1977-05-18NMay 18, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on May 18, 1977, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Board Members Present: Mrs. Opal D. David, and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.,
Gerald E. Fisher, J; T. Henley, Jr., F. AnthOny Iachetta and W. S. Roud~bush.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Planner, Robert W. Tucker
Jr.; and County Attorney, Gearge R. St. John.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Fisher, at 7:35 P.M.
Call to Order.
Meeting was called to order by Chairman, Gerald E.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-Z7-14. Sherly Davis. To locate a mobile home on 18.4 acres zon
A-1. Propert~ is located on the west side of Route 604 approximately 3/4 mile northwest of
intersection of Routes 664 and 60~. County Tax Map 19, Parcel 7, White Hall and Rivanna
Districts. (Advertised April 5, 1977,)
Mr. Fisher noted that SP-77-14, a request for a mobile home, would not be heard by the
Board. He stated that objections received by the Planning Commission had been withdrawn,
and the request Was being approved administratively.
Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing to amend Section 17-5-8 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance and Section 18-37 of the Albemarle County Code so as to provide for
service roads. (Deferred from March 16[)
Mr. Tucker read the proposed amendments and recommendations to the Board~as follows:
Amendments to the Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development
Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance for provision of Service Roads:
On December 14, 1976, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and
Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance to provide for service roads
in accordance with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan or in such
instances where the Planning Comm~s~an feels that a proposed development
warrants such a service road.
The Board of Supervisors has requested the staff to review, in particular,
the area along U.S. 29 North from the Charlottesville corporate limits
to State Route 649 - Airport Road. This review was made in order to
determine where service roads are feasible and to provide a cost analysis
for construction of the service roads.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments for providing service roads are as follows:
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Site Development Pl'an ~Sec'ti'on)
17-5-8 On any site bordering a primary, arterial, or'interstate highway,
or adjacent to an existing service road in the State Highway
System, or in any case in. which service roads are prescribed to
be located according to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan,
or in any other case in whi6h the Commission determines that the
need for such roads is substantially generated by the proposed
development, the developer, shall construct vehicular travel
lanes or d~iveways, not less than twenty-four (24) feet in width,
in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 17-5-10
hereof, which will permit vehicular travel on the site and to
and from adjacent parking areas and adjacent property; provided
that, in lieu of providing such travel lanes or driveways, the
developer, may dedicate where necessary, and construct a service
road in accordance with existing standards of the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation for such roads. In
no event shall the setback requirement be greater if the service
road is dedicated than the setback required without dedication,
except that in no event shall building be constructed closer
than thirty (30) feet from the nearest right-of-way line. Upon
satisfactory completion, inspection and application by the
developer, the County shall take the necessary procedural steps
to have such service road accepted by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation for maintenance.
Albemarle County Land Subdivision and Development Ordinance
Sec. 18-37. General standards of design
(E) Service Drives. On any site bordering a primary, arterial, or
interstate highway, or adjacent to an existing service road in the State
Highway System, or in any case in which service roads are prescribed to be
located according to the Comprehensive Plan, or in any other case in which
the Commission determines that the?need for such roads is substantially
generated by the proposed development, the developer, shall construct
vehicular travel lanes or driveways, not less than twenty-four (24) feet
in width, in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 17-5-10 of
the Zoning Ordinance, which will permit vehicular travel on the site and
to ~nd from adjacent parking areas and adjacent property; provided that,
in lieu of providing such travel lanes or driveways that provide vehicular
access to and from~adjacent parking areas and adjacent property, the
developer, mav ded~a~te wb~ ~~ ~ ~-~e o~ ..... ~ ~
May 18, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting)
and Transportation for such roads. In no such event shall the setback requirement be
greater if the service road is dedicated than the setback required without dedication,
except that in no event shall building be constructed closer than thirty (30) feet from
the nearest right-of-way line. Upon satisfactory completion, inspection and application
by the developer, the County shall take the necessary procedural steps to have
such service road accepted by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transpor-
tation for maintenance.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan recommends the provision of service roads along all
arterial highways and recommends a right-of-way width of 120-160 feet. The
Plan indicates that there are two arterial highways in the County, U.S. 29
(North and South) and U.S. 250 (East and West).
The planning staff has prepared plan~s~ for the proposed location of service
roads along U.S. 29 North. These plans indicate those areas where service
roads appear to be most feasible. The service road plan has been prepared
on aerial photographs and will be presented at the public hearing.
