triennial review by an agency outside of the County government. The Fiscal Year 1981 budget includes an appropriation for the three-year review by an outside a~gency. This review will start this summer and end in August. The only change Mr. Agnor recommended this date was the inclusion of the Watershed Management Official at a Grade 032, Range 18. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to amend the Pay and Classification Plan to include the position of the Watershe~ Management Official as recommended by the County Executive. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 29. Cancel August 6 Board Meeting. Mr. Agnor said the Clerk, Miss Neher, has determined that the Planning Commission has worked their schedule so that the August 6 meeting will not have any zoning matters. Therefore the August 6 meeting is not necessary. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to cancel the August 6 1980, Board meeting. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recor vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 30. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher then noted for the record the receipt of the following notices: 1. Appalachian Power Company, Investigation to Determine Appropriate Tariffs Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-249.6. 2. Appalachian Power Company, Determination respecting the Advertising Standard pursuant to Section 303 of the Public Utility Policies Act of 1978. 3. Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc., Determination respecting the Advertising Standard pursuant to Sections 113 and 303 of the Public Utility Policies Act of 1978. 4. Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc., Determination respecting the Termination of Customer Service Standa~ an~pur~uant~to~Se~ti~n iI3~of ~h~.Pub~Ut~l~ty~Ra~ulatory Policies Act of 1978. At 12:00 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested an executive session to discuss legal matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to this effect. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 1:39 P.M. Agenda Item No. 11. Report from Emergency Medical Services Council. Ms. Andrea Clapp, Executive Director, was present and noted that the Emergency Medical Services Council has been in existence for nine years. The Council works with the University and Martha Jefferson Hospital emergency rooms, volunteer rescue squads and with the Planning District Commission. Ms. Clapp then distributed to the Board a summary which included some activities of the Council. She noted that a lot of the efforts of the Council are shown in the actions of the rescue squads. She then introduced Mr. T. W. Davis, President of the Scotts~ille Rescue Squad. Mr. Davis demonstrated to the Board an anti-shock device and a defibul&tor. Mr. Fisher noted his personal involvement with helping to establish the Emergency Medical Services Council particularly in the four rural counties. With no further comments or questions from the Board, Mr. Fisher thanked Ms. Clapp and Mr. Davis for their presentation. Agenda Ztem No. 12. Public Hearing: Progress on June 25 and July 2, 1980.) Burglar Alarm Ordinance. (Advertised in the Daily Mr. St. John said Sheriff Bailey has reviewed the ordinance and feels such will solve some of the existing problems. The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the followi~ ordinance. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF SIX NEW SECTIONS CONCERNING AUTOMATIC COMMUNICATION AND ALARM DEVICES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, that Chapter 13 of the Code of the County of Albemarle be amended by the addition thereto of six new sections concerning automatic communication and alarm devices to read as follows: Section 13.24. Definitions. (a) "Automatic Communication Device" shall mean any device or combination of devices that will, upon activation, either mechanically, electrically, automatically, or by any other means, initiate the intrastate calling, dialing, or connection to a number, line, or instrument. (b) "Automatic Alarm Device" shall mean any device or combination of devices that will .upon activation either mechanically, electrically, automatically, or by any other means, cause any audible, visible, or other signal to be initiated at any office of the Sheriff of the County. Section 13.25. Prohibited Acts. It shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate, cause to be used or operated, arrange, adjust, program, or otherwise provide or install any automatic communication device which shall initiate the intrastate calling, dialing, or connection to any telephone number, line, or instrument assigned to the Office of the Sheriff of the County without the sheriff's prior written consent. Section 13.26. Prohibited Use of Automatic Alarm Devices. It shall be unlawful for any person to use or operate, cause to be used or operated, arrange, adjust, program, or otherwise provide or install any automatic alarm device which shall register any type of alarm at any office of the Sheriff of the County without the Sheriff's prior written consent. Section i3.27. Written Consent. Written consent may be issued by the Sheriff upon his determination that the system under consideration will benefit the more efficient operation of the Sheriff's department, but under no circumstances will any automatic communication device or other automatic alarm device be considered for any purpose other than to alert the Sheriff's department to the commission of an offense. Section 13.28. Consent Withdrawn. The Sheriff may withdraw his consent by written notice to the person to whom the consent was given and such person shall have the device(s disconnected within saven (7) days Of receipt of said written notice~of withdrawal. section 13.29. Telephone Number Defined. The term "telephone number" includes any additional numbers assigned by a public utility ComPany engaged'in the business of providing communications services and facilities to be used by means of a rotary or other system to connect with the subscriber to the primary number(s) when said number(s) are in use.~ ~ Agenda Item No. 17. Set date to hear amendments to ordinance providing Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons. Mr. Fisher asked if the proposed limits for the income were the maximum allowed under State Law. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present and said no, the maximum of the State is $12,000 and this maximum is $10,000. The County has never used the maximum of the State because certain retirement benefits and social security payments have increased by the cost of living adjustments quite a bit. Quite a few people who were qualifi'ed are not now qualified due to changes in these allowances. Mr? Lindstrom asked if the proposed figures related more to the average level of income in this area. Mr. Jones said yes. He noted that there are currently one hundred and forty applicants qualified each year. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was a combined financial worth in addition to the income. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, said a house and the lot on which the house is located, is exc Mr. Fisher felt the problems with federal and state withholding taxes will mean taxes will have to be increased and he did not want those who have retired to have to bear this burden. He was also inclined to believe that the limits proposed are too low. Mr. Jones said if the limit was increased to $15,000, a lot of working people and couples could be included. Mr. Fisher felt what has been submitted could be advertised and a decision could be made by the Board after the public hearing on the limits. Mr. Jones said several other changes are being requested as well to Chapter 8 of the County Code. He then noted Section 8-23 should be amended to redefine the~definition of total combined income. The purpose of the requested amendment is due to a lot of borderline cases which are not eligible with the current definitio . Also, Section 8-28 would be added to provide a procedure for late filings for first time applicants and hardship cases. Mr. St. John noted that such an addition is being drafted for the Board. Mr. Fisher then suggested August 13, 1980, be scheduled for the public hearing on these amendments to Chapter 8, Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons in Albemarle County. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to this effect. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom felt it would be helpful to have an estimate on how much revenue is being discussed since the qualifications are numerous. Mr. Jones noted that a lot of young married couples with one or two dependents make less than $15,000. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the State Code allows any ~xemption for these people. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: Soil Erosion Ordinance Amendments. the Daily Progress on June 25 and July 2, 1980.) (Advertised in Mr. St. John said Section 7-2 is simply to clarify and keep the County ordinance up to date with-the State Code. Section 7-5 is to provide that the bond covers the maintenannea of the facilities which are bonded during the time the construction is going on. Mr. Hmhley asked if this provided some means for the Zoning Administrator to approve an erosion control permit without a bond. Mr. St. John said no, this is surety on the bond and the Zoning Administrator has the authority to accept cash, certified check, letter of credit or surety. The public hearing was opened. the public hearing was closed. With no one present to speak for or against the amendment, Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following ordinance effective this date. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE REGARDING A CERTAIN DEFINITION AND BONDING REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SOIL EROSION CONTROL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, that the Albemarle County Code be, and it hereby is, amended in Sections 7-2 and 7-5 thereof, as follows: Section 7-2. Definitions. . . Land disturbing activity. Any activity so defined by the Code of Virginia in Title 21, Chapter 1, Article 6.1, Section 21-89.3(a), as the same may be amended from time to time. Section 7-5. Review of Plans and Specifications. . . (d) In the event that the plans and specifications so submitted shall be approved, the zoning administrator shall require, prior to the issuance of an erosion control permit, a performance bond with surety or other security of a type satisfactory to the zoning administrator in an amount determined by the zoning administrator to be sufficient for completion of the controls specified in the plans and specifications, including, without limitation, maintenance during the execution thereof, should the person receiving the permit not complete the controls as required. Agenda Item No. 18. Over-Expenditures re: 1979-80 Budget. As requested by memo from Mr. Ray Jones, dated July 2, 1980, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution and authorize Mr. Jones to distribute the function total to the proper line i~em. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $32,979.61 be appropriated to cover over-expenditures for the 1979-80 Fiscal Year as follows: (Reasons for requests are set out below) From the General Fund, $24,578.51 to the following codes: CODE: AMOUNT: Refunds (Over-runs resulted from the large number of refunds on Business and Professional Licenses due to termination of various business activity.) $ 1,907.44 4A County Clerk's Office (This office experienced over-runs in record books and microfilm.) 4,418.26 6A Sheriff (Over-runs occured in the Sheriff's operation of vehicles, telephone and postage, investigative supplies, uniforms, office supplies and radio equipment. The majority was in the operation of vehicles.) 16,548.51 10E Planning (Over-runs in Planning resulted from printing, postage, supplies related to the Zoning Ordinance.) 1,704.30 the Self-Sustaining Fund, $5,401.10 to the following codes: 150 Textbooks 5,284.93 180 McIntire Trust (This is primarily bookkeeping since all revenues are expended or actually result from budget under estimates.) 116.17 From the Grant Fund, $3.,000.00 to the following code: [ 68-18b Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commission (An additional $3,000 was received from the State which was passed on to CAC3 for operations. Another over-expenditure which is only a bookkeeping transaction.) 3,000.g0 July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 19. Transfer of Funds. Memo dated July 2, 1980, was received from Mr. Ray Jones, requesting end-of-year transfers in the School budget. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the transfers as set out below. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the followin recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. FROM: 17A - Administration 17B1 - Regular Instruction 17C2 - Attendance & Health Services (AHS) 17C3.- Attendance & Health Services (WAHS) 17G 17I 17J t7K 1TN !TU - Fixed Charges - Adult Education - Other Educational Programs - Capital Outlay - Federal Programs - Title I - SP*AR Total $ 6,974.86 76,467.40 12,889.93 5,921.63 92,542.37 49,401.26 15,235.13 28,072.65 17,024.65 49,457.42 $353,987.30 TO: 17B2 - Other Instructional Costs 17C1 - Attendance & Health Services 17D1 - Pupil Transportation 17Fl - Operation of School Plant 17F2 - Maintenance of School Plant 17S - COPE 17T - PREP Total $ 19,773.38 256.93 98,464.00 187,942.89 30,525.45 16,973.41 51.24 $353,987.30 Agenda Item No. 20. Reappropriations. As requested by Mr. Jones, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to. adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the following reappropriations be transferred from the proper account: FROM THE GENERAL FUND AMOUNT 1101-3002.06 Professional Services-Data Processing Board of Supervisors budget (To complete Phase II of Data Processing Study) $:,. ~2~t08.00 1203-2009 Unemployment Insurance Personnel budget (To provide for a reserve to cover claims under the County's "self-insured" program.) 2106-3002.05 Professional Services-Auditing County Clerk's office (To provide for payment on audit that was not completed in fiscal year 1979-80.) 2106-7002 Furniture and Equipment County Clerk's office (To pay for micro-film equipment received, but not billed.) 7302-5628 Regional Library (To pay for furniture and equipment authorized for Crozet Branch.) 4300-5407 Repairs and Maintenance Staff Services (To complete payment of painting, repairs, etc., in courthouse for Judge Helvin's office.) 5301-7002 Furniture, Equipment and Fixtures Social Services (To provide for purchase of "pagers" that were authorized by County Executive to be purchased in Fiscal Year 1979-80 if there were remaining funds rather than included in Fiscal Year 1980-81 Budget.) 7100-1001 Salaries and Wages-Parks and Recreation (This ~ !~i~ ~i~:~i~i~eappr~~ion~allows the use of the former director's salary allocated for Fiscal Year 1979-80 to be used for funding of salaries at the Greenwood Community Center in Fiscal Year 1980-81.) 3202-5608.01 Scottsvi!le Fire Company Advance 3202-5613.01 Seminole Trail Fire Company Advance (The above two are to provide unexpended balance ~e~¢i~d~ances per contracts approved'in Fiscal Year 1979-80.) .4,930.00 1,200.00 3,600.00 8,500.00 2,500.00 700.00 6,819.19 98,686.88 134,129.90 8101-1006 1302-1001 1214-3002.05 Salaries & Wages - Interns (Planning) (To pay for summer intern) Salaries & Wages - Registrar (To pay last quarter of Electoral Board's Salary) Professional Services - Energy Evaluation Finance Budget (To allow payment of technical services on schools.) 3,190.00 8OO.O0 11,917.63 FROM THE SCHOOL FUND 17J Other Educational Programs (To allow for completion of an instructional evaluation program started in Fiscal Year 1979-80 which is to be completed in Fiscal Year 1980-81.) 5,900.00 FROM THE GENERAL FUND 9102'5633.01~ JAUNT (To make the unexpended balance on June 30, 1980 available in Fiscal Year 1980-81.) 700.00 GRAND TOTAL - ALL FUNCTIONS $285,681.60 Mr. Roudabush seconded the fgregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 21. Special Appropriations. Mr. Jones said an appropriation in the amount of $5,000.00 is requested for the advance to the City pursuant to the contract for the ROute 29 North Bus Service. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded bY Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $5,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 1101-3099, Contractural Services - Transportation. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor noted request from the Parks and Recreation Department for an allocation from the Capital Improvements Budget for the construction of a hard surface play area at Western Albemarle High School. The balance in code 19.10L.9 is currently $11,000.00 and the request is for $5,200.00 to be used for the above purpose. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $5,200.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund-Capital Outlay and Coded to 19.10L.9 - Other Schools Recreational Facilities for construction of a hard surface play area at Western Albemarle High School. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 22. for 1980-81. Amend the County Budget and the Annual Appropriation Ordinance Mr. Jones said changes in the Budget and the Appropriation Ordinance are a result of prior commitments made by the Board. The commitments were the addition of a deputy sheriff, addition of a deputy Commonwealth's Attorney and the addition of the Greenwood Community Center. Also included are the final actions by the State Agencies such as the State Electoral Board and the State Compensation Board. Changes in the School Budget result from applying the equivalent of the twentieth and twenty-fourth step to the non-instructional employees, adding a stipend for the Guidance Department Head at Western Albemarle High School, paying part-time teachers for planning time and adding an additional step to certain part-time persons not receiving fringe benefits. Mr. Agnor also noted a mathemetical problem in the VPI-SU Extension Service budget which increased that budget $1,600. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the amended County budget and to adopt the revised appropriation ordinance as set out below. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and MiSs Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. July 9, 198=0 (Regular Day Meeting) ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMIRLE,'~.tRGiN!A FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1981 Anoordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal yemr ending June 30, 1981; to prescribe the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment; and to repeal all ordinances wholly in conflict withvthis ordinance and all ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance to the extent of such inconsistency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA: SECTION I That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appro- priated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981: ParagraphDQne For the current expenses of COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF TAXES AND OTHER REFUNDS the sum of one million two hundred thirty-two thousand four hundred twenty dollars and no cents ($1,232,420) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Refunds $ 1,232,420 Paragraph Two For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL~[MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT the sum of four million one hundred seventeen thmusand fifty-three dollars and no cents ($4,117,053) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Board of Supervisors $ 146,961 2. County Executive 93,689 3. Personnel 81,01~ 4. Legal Services 99,849 5. Finance 785,373 6. Engineering 160,996 7. Planning 216,385 8. Ivy Landfill 257,366 9. Keene Landfill 47,300 10. Elections 51,218 11. Staff Services 194,023 12. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 14,820 t8~ Bicentennial Center 9,242 14. Soil & Water Conservation 7,784 15{ Watershed Management 18,948 16. Tourism Bureau 12,500 17. Transfer to Debt Service Fund 1,9~9,631 Paragraph Three For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the sum of two million six hundred forty thousand three hundred eighty-six dollars and no cents ($2,640,386) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Parks &~Recreation Housing Coordinator Virginia Public Assistance Public Assistance Payments Health Department Mental Health & Retardation Services Regional Library Piedmont Virginia Community College Extension Service Youth Employment Service District Home Offender Aid & Restoration Madison House Community Action Agency Jefferson Area Board onTAging Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Jefferson Area United Transportation Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program Office on Youth 332,080 51~343 771,923 558,!87 262,810 64,133 396,381 5,O45 55,987 3,000 5,700 13,200 4,000 16,t62 4,052 74,220 6,126 10,000 6,037 July__~1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Paragraph Four For the current expenses of the function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE the sum of two million one hundred ninety-one thousand nine hundred ninety- one dollars and no cents ($2,191,991) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. County Clerk $ 161,951 2. Circuit Court 12,400 3. General District Court 9,950 4. Commonwealth's Attorney 118,889 5. Juvenile Court 21,024 6. Sheriff 901,921 7. Fire Department 257,223 8. Forest Fire Extinction Service-State 3,100 9. Volunteer Fire Departments 133,700 10. Code Enforcement 318,818 11. Animal Control 42,958 12. Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad 3,000 13. Tranmportation Safety CommisSimn 200 14. Emergency Services 4,676 15. Contributions to Region&l Jail Operation 40,000 1~. Juvenile Detention Home 15,790 17. Magistrate's Office 22,660 18. Scottsville Rescue Squad 5,500 iD. Emergency Medical Services 5,462 20. WeStern Albemarle Rescqe Squad 7,500 21. Community Attention Homes 2,500 22. Zoning 122,774 Paragraph Five For the curm~t expenses of the function of CAPITAL OUTLAYS the sum~of one million dollars and no cents ($1,000,000) is appropriag~d from the General Fund and transferred to: 1. Capital Outlay Fund $~1,000,000 SUMMARY TOTAL GENERAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 To be provided for as follows: Transfer from General Operating-Capital Outlay Prior Year's Carry-Over B&lance Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the ~ederal Government Non-Revenue Receipts Total ~ENERAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 $11,181,850 $ 50,000 224,863 7,956,189 2,406,796 511,000 33,002 $~1,181,850 SECTION II That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for ~CHDOL purposes h~rein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the SCHOOL FUND the sum of eighteen million eight hundred ten thousanR nine hundred twenty-three dollars and no cents ($i8~810'~'~23~2is~.appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Administration $ 321,282 2. Instruction-Regular Day School 9,178,327 3. Other Instructional Costs 1,222,659 4. Attendance & Health Services 77,476 5. Attendance & Health Services (Activities- Albemarle High School) Attendance & Health Services (Activities- Western Albemarle High School) 128,847 7. Pupil Transportation 1,442,471 8. Replacement-Transportation V~h~cles~ 160,000 9. School Food Services 16,242 10. Operation-School Plant 1,583,993 11. ~aintenance-School Plant 441,840 12. Fixed Charges 3,407,140 13. Adult Education 44,400 14. Other Educational Programs 458,044 15. Capital Outlay 194,581 133,621 July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Paragraph Two For the current expenses of FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS the sum of nine hundred eighty-two thousand two hundred sixty-six dollars and no cents ($982,266) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. ESEA Title I (Low Income) $ ~567;734 2. ESEA Title I (Migrant) 60,535 3. ESEA TITLE IV-B (Libraries) 31~000 4. ESEA TITLE IV-C (ELII) 39,490 5. ESAA TITLE VI (SECC) 119,206 6. Crime Resistance (TIPS) 22,634 7. COPE 87,644 8. PREP ~2,523 9. Title IV-C (Adapter/Adopter) 11,500 SUMMARY Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 $19,793,189. To be provided for as follows: *Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. Fr,o~m Gen. Fd.) Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from the Federal Government Non-Revenue Receipts Total SCHOOL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 *Includes $500,000 in Federal R~venue Sharing monies which are earmarked for payment of energy usages of electricity and fuel in Education as set forth in Item 10, Paragraph One of this Section (Operation- School Plants). $10,560,341 8,118,982 982,266 131,600 $19,793,189 SECTION III ThatLthe following sums of money be and the same hereby are~appropriated for the purposes herein specified.lfor the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981: Paragraph One For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of six hundred thousand da!lars and no cents ($600.,~000)'isfhereby appropriated from the Ca£eteria Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Maintenance and Operation~Of School Cafeterias $ 600,000 SUMMARY Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriations'for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 $ 600,000 To be provided for as follows: Receipts from Cafeterias Total CAFETERIA FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 $ 600,000 $ 600,000 Paragraph Two For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of one hundred CD'rty-two thousand three hundred dollars and no cents ($142,300) is hereby appropriated from the Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Textbooks $ 142,300 SUMMARY Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 $ 142,300 $ 142,300 To be provided as follows: Reeeipts' from Rental Fees Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending JUne 30, 1981 $ 142,30.0 Paragraph Three For the'function Of the M6INTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of five thousand dollars and no cents ($5,000) is hereby appropriated from the McIntire Trust Fund to bes.apportioned as follows: 1. Payment to County Schools $ 5,000 S t~ M M./,'~A R ~ Total M~INTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for Fiscal year Ending June 30, 1981 $ 5,000 To be provided as follows: Revenue from investments per trust Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 5, ooo $ 5,000 July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Paragraph Four For the function of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of eight hundred sixty-two thousand seven hundred seven dollars and no cents ($862,707) is hereby appropriated from the Regi~n~t2~Jail Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Operation of Regional Jail $ 862,707 SUMMARY T~&t REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 To be provided as follows: Revenue from Local Sources Revenue from the Commonwealth Revenue from Other S~urces Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30,!~!~81 862,707 100,000 718,530 44,177 862,707 SECTION IV ~hat the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the function of GRANT PROJECTS the sum of two hundred seventy-nine thousand four hundred ~hirty-three dollars and no cents ($279,433) is appropriated from the Grant Project Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Watershed Management Grant $ 36,540 2. Clean Community Commission 9,745 3. Esmont Health Facility 2~,948 4. Self-Help Project (AHIP) 200,000 5. Solid Waste Management Grant 5,200 6. The Meadows Project 2,880 SUMMARY Total GRANT PROJECT FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 $ 282,313 To be provided for as follows: Revenue from EPA Grant Revenue from Litter Control Grant Revenue from HUD Revenue from the Commonwealth Total GRANT PR~ECT FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June[~30, 1981 $ 36,540 9,745 230,828 5,200 $ 282,313 SE~TtDN V That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the purposes herein specified for the fism. al year ending June 30, 1981: Paragraph One For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of one million nine hundred nineteen thousand six hundred thirty-one dollars and no cents ($1,919,631) is appropriated from the Debt Service Fund to be apportioned as follows: 1. Regular Debt $~1~~5~875~ 2. School Debt ~_!~$59,706 3. Coupon Cremation Costs 1,300 4. Paying Agents Service 750 SUMMARY Total DEBT SERVICE FUND appropriations for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 $ 1,919,63~ To be provided for as follows: Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from Gen. Fd.) Total DEBT SERVICE FUND resources available For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981 $ 1,919,63,% $ 1,919,631 Total appropriations mentioned in Sections I through V %nthis Ordinance for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1981: RECAPITULATION Section I q~_~G~neral Fund Section II School Fund Section III Self-Sustaining Funds Section IV Grant Project Fund Section V Debt Service Fund GRAND TOTAL $11,181,850 19,793,189 1,610,007 282,~13 1,919,631 ~34,786,990. July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) BE IT FHRTHER ORDAINED that the ~irector of Finance is hereby authorized to transger to other funds from the General Fund, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not in excess~of, the appropriations made to these funds from the General Fund for the period covered BY this appropriation ordinance. SECTION VI Ail of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I thr~mgh IV are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions and provisions h~rein before~set forth in connection with said terms~.and those set forth in this section. ~ P~ragraph One Subject to the qualifications in this .ordinance contained, all appropriations made out of the General Fund, the School Operating Fmnd, the Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, the Textbook Rental Fund, and the Grant Project Fund are declared to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations--the purpose being to make the appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropria~mns are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full. Otherwise, the said appropria~mns shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of revenue est~ated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors. Paragraph Two Ail revenue r~e~v~d by any agency under the control of the Boa~doof S~perv~sors or by the~School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as su~mittedi~to the Board of Superv~s~s~m~y not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors or by the School Board or by the Board of Public Welfare witho~t the consent of the Board of Supervisos ~a~ng first obtained. Nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation or make transfers between specific items of appropriatimn withhut the consent of the director of finance being first obtained. Paragraph Three Ail balances of appropriations ~payable out of the General Fund of the county treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth (30th) day of June,i~981 except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be lapsed into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of~he appropriations which may be~!imade in the appropriation ordinance for the next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1981. However,nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to be~applicable to the School Fund, School Construction Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust Fund, Contributions to Volunteer Fire~e~artments, or Grant Pro~ect Fund, but any balance available in these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1981. Paragraph Four No obligations f~r goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for con~ractua! services--such as communications, travel, freight, ~xpress--and membership fees and subscriptions shall be required, but such contract shall be approved by the head~of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual and the purchasing agent, who shall be responsible.for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual. In the event of the failure £~r any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriation action of the Board of Supervisors. obligations incurred contrary to these requirements shall not be ~om~dered obligations of the county, and the director of finance~shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obligations. Paragraph Five Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this ordinance by any or all county departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the Board of S~pervisors to any of their officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official du2~es shall be ~aid at the same rate as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to.maintain like rates. Paragra~:!