1998-12-02December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000 :1.7
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 2, 1998, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin,. Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Ms. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the
Chairman, Mr. Marshall.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4.
Public.
There were none.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve
items 5.1 through 5.4 and to accept the remaining items for information.
Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item No. 5.1. Authorize County Executive to execute purchase agreements
for Habitat, White and Suber properties for Esmont Park.
Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary, which states that in 1996,
the Albemarle County Neighborhood Team began working with the Esmont community
to help determine the needs and improve the level of community services. One
of the major needs identified by the community was the need for a park.
While Esmont is within the planned service radius of Walnut Creek Park and the
Scottsville Community Center, a lack of transportation options makes those
park facilities unusable by a large number of Esmont residents. Compounding
this problem is the lack of space at the Yancey Elementary School, which does
not have sufficient land for the recommended community park facilities as
outlined in the Community Facilities Plan. After looking at several possible
sites, staff became aware of a potential site directly across Route 627 from
Yancey Elementary School. The site contains approximately 13.6 acres and
involves three property owners. The property is identified as lot 7 and
parcel A, owned by Habitat for Humanity, and the adjacent parcels owned by
Suber and White. A consultant hired by the County has found the park site to
be feasible and has developed a conceptual plan. This past June, the Planning
Commission and the Board found the proposed park development in this location
to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has been authorized by
the Property Committee to negotiate the purchase of all three properties,
subject to final approval by the Board.
Based upon the Property Committee's recommendation, staff has negotiated
the purchase of the Suber and White parcels at $12,200 each, which is equal to
the January 1, 1999 County assessments. The purchase of the Habitat property
has been negotiated at $17,500, which is the mid-point between a value placed
on the property by a private appraiser hired by Habitat ($19,000), and an
opinion of value of the County Asessor (416,000) after review of that ap-
praisal.
The County currently has $100,000 appropriated in the Parks and Recre-
ation Deparetment Capital Improvement Program for this project. The total
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
0001.
park development is estimated at over $500,000 and will be phased in as
funding becomes available.
This site for the Esmont Park has been unanimously endorsed by the
Southern Albemarle Organizataion, and the County Attorney's office developed
purchase agreements for the properties.
Staff recommends the Board authorize the County Executive to execute
purchase agreements for the Habitat, White and Suber properties.
Ms. Humphris said she is glad the County could execute the agreements.
Mr. Martin asked why no one built on the property. Mr. Pat Mulaney, Director
of Parks and Recreation, said that, although the parcel would not perk, it
will still make a nice park for the County. The Whites and Subers plan to
build six houses on the adjacent parcels.
By the above shown vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to
execute purchase agreements for Habitat, White and Suber properties for Esmont
Park.
The first agreement reads as follows:
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE
THIS AGREEMENT made this 4th day of December, 1998, by and
between GREATER CHARLOTTESVILLE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY (hereafter
the ~Seller"), and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereafter
referred to as "Buyer").
1. Sale and Description of Property. In consideration of
the mutual promises contained herein, Seller agrees to sell and
Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate with all improvements
thereon and appurtenances thereto (the "Property"), located in the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, and described as follows:
"Parcel A" containing approximately 5.429 acres, more or
less, and being described further as part of Albemarle
County Tax Map Parcel 128-85; and
"Lot 7" containing approximately 3.737 acres, more or less,
and being described further as part of Albemarle
County Tax Map Parcel 128-85.
2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property
is Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($17,500.00), and shall
be paid by Buyer to Seller at closing.