Service Road Cost Analysis
A cost ana'lysis for construction and a typical cross section of the service
road has been prepared by the Department of Engineering. Keep in mind, however,
that these figures do not include the cost of property acquisition, drainage
facilities, nor the cost of grading and seeding.
COST OF SERVICE DRIVE PER FOOT (ESTIMATE)
t. Pavement $ 24.00
2. Sidewalk 9.00
3. Curb and Gutter 6.00
~ 39.00
The Engineering Department has also stated that for a ballpark figure, which would
include drainage facilities, grading and seeding, it was suggested that the total
amount should be doubled or the estimated cost of 380.00 per foot ~f service
drive.
This estimate is for a typical section - Category IV 24 ft. wide
Base: 8" aggregate stone
Surface. 3" B-3 Bit. Conc.
1~" S-5 Bit. Conc.
Sidewalk on the autside of service drive
Curb and gutter on outside of service drive.
Mr. Robert Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 12, 1977, by a
vote of 5 - 2, recommended that the Board of Supervisors not amend the Site Plan Ordinance
and the Subdivision Ordinance to include service roads.
It recommended the following priorities as possible solutions to the traffic problems
on Route 29 North:
PRIORITY #1 (Carried by a vote of 6 - t)
Fund and construct immediately two lanes: one in the median on,the northbound
side, and one on the west side of the southbound lane. Continue requiring
acceleration and deceleration lanes as businesses make improvements on their
property and as new development occurs. Require reservation for future
construction of service roads to the South Fork Of the Rivanna River.
PRIORITY #2 (carried by unanimous vote)
Synchronize lights from Hydraulic Road to the SouthhFork of the Rivanna River.
PRIORITY #3 (carried by unanimous vote)
Choose a by-pass route; acquire the right-of-way for the by-pass over the next
ten years.
PRIORITY #4 (c~rried by unanimous vote)
Grade separations at major intersections from the City/County line to the South
Fork of the Rivanna River.
PRIORITY #5 (carried by unanimous vote)
Develop the parallel road concept from the city limits to Airport Road.
There being no questions from the Board members, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing
opened.
First to speak was Mr. Wendell Wood, who said he supported the Dosition o~ the Planning
Commission. He surveyed business owners and citizens owning property on Route 29, and none
that he surveyed were in favor of a service road. He concluded by saying the board should
drop further studies of the service road concept.
Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation said he would
recommend returning to the concept of requiring a third lane with a setback for future service
roads as an interim measure until a final plan is adopted.
May 18, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Highway Department was backing out of its agree-
ment to study the service road concept. Mr. Roosevelt said they had never really agreed to
do a detailed study of the use of service roads on Route 29, and that it was apparently a
misunderstanding by the Planning Commission. He added that the Department of Highways
and Transportation does not have funds to pay for road improvements on Route 29. He explaine
that the purpose of a service road is to reduce the n~mber of direct access roads onto
the major highway. He noted that any short term solutions devised by the County should work
into the long term solutions proposed and recommended by the .State Highway Department. He
said he hoped the County would dr~ft ordinances to protect areas where interchanges would
go and adopt a policy foR'the third lane and try and work toward the plan for the year 20~0.
Mr. Henley said he did not feel the service road was worth the expense or fuss.
Mr. Roudabush said he did not feel a service road would reduce traffic on the main
artery, only put some of it directly in front of the business~ establishments. Mr. Roosevelt
gave examples of service roads which did help relieve conjestion. He noted that service
roads add safety to the main highway, but do cause additional congestion on side roads leadin
to the main artery. His final recommendation was to just take the shoulder presently on
Route 29, and make it into two additional lanes.
Mr. Frank Kessler was next to speak and said he supported the recommendation of the
Planning Commission.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against the proposa.1, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. He then said he would'retflctant~ go along
with the recommendations of Mr. Roosevelt until some better plan is suggested. Dr~ Iachetta
said h'e felt no progress had been made since this time last year. Mr. Dorrier said the
third lane concept would be a burden on property owners, and would not relieve traffic
congestion signficantly. Mrs. David asked if traffic light sychronization would help speed
up traffic flow. Mr. Roosevelt said it would not help in areas of heavy traffic.