~Six Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted onfforms and according to regulations prescribed or approved by the'director of finance. Paragraph Seven Ail ordinances and parts of ordinances inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Paragraph Eight This ordinance shall become effective on July first, nineteen hundred and eighty. Mr. Fisher then handed to the news media present a document without any comment. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel. At 2:57 P.M., motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel matters. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 4:11 P.M. Agenda Item No. 15. Request re: Data Processing Study. Mr. Agnor summarized the history of the data processing study and the phasing of the study. He noted that a review of proposals made by vendors was conducted by the consultants with Homer, Barksdale and Company, who were employed by the County for the study as well as a committee composed of Mr. Melvin Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, Mr. Jim Keister, representing the Albemarle County Service Authority, Mr. Tom Hurlburt representing the Albemarle County School System and Mr. Douglas Eckel, member of the Planning staff. ~This committee, as well as the consultants, will review their proposals today. He then introduced Mr. Donald McCants, consultant. Mr. McCants said from the time of receipt of the computer bids on January 28, 1980, until the present, the consultants and the committee have been actively involved with the vendors. Prior to each meeting with the vendors, a set of standards was established. He then presented a chart which showed what the consultants and the committee had done: namely; request proposals with detailed bid specifications, receive the vendor proposals, validate those proposals, and select the vendors which met the specifications. A selection committee was then appointed and a meeting was scheduled with each vendor selected. Each vendor had the o~o~t~mi~y~t~.demOns~ate and run a set of predetermined bench marks and each was given one week prior to scheduled date to prepare such. Therefore, no vendor had any advantage over any other vendor. During the demonstrations by the vendors, the committee evaluated and scored each vendor. Mr. McCants then said that the recommendation of the consultants is purchase of the system and noted that the cost figures involved are for a seven-year life cycle of the system. He felt the system being proposed has the capacity to serve the needs as identified in the feasibility study. The most satisfactory vendor selected was the IBM Data Processing Division. Mr. Fisher said he did not argue with the selection process but did have some question about the decision on purchase or lease. Since the lease was based on a two-year contract he felt leasing of any equipment on a short-term basis is more expensive and asked if a cost comparisQn~ was made of a lease over a longer period of time. Mr. McCants said the vendor offers either a month to month rental or a two year lease program. He had not pursued that from a financial point of view because one can work the figures in many ways to come up with the optimum yield. He also noted that the County does have the option of entering into a contract with a third party to purchase the system on a lease basis of seven years but that basically puts the Board in a financial decision at that time. Mr. Fisher said such is true today and the question of looking at a two-year contract sounded ridiculmu~ to him. Mr. Fisher was in agreement basically with which the machine was to purchased but was not convince that the financial decision had been reviewed carefully enough. Mr. McCants disagreed. Mr. Fisher then questioned the number of staff people being recommended; seven full-time, and felt that was a large group. Mr. McCants reviewed what the staff people would do and noted that without the proper staffing the entire system will be severely affected. Mr. Fisher then questioned whether planning and zoning are included in the system. Mr. McCants said Planning and Zoning are areas that are not packaged like payroll and finance. In talking with a few vendors in the area, it is envisioned that Planning will be the central theme in the overall installation. This unfortunately is an area that cannot be found readily available in a packaged.product. Therefore, the County will have to design its own overall information retrival from that ii~spective. Such has been considered and included in the feasibility study and in plans and specifications. He also noted that IBM did referenc. several sites that have had quite a bit of development in this area. In conclusion, he noted that planning and zoning are not explicitly identified because it is a more distributivei activity and will come out of the other activities. Mr. Fisher asked how many years it would take to get Planning and Zoning on the system. Mr. McCants said it was difficult to determine, but probably two or three years after the system is operating. Mr. Agnor said the staff's concept was that once the system is in operation and the Data Processing Department is functioning properly, the first priority would be to get service bureau work cancelled and do all of that work inhouse. Immediately following would be Planning, Zoning, the Sheriff's Department, Social Services. Once a decision is made to select a vendor, a management committee will be appointed to select the Data Processing manager himself. The committee will decide when programs will be designed and all of that will be the total operation of the Data Processing Department. He agreed that two or three years would be the timing for the functioning of the Planning information. Mr. Fisher said the purpose of today's meeting is to select a vendor and the recommendati of the computer selection committee is to purchase an IBM 4331 System and such is the unanimous decision of that committee. Mr. Agnor said included in the selection of the vendor is also authorization to accept the vendor's proposal. He noted that he and Mr. Jones had discussions earlier about purchase versus lease of a system. He requested that authorization be givenlto accept the proposal with the understanding that by the time the first payment is due, Whether they be for purchase or lease, the matter will have been July 9~ 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) examined in more detail, particularly the financial aspects of which is more advantageous over the seven-year life cycle of the equipment. By that time, he felt there will be a firm recommendation on whether to purchase the equipment or lease same. Mr. Agnor also noted that acceptance of the vendors proposal has to be made by the end of this month or this entire process will have to be started over. He noted that there are three options on the proposal. One, to outright pay for the system when the machinery is delivered; 2) to lease from the vendor; or 3) to sell the system to another firm on a lease back basis. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the recommendation from the selection commit to accept the proposal from the IBM Data Processing Division. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Work Session: Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor then reviewed the following memo dated June 30, 1980: "The proposed five year Capital Improvement Program for FY 80-81 through 84-85 r~ recommended to you by the Planning Commission has been reviewed by this office and the Director of Finance for financial resource planning. The following comparison is made of the proposed plan with the last revision to the plan in August 1979: Capital Improvement Plan - Millions of Dollars Difference Aug. '79 June '80 $ % Total Plan Projects Requiring County Funds Projects Without County Funds County Funds RESOURCES: 95.6 101.4 + 5.8 37.0 -~ + 9.[ 58.6 54.8 - 3.8 19.1 25.9 +-~ +6.1 +2~;.o -6.5 +35.6 General Fund Balance General Fund Appropriation Literary Fund Loans Sale of Property Semi-Annual Tax Collection Revenue Sharing Federal Energy Grant TOTAL RESOURCES 6.O 7.1 2.5 3.0 4,5 5.0 O.4 O.5 3.25 3.85 2.86 1.84 0 O.3 19.5 21.59 + 2.1 +10.8 The plan has not increased significantly in total or numbers of projects, bUt has increased in project dollars requiring County (or local) funds. These increases are attributable to inadequate original estimates of project costs plus inflationary increases of most projects in the plan. Most importantly the August 1979 revision indicated $19.1 million of County funding needed and $19.5 million in resources, while the June 1980 proposed plan shows $25.9 million needed with resources of $21.6 million. An analysis of this increase by categories of projects reveals the following changes in project cost estimates: Projects Requiring County Funds Difference Aug. '79 June '80 $ % Administration & Court Bldgs. Airports Education Fire, Rescue Highways Libraries Miscellaneous Parks/Recreation Solid Waste TOTAL 5.37 6.97 + 1.60 +29.8 3.28 4.30 + 1.02 +31.1 9.43 14.56 + 5.13 +54.4 0.45 0.16 - 0.29 -64.4 2.99 4.40 + 1.41 +47.2 2.31 2.88 + 0.57 +24.7 3.82 4.01 + 0.19 + 5.0 0.49 0.44 - 0.05 -10.2 8.85 8.90 + 0.05 + 5.6 37.0 ~ + 9.6 +26.0 Although the categories of project costs requiring County funds are important, and are helpful in focusing on the changes, the amount of County funds involved do not equate to the changes in project costs. A review of the County funds involved reveals the following changes: Amount of County Funds Administration and Court Bldgs. Airports Education Fire, Rescue Highways Libraries Miscellaneous Parks/Recreation Solid Waste TOTAL Difference Aug. '79 June '80 $ 5.37 6.92 + 1.55 0.13 0.11 - 0.02 9.18 14.26 + 5.08 0.37 0.08 - 0.29 0.18 0.24 + 0.06 1.08 1.65 + 0.57 1.48 1.56 + 0.08 0.45 0.40 - 0.05 0.68 0.68 0 +29.0 -15.4 +55.3 -78.4 +33.3 +52.8 +5.4 -11.1 0 19.10 25.90 + 6.8 +35.6 July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) A comparison of the two tables will show as an example that Airport projects increased $1.02 million (+31.1%) while the County share decreased $0.02 million; Highway projects increased $1.41 million (+47.2%) an~ the County share increased only $0.06 millic (+33.3%). Ail categories were examined in this financial review, and are summarized as followS: 1. Administration and Court Buildings - pha!se I of the County Office BUilding increased $413,000 to reflect the approved clonstruction contract, and Phase II (gymnasium renovation) has been added at an ~estimated $1,100,000. Renovations of Court Square buildings were not included. Scottsville Elementary Red Hill Meriwether Lewis Greenwood/Crozet Future Site Acquisition Miscellaneous Repairs Albemarle High Track Albemarle High Renovation Burley Renovation Broadus Wood Energy Conservation 2. Airports - $107,375 in County funds est!imated to fund $4,295,000 in federally funded projects. Significant projects are rmnway overrun extension for power failures during take-off, and possible terminal buildling expansion in 83-84. 3. Education - $9,257,000 in local funds, 155,000,000 borrowed from Literary Fund, $300,000 from Federal Energy grant to !fund $14,557,000 in estimated project costs. No new projects. Increases are as follows: 'i79 '80 Difference $1,40i0,000 $ 1,690,000 +$ 29o,ooo 1,56!0,000 1,786,000 + 226,000 1,98i0,000 2,5O5,OOO + 525,OOO 2,38i5,000 2,832,000 + 447,000 3510,000 350,000 -0- 1715,000 250,000 + 75,000 13i0,000 130,000 -0- 50!0,000 3,097,000) + 3,229,000 632,000) 45i0,000 685,000 + 235,000 5010,000 600,000 + 100,000 $9,43!0,000 $14,557,000 +$5,127,000 4. Fire, Rescue - project costs for hydrants were removed as a completed project. No change in remaining projects. 5. Highways - Hydraulic Road project increased $1,341,600; Georgetown Road pedestrian path increased $32,460; Comonwealth Drive culvert project added (+$27,370). County share of Hydraulic Road not changed since information is not available. 6. Libraries- three new projects added; Crozet equipment $8,500; Scottsville addition $46,500; Northside branch $564,000; total $619,000, all County funded. Bookmobile purchase removed as a completed project ($50,000). 7. Miscellaneous - vehicular maintenance building project increased $37,000 to reflect the approved construction project; repair and renovation of Health Department building added at an estimated cost of $199,880, one-half from County funds ($99,940). 8. Parks/Recreation - new projects added include roadway paving at Chris Greene ($60,000); Beaver Creek ($15,000); and Mint Springs ($25,000); recreational field improvements at four schools, Hollymead $8,000; Crozet $8,000; Scottsville $8,000; Broadus Wood $10,000. Projects removed (completed) include Chris Greene Parking Lot ($30,000); Walton School Tennis Courts ($15,000); Albemarle High Tennis Courts Lighting ($10,000); Yancey School recreation area ($10,000). Funds for new projects requested from "Future Project Reserve" decreases the fund from $300,000 to $161,000. One project has been approved since the plan was compiled and should be added to the total-expansion of the Ivy Creek Natural Area, $37,750 in County funds. 9. Solid Waste - Ivy Landfill access road project (Rt. 637) increased 48,720 to reflect approved contract; County share unchanged. The projects were reviewed in order to determine financial feasibility. With a shortfall of $4.3 million in resources, and a further shortfall of $1.6 million in Revenue Sharing if Congress does not extend the law, and an additional shortfall of $3.85 million if a decision is not approved to collect real estate taxes on a semi-annual basis during the five year planning period, the C.I.P., with current estimates, could have a total shortfall of $5.9 million (4.3 + 1.6) or $9.75 million (4.3 + 1.6 + 3.85). Additionally, the costs of several future needs are not included in the plan, i.e. converting the present office building in Court Square.to a court services building, funding comprehensive plan utility and road improvement needs, and development of a park in the southern area of the County. One approach to the problem is to consider a referendum for a general obligation bond issue, in addition to the $5.0 million projected to be borrowed from the Literary Fund. In my opinion, the requested projects do not reflect a sufficiently critical need to increase the County debt in the five-year planning period. The use of Literary Fund loans is the extent of the indebtedness proposed in the current C.I.P. plan, and was calculated to be offset by redemptions of the existing debt, and to therefore not increase the net indebtedness of the County. I believe this policy should be continued as long as possible, or at least until the needs have been reexamined following the conclusion of several matters which are now unclear, and which can have a bearing on our needs as well as our financial planning. These matters are: 1. Conclusion of the County/City negotiations on service and revenue sharing. 