3. Title. The Seller agrees to convey the Property by
appropriate deed containing general warranty and English covenants
of title, which title shall be good, marketable, and insurable,
free and clear of all liens, indebtedness, encumbrances and
tenancies, and subject only to such easements, covenants, and
restrictions of record which do not adversely affect marketability
and insurability of title. In the event Buyer's attorney finds
title to be defective, and should Seller fail to remedy any
default within sixty (60) days of notice thereof, this Agreement
may be declared null and void by Buyer, and all funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
4. ExPenses and Prorations. Buyer agrees to pay the
expenses of preparing the deed, and Seller agrees to pay the
recordation tax applicable to grantors. Except as otherwise
agreed herein, all other expenses incurred by Buyer in connection
with the purchase, including, without limitation, title examina-
tion, survey costs, preparation of a plat of subdivision, environ-
mental reports, and recording costs shall be borne by Buyer. All
taxes, assessments, interest, and rent, if any, shall be prorated
as of the date of closing and paid by Seller.
5. Inspection. The Buyer and its agents shall have the
right to enter upon the Property at any time prior to closing for
purposes of engineering, surveying, site analysis, and such other
work, so long as the studies do not result in a change in the
character or topography of the Property. This Agreement is contin-
I?
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
gent upon the Property being'free of hazardous waste or other
dangerous environmental contamination. If the Buyer determines,
in its sole judgment, that such contamination exists, Buyer may
declare this Agreement null and void and all funds paid to Seller
by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
6. Deed and Other Legal Documents. The Seller agrees to
execute a deed and other legal documents necessary to convey the
Property to Buyer.
7. Time Is of the Essence. The Seller agrees that, with
respect to all obligations specified herein, time is of the
essence.
8. Closing. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle
County Attorney's Office on or before December 15, 1998, or
earlier if Buyer and Seller agree, or as soon thereafter as title
can be examined and papers prepared.
9. Ri~k of LOSS. Ail risk of loss or damage to the
Property by fire, windstorm, casualty or other cause are assumed
by, and shall be borne by the Seller, until closing. In the event
of any material loss, destruction or damage to the'Property, Buyer
may declare the Agreement null and void and all funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
10. Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the
Property shall be in substantially the same condition at closing
as it is at the time of the execution of this Agreement.
11. Construction, Benefit and Effect. This Agreement
shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of the parties, constitutes the entire
Agreement between the parties, and may not be modified or changed
except by written instrument executed by all parties.
12. Agreement Survives Closing. It is expressly under-
stood and agreed by Buyer and Seller that all agreements, prom-
ises, stipulations and representations contained herein shall
survive closing and shall bind the heirs, executors, administra-
tors, agents, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
13. Approval by Board of Supervisors. This Agreement is
expressly contingent upon its approval by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors (hereafter referred to as "Board"). If the
Board fails to approve this Agreement within 60 days of its
execution by Seller, Buyer or Seller may declare this Agreement
null and void and all funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be
refunded within thirty (30) days.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement
as of the day first above written.
The second agreement reads as follows:
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE
THIS AGREEMENT made this 20th day of August, 1998, by and
between PATRICIA WHITE SUBER (hereafter the "Seller"), and the
COLINTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereafter referred to as "Buyer").
1. Sale and Description of Property. In consideration of
the mutual promises contained herein, Seller agrees to sell and
Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate with all improvements
thereon and appurtenances thereto (the ~Property"), located in the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, and described as that portion of
land containing approximately 2.245 acres, more or less, and being
described further as Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 128-86B.
2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the property
is Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($12,200.00), and shall be
paid by Buyer to Seller as follows:
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
A. One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) shall be paid
upon execution of this Agreement by Seller.
B. The balance of $11,200.00 shall be paid by Buyer
to Seller at closing.
3. Title. The Seller agrees to convey the Property by
appropriate deed containing general warranty and English covenants
of title, which title shall be good, marketable, and insurable,
free and clear of all liens, indebtedness, encumbrances and
tenancies, and subject only to such easements, covenants, and
restrictions of record which do not adversely affect marketability
and insurability of title. In the event Buyer's attorney finds
title to be defective, and should Seller fail to remedy any
default within sixty (60) days of notice thereof, this Agreement
may be declared null and void by Buyer, and all funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
4. Expenses and Prorations. Buyer agrees to pay the
expenses of preparing the deed, and Seller agrees to pay the
recordation tax applicable to grantors. Except as otherwise
agreed herein, all other expenses incurred by Buyer in connection
with the purchase, including, without limitation, title examina-
tion, survey costs, preparation of a plat of subdivision, environ-
mental reports, and recording costs shall be borne by Buyer. All
taxes, assessments, interest, and rent, if any, shall be prorated
as of the date of closing and paid by Seller.