After considerable discussion, Dr. iachetta offered a motion to require a reservation
of right-of-way which would allow the Board the option to return to the service road
concept in the future after a study is completed. Mr. St. John said this motion was not
part of the advertisement for the meeting tonight, and felt that if the Board wished to
make this kind of legislative law, it would have to be readvertised. Mr. Fisher declared
Dr. Iachetta's first motion dead, and requested a new motion. Dr. Iachetta then offered to
adopt tfl~ amendments advertised for public hearing at this meeting. No second was received
to the motion, and Mr. Fisher requested a new motion. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to
draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors
then sent on to the Planning Commission for public hearing) to increase the setback
requirement along Route 29 North from the City limits to Route 649 to accommodate future
service roads. Motion was seconded by Dr. Zachetta. Roll was then called, and motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
At 9:20 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared ~ five minute recess. Meeting reconvened at 9:23 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 4. Public hearing: Resolution of intent to rezone 2.0 acres from
RS-1 Residential to A-1 Agricultural. Property located on the north side of Rou~e 6
approximately 750 feet west of the intersection of Route 627 and Route 6. Property known as
County Tax Map 128A(2), Parcel 2, Scottsville District. (Advertised on May 4 and May 11, 197
Mr. Tucker read the County Staff Report.
On April 6, 1977, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent
to rezone parcel described above from RS-1 to A-1. This action was sub-
sequent to memoranda from the Zoning Administrator and an affadavit from
Lawrence Moore..
Character of the A~ea
Considerable rural development exists northeast and southeast of this property.
Many of the lots ~n th~s area were reordered prior to zoning and are currently
non-conformin in area regulations. A single-family dwelling and non-conforming
mobile home exist on this property.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan indicates this property within the Esmont Village
Cluster, proposed for a year 2000 population of 2,000.
Staff Comment
The existing RS-1 zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan, however,
this is a spot zoning and supportive ~ater and sewer facilities do not
exist in this are~, and therefore, staff opinion is that RS-1 zoning on
this property is inappropriate at this time. Therefore, staff recommends
this property to be rezoned from RS-1 Residential Suburban to A'-!
Agricultural.
Mr. Tucker noted the Planning Commission recommended by a 6 - 0 - 1 vote to allow
rezoning to A-1.
Mr. Lawrence E. Moore, the property owner, was not present, and no one from the public
wished to speak either for.~or against the request. Mr. Fisher read the letter received from
Mr. Moore requesting the rezoning.
Received: March 2B, 1977
Gentlemen:
Please void the present zoning that is on my property located
at Esmont, Virginia.
The present zoning was placed on the property at the request
of my brother who had no authority to do so.
Yours truly,
( Signed )
Lawrence E. Moore
Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commissio~
Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. There being no further discussion, ~oll was called,
and motion carried by the following recorded vote':
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David, and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: SP-77~18. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
To expand water treatment facilities on 8.5 acres on property zoned A-1. Property is located
on both sides of Route 240 about 1/2 mile west of Mechums River. "County Tax Map 57, Parcels
10 and 29B, White Hall District. (Advertised On May 4 and May 11, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker read the County Staff's report.
Character of the Area
This area is rural in character, however, 14 homes exist within 1000 feet of the
site.
Staff Comment
The property on the south side of Route 240 (Parcel 29B)contains the
existing water treatment plant and associated facilities. The proposal is
to expand the existing structure to provide for additional chemical storage,
handling, and unloading facilities. Two sedimentation lagoons are proposed
on the north side of Route 240 (Parcel 10). Raw water is trea~ed with
flocculents (alum) at the plant to cause precipitation of suspended solids and
this matter is filtered out. Periodically, the filters are flushed out and
this ftushwater would be recieved in:two proposed lagoons for settling.
This water is currently discharged without settling to Beaver Creek Reservoir.
Approval of this petition would bring the existing facilities into conformance
and permit the proposed improvements. Staff recommends approval with the
following conditions:
Removal from view of dw~llings in the area and Route 240 of pipe,
construction materials, stumps, wood, and other debris. This is to be
accomplished to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator;
Site plan and landscape plan for plant expansion and sedimentation lagoons.
In development of these plans consideration should be given to maintaining
as much existing vegetation as practical, providing screening from
adjacent properties and Route 240; and fencing around the sedimentation
lagoons to prohibit trespassing.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously with the
of a third condition to read: "Soil erosion plan if required under the ordinance."