2. Completion of the 1980 census and review of the population data to determine requirements for redistricting, both magisterial and school attendance districts. July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) 3. Final action by Congress on the Federal Revenue Sharing Law. Completion of the zoning ordinance and map. Scheduling of the next five year cycle review of the Comprehensive Plan The first three could be completed within several months and can affect short- range planning and projects. The last two may have more bearing on the next C.I.P. revision cycle, but could possibly affect some decisions in the current revision effort. The following funding of the C.I.?. is recommended: General Fund Balance General Fund Appropriation (FY-81) Revenue Sharing thru 9/81 Federal Energy Grant Literary Fund Loan (Scottsville & Red Hill) Sub-Total $ 7.1 million 1.0 million 0.24 million 0.3 million 2.0 million $10.64 million General Fund Appropriation (FY 82-85) TOTAL 4.50 million $15.14 million In addition to the above, the following resouces are recommended to be considered for a reserve for future revisions: Federal Revenue Sharing Semi-Annual Tax Collection Literary Fund Loan Sale of Property TOTAL $ 1.6 million 3.85 million 3.0 million 0.5 million $ 8.95 million The project categories are recommended to be funded as follows: Admin./Court Bldg. Airport Education Fire, Rescue Highways Libraries Miscellaneous Parks/Recreation Solid Waste TOTAL Project Costs Request Recommended $ 6,968,820 4,295,000 14,557,000 155,750 4,400,660 2,879,285 4,011,202 438,500 8,902,720 $~6,608,93'7' $ 6,968,820 4,295,000 4,766,000 155,750 4,400,660 2,315,285 3,711,202 315,250 8,902,720 $35,830,687 County Funds Request Recommended $ 6,922,570 107,375 14,257,000 83,750 239,030 1,649,143 1,565,225 396,000 679,000 $25,899,093 $ 6,922,570 107,375 4,466,000 83,750 239,030 1,081,143 1,265,225 272,750 679,000 $15,116,843 The following project changes have been included in the above recommendations: ADDITION: DELETIONS: Expansion of Ivy Creek Natural Area +$37,750 Meriwether Lewis School Greenwood - Crozet School Future Site Acquisition Albemarle High Renovation Burley School Renovation Broadus Wood Addition TOTAL $2,455,000 2,782,000 350,000 3,000,000 519,000 685,00q -$9,791,000 Ail of the projects, except future site acquisition, are recommended for reconsideration in the next C.I.P. planning cycle provided County/City negotiations are completed, and future studies of redistricting are completed. Other project deletions: Northside Library Recreation Future Projects Data Processing TOTAL $ 564,000 (Pending County/City negotiations) 161,000 300,000 (consider lease/purchase) $1,025,000 For partial restoration of some deleted projects, as well as the addition of future needs, it is recommended the reserve resources be retained for distribution until the next C.I.P. revision cycle as follows: 1. The $1.6 million of Federal Revenue Sharing be allocated to the Court Square Building renovation. 2. The semi-annual tax collection ($3.85 million) be considered for school renovations along with Literary Fund loans ($3.0 - $4.0 million). The total of these resources will not fund the present requests, but needs may be changed following review of redistricting. 3. The $0.5 million from potential sale of land be considered for Parks/Recreatio~ needs, particularly southern county area needs when staff studies are completed. 4. Library needs should await County/City negotiations and be considered possibly for lease rather than capital expenditures if needs cannot be met with capital funds. 'July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) In summary, the 1980 revisions to the C.I.P. will balance recommendations ($15.12 million) against resources ($15.14 million). It is not dependent on enlarging the County debt, but is dependent upon increasing the annual appropriation for General Fund revenues to the C.I.P. by $250,000 each year for the next four years, thereby chan~ the current $500,000 General Fund appropriation to $1,500,000 by FY-85. The reserve resources of $8.95 million will not meet the total deletions of $10.78 million, but needs may change or all needs will not be funded in the next several years, or reevaluation of County debt may follow County/City negotiation and/or 1981-82 Comprehensive Plan revisions. For the 1980 C.I.P. revision, favorable consideration of these recommendations is requested." Dr. Iachetta said the memo indicates that a tax increase will not be necessary. Mr. Agnor said that is not true. A lot is dependent on what the results of the reassessment are and what the total operation budget needs are for next year. Mr. Agnor did not feel the County will be able to get by without a tax increase, f Mr. Lindstrom asked how the utility plan that is being examined with the Service Authorit in connection with the Comprehensive Plan fits into the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor said that plan is not addressed in the program at all and the only way the utility plan could be done would be through the resources of the Albemarle County Service Authority. The Authority has resources but are beginning to obligate some of them in projects that have gone to bid. Although, the Service Authority is beginning to exhaust some of its resources such could be changed if there was a greater participation of the people asking for the projects or if a mandatory participation was imposed. Mr. Lindstrom asked when the final report on the Utilities Plan can be expected. Mr. Agnor said hopefully by August 13, 1980. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the County's share of the Crozet Interceptor is included. Mr. Agnor said no. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Agnor had a suggestion on what should be done about Meriwether Lewis School in the interim. Mr. Agnor felt the Meriwether Lewis School project, along with the other delayed projects, should be held in abeyance until the County has a total idea of school needs and the results of the City negotiations. Mr. Fisher felt with the uncertainties iof the negotiations with the City, it is not possible to wait for a number of years before ~making a decision on Meriwether Lewis. Mr. Fisher was in agreement with Mr. Agnor about delaying a bond issue or a referendum until the uncertainities are resolved. He did not feel the Board was supportive of such and did not think such should be presented for the voters until the Board is in support. He did feel that some thought should be given to what should be done to the older school building: that are being used. Mr. Lindstrom said changes may occur within the next year that would enable the Board to make decisions on these projects. Therefore, he felt the Board should be allowed to amend the program when further information is available. Mr. Fisher said some sources of funding may become available that are not now available. He then suggested showing in the C.I.?. the projects the Board feels are needed and for which funding is available and also show the deferred projects in case additional money is received. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher felt it best to show the projects that are most vital to the program, but unfunded at the present time, until there is a better way to approach these projects. He then suggested setting the public hearing on the C.I.P. for August 14, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Agnor said utilities cannot be included because there is no known cost. Mr. Lindstrom was very concerned that the utilities plan and the Crozet Interceptor would be "shelved" for another year. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to set the public hearing on the Capital Improvements Plan for August 14, 1980, at 7:30 ?.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he was willing to support the motion on the basis that the deferred items will be discussed again by either amending the Program or making a final decision to insert them in August. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. At 5:40 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 5:45 P.M. Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments. There were no nominations for any appointments. Agenda Item No. 30. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said he had requested the staff to make a presentation on the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority as related to the Comprehensive Plan and then asked Mr. Tucker to present such information. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Re: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for Jurisdictional (Service Areas) Background--At a meeting of the Board of Supervisors on February 15, 1978, work on redrawing the Service Authority's jurisdictional boundaries to bring them into compliance with the 1977-1995 Comprehensive Plan was postponed pending completion of the detailed growth area land use plans. As of that date, the Board had taken action only on the Crozet Community jurisdictional area (#1). With work on the detailed land use amendments completed (April, 1980) staff has consulted with the Albemarle County Service Authority and offers the following generalized amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for jurisdictional areas: July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Water Only_: Water only districts are recommended for those areas where existing customers, proximity to existing transmission lines, and/or planned densities of development make water service both feasible and desirable. There are two water only areas in the staff recommendation: ~ (1) The Ivy village area, following the boundaries of the old area #5, with an extension east to Ivy Creek in order to include existing customers; and (2) The North Pines Subdivision, just to the west of the Piney Mountain village area, due to the conditions of approval requiring water for the development. Water and Sewer: Water and sewer districts include the Urban Area, Hollymead, Crozet, Scottsville, and Piney Mountain growth areas, or portions of old jurisdictional areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 ~and 7. A brief description of each of the growth area's jurisdictional boundaries follows: (1) Urban Area: On the north, the Urban area is bounded by the South Fork of the Rivanna;, on the east by the Rivanna River, and the northern border of Neighbor- hood Three (including the Ashcroft RPN, and the Sheraton Inn quadrant of the~I-64, the Blue Ridge Sanitarium, Route 20 South, and the southern boundaries for Neighborhoods 4 and 5 (the BiscUit Run drainage basin, including the Whittington RPN residential planned neighborhood to the west of Route 631); and on the west by the border of Neighborhood Six, the Farmington Subdivision and Ivy Creek. This jurisdictional area includes changes in the boundaries of existing Jurisdictional areas 7 and 4. Areas 2 and 6 remain intact. (2) Hollymead: On'the north, the Hollymead jurisdictional area is bounded by the northernmost extent of the airport property, the northern border of the Hollymead Community (i.e. the planned industrial development area), Route 29 and Route 649 (including the customers already served water just to the north, i.e. Northwoods Mobile Home Court, Springfield and Terrybrook Subdivision); on the east by Powells Creek, on the south by Route 643, Route 29, and a stream leading back to Route 643 south of the airport, and on the west by Route 743, including the Teledyne Avionic property, and the western property line of the airport property. (3) (4) This new jurisdictional area lies entirely within existing jurisdictional area 4, which runs north from the Urban Area to the Greene County line. Crozet: Changes in old jurisdictional area 1 include eliminating three quadrants of the 1-64, Route 250 interchange, and redrawing the southern border along the plans southern border (Route 250). These changes have been adopted. Scottsville: The recommended boundaries for the Scottsville jurisdictional area comply with the plan boundaries except on the south where the boundary follows Route 726 to the treatment plant, and on the west where it follows Totier Creek, north to Route 737. This extension picks up customers presently served by this main distribution line. (5) Piney Mountain: The Piney Mountain jursidictional area is bordered on the north by Route 763 and on the eastern side of Route 29 by the northern border of the University Village residential planned neighborhood, on the east by the boundary of University Village, and the already developed industrial land, on the south by the North Fork of the Rivanna, and on the west by Route 606." Mr. Tucker noted that the above recommendation is that of three groups; the County planning staff, the Planning Commission and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher noted letter from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive DireCtor of the Albemarle County Service Authority, dated June 27, 1980, in which it was stated that the Board of Directors has reviewed the proposed changes and are not opposed to same. Mr. Fisher said in looking at the Scottsville area and the Ashcroft plan, he felt they were both outside of the growth area and shown for sewer without any specific reason. He felt the sewer area should be smaller and more work done for the areas with water only. Mr. Fisher then asked if the Board was in a position to advertise these amendments for public hearing. Mr. St. John said yes if the Board has an idea of what is to be advertised. He also noted that there has to be a map in existence at the time of the advertisement. Mr. Lindstrom felt the changes would be minor and could be verbally made. Dr. Iachetta then asked if there could be a map prepared by next Wednesday, July 16. Mr. Tucker felt there could be one prepared shoWing the staff's recommendation. He also noted that there had been a public hearing on this matter which was deferred and he was unsure if another public hearing is needed. Mr. Roudabus asked if the amendments to the actual jurisdictional service areas and the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan could be done at the same time. Mr. St. John said changes in the jurisdict: service areas requires an advertisement in the newspaper with a map showing the changes and action has to be taken no less than ten days after that hearing. Mr. Tucker said this is a Comprehensive Plan amendment and is very generalized. He also understood that when the jurisdictional service lines are amended, they have to be fairly accurate in description. Mr. Roudabush said such appears to be by metes and bounds. Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. St. John would have the necessary information by July 16. He felt the Comprehensive Plan and the Service Authority's jurisdictional area amendments should be done at the same time. He felt the map in the Comprehensive Plan needed to be redrawn and the areas which the Board has struggled over and defined as the growth areas should be the only areas where sewer service is shown unless there is an existing use and if so that user should be separated. He did not feel any expansion of sewer service should be shown in nongrowth areas. Mr. St. John said such could be prepared in time for discussion next week. Mr. Roudabush felt it should also include those projects under advertisement for bids. Mr. St. John felt anything that has been funded should be included, otherwise there would be legal problems. Mr. Roudabush said some time back someone informed the Board that some of the boundaries could not be changed because bonds were tied to a certain area. Mr. St. John said research has been done on that and submitted to the Service Authority informing them of what they can do. The Board was in agreement with the suggestion of Mr. Fisher. With no further discussion, the matter was deferred to July 16, 1980. onal July 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Dr. Iachetta said he received a request last week about the relocation of a fire hydrant on the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company property. Mr. Agnor said approximately $2,500 would be needed to put the hydrant in that location and suggested some consideration be given to relocating an ex±sting hydrant in the area to this property. Therefore, Mr. Agnor recommended that the County be allowed to spend up to $2,500 for the hydrant with the details being worked out by the staff. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to that effect. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same car'ried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 31. At 6:16 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn this meeting to July 16, 1980, at 1:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Rouda~ush. NAYS: None.