5. Inspection. The Buyer and its agents shall have the
right to enter upon the Property at any time prior to closing for
purposes of engineering, surveying, site analysis, and such other
work, so long as the studies do not result in a change in the
character or topography of the Property. This Agreement is
contingent upon the Property being free of hazardous waste or
other dangerous environmental contamination. If the Buyer deter-
mines, in its sole judgment, that such contamination exists, Buyer
may declare this Agreement null and void and all funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
6. Deed and Other Legal Documents. The Seller agrees to
execute a deed and other legal documents necessary to convey the
Property to Buyer.
7. Time Is of the Essence. The Seller agrees that, with
respect to all obligations specified herein, time is of the
essence.
8. Closing. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle
County Attorney's Office on or before September 15, 1998, or
earlier if Buyer and Seller agree, or as soon thereafter as title
can be examined and papers prepared.
9. Risk of LOss. Ail risk of loss or damage to the
Property by fire, windstorm, casualty or other cause are assumed
by, and shall be borne by the Seller, until closing. In the event
of any material loss, destruction or damage to the Property, Buyer
may declare the Agreement null and void and all funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
10. Condition of Property. Seller warrants that the
Property shall be in substantially the same condition at closing
as it is at the time of the execution of this Agreement.
11. Construction, Benefit and Effect. This Agreement
shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of the parties, constitutes the entire
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5) ................ ~, · ~ ~,¥~,.~.~':~
Agreement between the parties, and may not be modified or changed
except by written instrument executed by all parties.
12. A_~reement Survives Closing. It is expressly under-
stood and agreed by Buyer and Seller that all agreements, prom-
ises, stipulations and representations contained herein shall
survive closing and shall bind the heirs, executors, administra-
tors, agents, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
13. Approval by Board of Supervisors. This Agreement is
expressly contingent upon its approval by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors (hereafter referred to as ~Board"). If the
Board fails to approve this Agreement within sixty (60) days of
its execution by Seller, Buyer or Seller may declare this Agree-
ment null and void and all funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be
refunded within thirty (30) days.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement
as of the day first above written.
The third agreement reads as follows:
AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE
THIS AGREEMENT made this 4th day of December, 1998, by and
between JOSEPH SAMUEL WHITE (hereafter the ~Seller"), and the
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereafter referred to as UBuyer").
1. Sale and Description of Property. In consideration of
the mutual promises contained herein, Seller agrees to sell and
Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate with all improvements
thereon and appurtenances thereto (the "Property"), located in the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, and described as that portion of
land containing approximately 2.245 acres, more or less, and being
described further as Albemarle County Tax Map Parcel 128-86A.
2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the property
is Twelve Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($12,200.00), and shall be
paid by Buyer to Seller as follows:
A. One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) shall be paid
upon execution of this Agreement by Seller.
B. The balance of $11,200.00 shall be paid by Buyer
to Seller at closing.