Mr. George Williams said the land was in the process of being purchased. He added that
he felt the u~grading of the facility posed no problems to housing in the surrounding area.
Mr. James Collins asked who the property was being purchased from.
Bell Estate.
Mr. Williams said
No one else from the public wished to speak ~ither for or against this petition, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mrs. David to
approve the petition with the recommendations and conditions as set out by the Planning
Commission. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote.:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing. ZMA-77-08. South Pantops Land Trust. To rezone
42.17 acres from R-3 Residential to CO Commercial Office. Property is located on Pantops
Mountain near the Rivanna'-River on the south of Route 250 East. Cou~ty~:'Tax~Map 78, Parcel
20, 20D, parts thereof, Rivanna District. (Advertised on May 4 and May 11, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker read the county staff report.
Character of the Area
The site is centrally located within a large tract of land known as Pantops.
The site is one large hill in an area or generally rolling open pasture and
is visible from areas of Charlottesville, Monticello/Brown'S Mountain, and
1-64. No developed areas are directly adjacent to this site. Worrell
Newspapers corporate office is the closest use.
Existing Zoning iR the Area
Substantial areas of vacant R-3 Residential and vacant a~d developed
B-2 Business surround this property. Industrial zoned properties
exist to the east across the Rivanna River and to the south across
1-64 (Zoning map to be presented at public hearings).
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan indicates stream valley/park use and a
mixture of medium and high density residential use in this area.
Comparative Impact Statistics (estimates)
Vehicle trips/day
Water Consumption (gdp)
Sewage (gdp)
Existing Requested
R-3 CO
5,23O 5~-g0~-~530
186,400 75,000-100,000
149,120 60,000-80,000
Requested as %
of Existing
104.8 - 124.9%
40.2 - 53~6%
40.~2 - 53.6%
As can be seen in the table above, a potential traffic increase of about
5-25% could be expected if this property were d~veloped under Commercial
Office Zoning compared to the existing R-3 Zoning. Potential water
consumption and sewage discharge could be reduced by about 55 - 60 %
with the requested zoning change. (Discussion between the applicant and the
Albemarle County Service Authority for serving all of ~Pantops" with
a 16-inch water line is currently underway. The Rivanna sewer interceptor
will be reasonably accessible to the site. This interceptor will be
available upon completion of the AWT plant.)
Staff Comment
The staff has several observations concerning this request:
(1) The request is not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan;
however, the plan did not recognize existing zoning in the area;
(2) Commercial Office zoning as requested would provide buffering between
B-1 and R-3 properties as they develop;
(3) Potential traffic impact would be greater and water/sewer demands less
under Commercial Office zoning;
(4) In staff opinion, the CO zone is more limited than the R-3 zone;
(5) In terms of visual aesthetics, staff opinion is that CO development
of this property could be more attractive than multi-family residential
development.
In view of these observations, staff recommends approval of this petition.
Staff would recommend to the applicant (regardless of the outcome of t~is
petition) that thoughtful planning and development of the entire "Pantops"
area will greatly enhance this entrance to the Charlottesville area and will
benefit the City and County and greatly increase the value of properties
in this area.
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission recommended by a vote of 4 to 3 to approve
this rezoning. He noted that the three dissenting votes were not opposed to the use, but to
the location of proposed buildings.
Mr. Stuart Carwile, representing the South PantOps Land Trust, said the only company
presently seeking to locate on this property is State Farm Insmrance Company, and that they
have the option to purchase ~he remaining acreage. He noted that the traffic figures given
by the Highway Department are slightly misleading, because t~e vehicle count that State
Farm presently puts out is no where near 6,000 vehicles per day.
Mr. Donald Zimmerman, Vice President for State Farm Insurance said they plan on
building an office with a minimum of 150,000 square feet. He added that they would employ
the same staff as present, and the type of work would be identical. He noted that a
consulting firm studied the traffic problem, and said that the employees would be
traveling opposite the major flow of traffic, and that they would be relieving a Very
severe traffic problem ~n the Barracks Road area.
No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and
Mr. Fisher declarsd the public hearing closed. Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Zimmerman
approximately how many ~ehicle~trips State Farm presently made. He estimated 500 per day as
a maximum.