3. Title. The Seller agrees to convey the Property by
appropriate deed containing general warranty and English covenants
of title, which title shall be good, marketable, and insurable,
free and clear of all liens, indebtedness, encumbrances and
tenancies, and subject only to such easements, covenants, and
restrictions of record which do not adversely affect marketability
and insurability of title. In the event Buyer's attorney finds
title to be defective, and should Seller fail to remedy any
default within sixty (60) days of notice thereof, this Agreement
may be declared null and void by Buyer, and all funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
4. Expenses and Prorations. Buyer agrees to pay the
expenses of preparing the deed, and Seller agrees to pay the
recordation tax applicable to grantors. Except as otherwise
agreed herein, all other expenses incurred by Buyer in connection
with the purchase, including, without limitation, title examina-
tion, survey costs, preparation of a plat of subdivision, environ-
mental reports, and recording costs shall be borne by Buyer. All
taxes, assessments, interest, and rent, if any, shall be prorated
as of the date of closing and paid by Seller.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
000:122-
5. InsPection. The Buyer and its agents shall have the
right to enter upon the Property at any time prior to closing for
purposes of engineering, surveying, site analysis, and such other
work, so long as the studies do not result in a change in the
character or topography of the Property. This Agreement is
contingent upon the Property being free of hazardous waste or
other dangerous environmental contamination. If the Buyer deter-
mines, in its sole judgment, that such contamination exists, Buyer
may declare this Agreement null and void and all funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
6. Deed and Other Legal Documents. The Seller agrees to
execute a deed and other legal documents necessary to convey the
Property to Buyer.
7. Time Is of the Essence. The Seller agrees that, with
respect to all obligations specified herein, time is of the
essence.
8. Closing. Closing shall take place at the Albemarle
County Attorney's Office on or before September 15, 1998, or
earlier if Buyer and Seller agree, or as soon thereafter as title
can be examined and papers prepared.
9. Risk of Loss. Ail risk of loss or damage to the
Property by fire, windstorm, casualty or other cause are assumed
by, and shall be borne by the Seller, until closing. In the event
of any material loss, destruction or damage to the Property, Buyer
may declare the Agreement null and void and all funds paid to
Seller by Buyer shall be refunded within thirty (30) days.
10. Condition of Property. Seller warrants ~hat the
Property shall be in substantially the same condition at closing
as it is at the time of the execution of this Agreement.
11. Construction, Benefi~ and Effect. This Agreement
shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the
successors and assigns of the parties, constitutes the entire
Agreement between the parties, and may not be modified or changed
except by written instrument executed by all parties.
12. A~reement Survives Closing. It is expressly under-
stood and agreed by Buyer and Seller that all agreements, prom-
ises, stipulations and representations contained herein shall
survive closing and shall bind the heirs, executors, administra-
tors, agents, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
13. Approval by Board of SupervisQrs. This Agreement is
expressly contingent upon its approval by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors (hereafter referred to as ~Board"). If the
Board fails to approve this Agreement within sixty (60) days of
its execution by Seller, Buyer or Seller may declare this Agree-
ment null and void and all funds paid to Seller by Buyer shall be
refunded within thirty (30) days.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed this Agreement
as of the day first above written.
Item No. 5.2. Holiday Leave.
Mr. Tucker had sent the following memorandum to the Board:
"As most of you may know, Governor Gilmore recently provided
State employees with extra holidays for Thanksgiving and Christ-
mas, in addition to their normal holiday leave time. The Governor
has authorized a half-day for November 25th prior to the Thanks-
giving Holiday, a half-day on December 23rd, and all of New Year's
Eve (December 31st).
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
000 .23
While we will be unable to consider the November 25th leave
time for our employees, I am requesting that you authorize the
half-day on December 23rd and New Year's Eve, which would be
consistent with the Governor's additional holiday time granted to
State employees. This item has been placed on your Consent
Agenda, so, pending your approval, we will institute this schedule
that is equitable to holiday leave granted to State employees by
Governor Gilmore."
By the above shown vote, the Board approved Mr. Tucker's request that
County employees be given the following days' holiday leave: December 23rd
(half-day), and December 31st.
Item No. 5.3. Appropriation: Education, $3,566.63 (Form #98040).
The executive summary states that, at its meeting on October 26, 1998,
the School Board approved the following appropriations for V. L. Murray
Elementary School:
Appropriation of $6.63 for V. L. Murray Elementary School.
Ms. Kathryn C. Thornton donated her car tax rebate to V. L. Murray
Elementary School to purchase instructional supplies.
Appropriation of $3,560.00 for V. L. Murray Elementary School.
The International Reading Association awarded Ms. Paula E. White,
teacher at Murray Elementary School, a Teacher As Researcher Grant
in the amount of $3,560.00. This grant will fund the project
Expanding Definitions: A Study of the Roll of Electronic Books in
the Literacy Process. The qualitative study will examine the role
of electronic books in the literacy acquisition process of early
elementary students. From this information, case studies will be
written and examined for categories related to the expanding
definition of literacy, which includes all media. Outcomes may
offer information for how teachers will use this new technology to
guide children's literacy growth.
Staff recommends the Board approve the appropriations, totaling
43,566.63, as detailed on form #98040.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99
NUMBER:' 98040
FUND: SCHOOL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATIONS FOR V. L. MURRAY ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY
1221561101601300
1310460216152100
1310460216135000
1310460216200000
1310460216550400
1310460216601300
DESCRIPTION
INST/REC SUPPLIES
SUB/WAGE-TEACHER
P/T WAGES-OFC.CLERICAL
FICA
MILEAGE
INST/REC SUPPLIES
AMOUNT
$ 6.63
110.00
1,099.78
100.22
800.00
1.450.00
TOTAL $3,566.63
REVENUE
2200018100181109
2310418000189919
DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DONATION $ 6.63
INT'L READING ASSOC. GRANT 3.560.00
TOTAL $3,566.63
Item No. 5.4. Revised FY 1999/2000 Operating Budget Calendar.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
The executive summary states that, on October 7, 1998, the Board
approved the FY 1999/00 Operating Budget Calendar, which included the follow-
ing significant items:
April 14 - Public Hearing on Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget
April 16 Additional Work Session (if needed)
April 21 - Board Adopts FY 1999/00 Budget, Sets Tax Levy
Board Adopts FY 1999/00 CIP Budget
Board Approves FY 1999/00 2003/04 CIP
In order to meet the traditional April 15 adoption date, and to set the
County tax rates prior to the April 1999 tax mailing, the aforementioned
April, 1999 budget dates have been moved forward by one week. The revised
dates are:
April 7
April 9
April 14
Public Hearing on Board of Supervisors' Proposed Budget
Additional Work Session (if needed)
Board Adopts FY 1999/00 Budget, Sets Tax Levy
Board Adopts FY 1999/00 CIP Budget
Board Approves FY 1999/00 - 2003/04 CIP
A copy of the updated FY 1999/00 Operating Budget Calendar was provided
to the Board. The public will be informed of these changes through different
media during the budget process.
Staff recommends approval of the revised FY 1999/00 Operating Budget
Calendar.
By the above shown vote, the Board approved the revised FY 1999/00
Operating Budget Calendar.
Item No. 5.5. Letter dated November 20, 1998, from Ms. A. G. Tucker,
Resident Highway Engineer, Department of Transportation, to Ms. Ella W. Carey,
Clerk, regarding transportation items discussed at the November 4, 1998, Board
meeting, was received for information.
"We offer the following comments regarding transportation
matters that were discussed at the November 4th Board meeting.
Please note that resolutions to adopt "Children at
Play" signs within neighborhoods should be corrected
from "Child at Play" wording.
We have placed orange construction flags on the
Through Truck Restriction signs along Route 631, Rio
Road, to assist in alerting truckers to the sharp
curves. We are reviewing the addition of other signs
and will advise the Board when this study is complete.
I am continuing to gather information in response to ·
questions abut STP funding and the Meadow Creek Park-
way, Phase II project. I will share this information
with the Board after the first of the year.
Item No. 5.6. Old Crozet Elementary School - report on status of
facility from the Department of Engineering and Public Works.
Ms. Thomas asked that the Board discuss this item along with the Capital
Improvements Plan (CIP).
Item No. 5.7. Copy of letter dated November 4, 1998, to
Mr. Joseph M. Cochran, from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administra-
tor, re: Tax Map 58, Parcel 82 Official Determination, Statement of
Development Rights, was received for information.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
000125
Item No. 5.8. 1998 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information.