Mr. Fisher said he felt he could support the rezoning as recommended by the Planning
Commission.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve ZMA-77-08 as recommended by the
Planning Commission. Motion was seconded by Dr. lachetta, and carried by the folloW±ng
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-77-10. Biscuit Run, Inc. To rezone 201.0 ~6res from A-1 to
RPN/RS,-1. Property located on the West s~e of 'Route~.631, approximately 2 mi~9~ south
May 18, 1977 (Regular - Night Meeting)
of Charlottesville. County Tax Map 89, Parcels 95 and 95A; County Tax Map 90, Parcels 3, and
5,~'part thereof. Samuel Miller and Scottsville Magisterial Districts. (Advertised May 4 and
May !1, 1977.)
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission deferred action because of a problem with
the water system in the Biscuit Run watershed. Mr. Fisher asked if the matter should be
deferred by the Board, or closed and have the applicant resubmit his application for a future
date. Mr. St. John recommended that the Board defer the request indefinitely and noted
that there is no way that the request can be automatically granted approval; it must be
brought before the Board for approval within a year or withdrawn.
Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer action on ZMA-77-10 until a recommenda-
tion is received from the Planning Commission, and that the public hearing be readvertised at
the applicant's expense. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Adoption of Annual Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the
ordinance before the BOard for their consideration was prepared in accordance with the
advertised budget as amended at the public hearing held at Albemarle High School for the
budget year FY-19,78. Motion to adopt was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David,
and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
(Ordinance as adopted set out in full on following pages.)
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion of letter from Virginia Association of Counties.
Suit to attack constitutionality of 1976 Unemployment Insurance Act.
Re:
Mr. Fisher said it was his understanding from reading the letters received, that
unless you are a party~to the suit, the settlement will not apply to your locality. Mr. St.
John said he could not believe that the Supreme Court would make a ruling on this and h~ve it
effect only those counties and cities who are a party to the suit. Mr. St. John added that
he felt this was the responsibility of the State A~torney General to file the suit against
the Federal Government regarding the constitutionality of the 1976 Unemployment Insurance Act
not the responsibility of the local cities and counties to do on a piecemeal basis. He added
that he did not recommend that the Board take any action on this or appropriate any monay for
this purpose.
Following a very brief discussion, the Board agreed to follow the recommendation of Mr.
St. John and not participate in the suit proposed by the Virginia Association of Counties.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Lewis A. Martin, Jr.
representing the Airport Taxi, Inc. regarding application to the State Corporation Commission
for a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted that the Criminal Justice Plan would be going to the
Planning District Commission on the first Tuesday in June, and h'e would appreciate hearing
any Board member comments before that time.
Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher asked Board members what they wished done with the Reservoir
ordinances, and to decide on the procedures to be followed. He added that he would prefer
to put a permanent ordinance on the books rather than extend the present ordinance. Mr.
St. John said he would prepare an appendix to the proposed ordinance, and if the Board does
not feel it will be adequate, then they can extend the present ordinance.
After studying calendars, the Board members finally decided to meet on May 31st at
9:00 ~.M. in the County Office Building Board Room for the purpose of setting a public
hearing date on a reservoir protection ordinance. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
None.
May 18, 1977 (Night Meeting)
ANNUAL APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE ~
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 1978
An ordinance making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary expen-
ditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscsl year ending
June 30, 1978; 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 with this 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 appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1978:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT OF TAXES AND
OTHER REFUNDS the sum of thirty-five thousand four hundred dollars and no
cents ($35,400) is appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Refunds $ 35,400
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of the function of GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND
SUPPORT the sum of one million seven hundred twenty-six thousand four hundred
ninety-eight dollars and no cents ($1,726,498) is appropriated from the
General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Board of Supervisors $ 109,072
2. County Executive 75,175
3. Personnel 261,100
2. Purchasing 43,902
5. County Attorney 69,820
6~. Housing Coordinator 28,762
7. Assessment of Real Estate & Board of Equalization 241,081
8. Finance 270,299
9. Engineering 104,464
10. Planning 124,045
11. Ivy Landfill 120,000
12. Keene Landfill 52,300
13. Elections 50,495
14. Maintenance-Buildings & Grounds 129,283
15. Virginia Association of Counties 2,880
16. Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission 9,640
17. Chamber of Commerce-Dues 1,200
18. Economic Development Commission 3,500
19. Bicentennial Commission 9,282
20. Soil Survey 12,648
21. Miscellaneous Telephone Expense 200
22. National Association of Counties-Dues 500
23. Airport Board 6,650
Paragraph Three
For the current expenses of the function of HUMAN DEVELOPMENT the sum
of one million eight hundred seventy-seven thousand two hundred twenty-one
dollars and no cents ($1,877,221) is appropriated from the General Fund to
be apportioned as follows:
!. Parks & Recreation $ 154,957
2. Board of Public Welfare 2,250
3. Administration-Department of Social Services 583,938.
4. Public Assistance: Federal State & Local 509,500
5. Purchase of Services-Title XX Program 50,000
6. Health Department 196,294
7. Mental Health & Retardation Services Board 47,504
8. Regional Library 250,575
9. Piedmont Virginia Community College 500
10. Extension Service 46,484
11. Youth Employment Service 2,000
12. District Home 5,000
13. Offender Aid & Restoration 7,918
14. Madison House 4,000
15. Involuntary Commitment 3,000
16. Community Action Agency 11,021
17. Jefferson Area Board on Aging 2,280
May 18, 1977 (Night Meeting)
Paragraph Four
For the current expenses of'the function of PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE
the sum of one million three hundred seventy-eight thousand seven hundred
thirty-two dollars and no cents ($1,378,732) is appropriated from the General
Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. County Clerk $ 96,920
2. Commissioner of Accounts 200
3. Circuit Court 32,125
4. General District Court 6,370
5. Commonwealth Attorney's Office 47,716
6. Juvenile Court 18,532
7. Sheriff 538,527
8. Fire Department 171,947
9. Forest Fire Extinction Service-State 2,800
10. Volunteer Fire Departments 94,607
11. Inspections Department 267,831
12. Protection of Livestock & Fowl 27,976
13. Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad 2,500
14. Highway Safety Commission 200
15. Emergency Services Office 4,000
16. Contributions to Regional Jail Operation 55,443
17. Juvenile Detention Home 6,258
18. Magistrate's Office 2,010
19. Scottsville Rescue Squad 2,500
20. Emergency Medical Communications Equipment-Maintenance 270
Paragraph Five
For the current expenses of the function of DEBT SERVICE the sum of
sixty-five thousand eight hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($65,850) is
appropriated from the General Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Redemption-Jail Bonds ~ $ 50,000
2. Interest-Jail Bonds 15,750
3. Cremation Costs 100
SUMMARY
TOTAL GENERAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978
$5,083~701
To be provided as follows:
Anticipated balance at July 1, 1977
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Commonwealth
Non-Revenue Receipts
Total GENERAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending JUne 30, 1978
$ 36,487
3,358,161
1,588,816
100,237
$5,083,701
SECTION II
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for SCHOOL purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1978:
Paragraph One
For the current expenses of the SCHOOL OPERATING Fund the sum of
fourteen million nine hundred thirty-nine thousand four hundred dollars and
no cents ($14,939,400) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned
as follows:
1. Administration $~ 275,300
2. Instruction-Regular Day School 8,025,800
3. Other Instructional Costs 1,012,092
4. Attendance & Health Services 66,600
5. Attendance & Health Services (Activities) 135,449
6. Attendance & Health Services (Western Albemarle) 177,535
7. Pupil Transportation 879,630
8. Replacement-Transportation Vehicles 104,000
9. School Food Services 13,808
!0. Operation-School Plant 950,250
!1. Maintenance-School Plant 293,000
12. Fixed Charges 466,900
13. Adult Education 79,000
14. Other Educational Programs 258,000
15. Capital Outlay 289,800
16. Debt Service 1,912,236
Paragraph Two
For the current expenses of FEDERAL SCHOOL PROGRAMS the sum of seven
hundred thirty-eight thousand six hundred fifty-three dollars and no cents
($738,653) is appropriated from the School Fund to be apportioned as follows:
May 18, 1977 (Night Meeting)
3.
4.
5.
ESEA Title I (Low Income)
ESEA Title I (Migrant)
ESEA Title IV-B (Libraries & Learning Resources)
ES~A Title VII (SP*AAR)
Crime Awareness & Resistance Program
SUMMARY
Total SCHOOL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978
To be provided for as follows: Anticipated balance at July 1, 1977
Revenue from Local Sources (Trans. from 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, 1978
$ 409,059
30,770
40,000
198,263
60,561
$15,678,053
_0I
9,227,505
5,570,795
738,653
141~100
$15,678,053
SECTION III
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated
for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1978:
Paragraph One
For the function of CAFETERIA OPERATIONS the sum of four hundred fifty
thousand dollars and no cents ($450,000) is hereby appropriated from the
Cafeteria Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Maintenance and Operation of School Cafeterias $ 450,000
SUMMARY
Total CAFETERIA FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978
To be provided for as follows:
Anticipated balance at July 1, 1977
Receipts from Cafeterias
Total CAFETERIA FUND resources availabl
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978
Paragraph Two
$ 450,000
$ -0-
450,000
$ 450,000
1. Textbooks $ 150,000
SUMMARY
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978
To be provided as follows:
Anticipated balance at July 1, 1977 $ -0-
Receipts from Rental Fees 150,000
Total TEXTBOOK RENTAL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978 $ 150,000
Paragraph Three
For the function of the McINTIRE TRUST FUND the sum of four thousand
two hundred dollars and no cents ($4,200) is hereby appropriated from the
McIntire Trust Fund to be apportioned as follows:
1. Payment to County Schools
$ 4,200
SUMMARY
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978
$ 4,200
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from investments per trust $ 4,200
Total McINTIRE TRUST FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978 $ 4,200
$ 150,000
For the function of TEXTBOOK RENTALS the sum of one hundred fifty
thousand dollars and no cents ($150,000) is hereby appropriated from the
Textbook Rental Fund to be apportioned as follows:
May 18, 1977 (Night Meeting)
Paragraph Four
For the function of REGIONAL JAIL OPERATIONS the sum of six hundred
ninety-three thousand eight hundred forty-six dollars and no cents ($693,846)
is hereby appropriated from the REGIONAL JAIL FUND to be apportioned as
follows:
1. Operation of Regional Jail
$ 693,846
SUMMARY
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND appropriations for
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978
$ 693,846
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from DJCP Grants
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the~Commonwealth
Revenue from Other Sources
Total REGIONAL JAIL FUND resources available
For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978
$ 21,160
208,146
463,540
1,000
$ 693,846
Total appropriations mentioned in
Sections I through III in this Ordinance for the
Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1978:
RECAPITULATION
Section I
Section II
Section III
General Fund
School Operating Fund
Self-Sustaining Funds
GRAND TOTAL'
$ 5,083,701
15,678,053
1,298,046
$22,059,800
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the director of finance is hereby authorized
to transfer 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 IV
Ail of the monies appropriated as show by the contained items in
Sections I through III are appropriated upon'the provisos, terms, conditions
and provisions herein before set forth in connection with said items and
those set forth in this section.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this ordinance contained, all appro-
priations made out of the GenerAl Fund, the School Operating Fund, the
Cafeteria Fund, the McIntire Trust Fund, the Regional Jail Fund, and the
Textbook Rental 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 appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations
in full. Otherwise, the said appropriations 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 estimated to be available in the
said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
ParagrapM Two
Ail revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of
Supervisors 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 submitted to the Board of Supervisors may 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 without the consent of the Board of
Supervisors being 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 appropriation without~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, 1978, except as otherwise provided for, are hereby declared to be
lapsed into the county treasury and shall be used for the payment of the
appropriations which may be made in the appropriation ordinance for the
next fiscal year, beginning July 1, 1978. However, nothing in this para-
graph shall be construed to be applicable to the Sc'hool Fund, School
Construction Fund, Cafeteria Fund, Textbook Rental Fund, McIntire Trust
Fund, or Contributions to VolUnteer Fire DePartments, but any balance
available in these funds shall be used in financing the proposed expenditures
of these funds for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1978.
May~_18, 1977 (Night Meeting)
Paragraph Four
No obligations for 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
contractual services--such as communications, travel, freight, express--and
membership fees and subscriptions shall be required; and provided further that
no requisition for contractual services involving t~e issuance of a contract
on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be
approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or indiv-
idual and the purchasiJng 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 for any reason of approval herein required
for such contracts, said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action
of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obligations incurred contrary to these requirements shall not be
considered 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 Supervisars to any of their officers and employees for expense on
account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal auto-
mobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid 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.
Paragraph Six
Ail travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms 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.
THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON JULY FIRST, NINETEEN HUNDRED
AND SEVENTY-SEVEN.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 P.M.
.... ~r-ma~