Item No. 5.9. September 1998 Financial Report for the General, School,
and Capital Funds, was received for information.
Item No. 5.10. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly
Bond and Progress Report for the month of October, 1998, was received for
information.
Item No. 5.11. Notice of application filed with the State Corporation
Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company (Case No. PUE980727) to
revise its fuel factor pursuant to Virginia Code Section 56-249.6, was
received for information.
Item No. 5.12. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville
Regional Jail Authority Board meeting of September 10, 1998, was received for
information.
Item No. 5.13. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for
October 20, October 27 and November 3, 1998, was received for information.
Item No. 5.14. Notice from the Department of Transportation of the
following proposed highway improvement project: Route 29 Corridor, Proj: 6029-
963-F01,PE-100, From': 1-64 to: North Carolina State Line. (Amherst, Appomattox,
Nelson, Albemarle, Bedford, Pittsylvania and Campbell Counties), was received
for information.
Item No. 5.15. Outline of Strategies Intended to Increase Citizen
Participation in the FY 1999/2000 Budget Process, was received for informa-
tion.
Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: March 20(A), 1995;
February 14(A), 1996; March 24(A), 1997, March 4, September 9, September 16
and October 14, 1998.
Mr. Martin had read March 20, 1995, and found them in order.
Mr. Bowerman had read February 14, 1996, and found them to be in order
with one minute book correction. Page 9, line 3 had read, "Mr. Bowerman asked
where sidewalks were not included on East Rio." It was changed to read,
~Mr. Bowerman asked where sidewalks were to be included on East Rio."
Ms. Humphris had read March 24, 1997, and found them to be in order with
a few typographical errors.
Mr. Marshall had read March 4, 1998, pages 1-15, and found them to be in
order.
Mr. Perkins had read March 4, 1998, pages t6-end, and found them to be
in order, with a few typographical errors.
Ms. Thomas had read September 9, 1998, pages 1-23, and found them to be
in order, with a few typographical errors.
Ms. Humphris had read September 16, 1998, pages 22-end, and found them
to be in order, with a few typographical errors.
Mr. Martin had read October 14, 1998, and found them in order.
Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
O00 2G
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10) . .~
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters.
Ms. Angela Tucker, VDoT Resident Engineer, provided an update on the
Meadow Creek Parkway Agreement. She said Six-Year Secondary Road Plan money
may not be available for this project. She said VDoT is committed to putting
together an agreement specific to the County for review by mid-January. The
agreement should then be in place within two to three months, at which time a
consultant can be brought on Board for Phase II of this project. The plan is
that this year plans will be finalized, a center line requirement will be in
place, and agreements will be reached with developer(s), who may be responsi-
ble for building that piece of road. Mr. Martin asked if construction on
Phase II will be phased in. Ms. Tucker said VDoT is currently looking at the
piece of roadway from Rio Road to Route 29. Construction may be phased.
Mr. Tucker added that Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Martin will serve as liaisons and
will have the opportunity to review the agreement. Mr. Bowerman said the
location of the bridge crossing is going to be key in determining the path of
the road.
Mr. Tucker advised the Board that Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development, has scheduled a workshop for the public from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. at
Jouett Middle School on December 10, 1998, to advise the public of proposed
streetlight projects. Staff will report back to the Board in January. A
number are CIP projects; others are requests from Board members or the public.
Mr. Marshall said it is so dark at the entrance to Monticello High
School, that some women have expressed concerns about their safety at the
traffic light on Route 20.
Ms. Thomas asked if VDoT takes into account the way the pupils dilate
when exposed lights, saying that staff needs to ensure a level of lighting
that does not blind drivers. Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and
Public Works, said V DoT takes these and other factors into consideration when
they review requests.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that VDoT held a meeting (purpose of the meeting
was not stated) on the previous day from 4:00 to 7:00 p.~. She felt it ended
too early to accommodate the public.
Regarding the traffic light in front of the Boar's Head Inn, Mr. Perkins
said traffic is often backed up at that intersection. Ms. Tucker said VDoT is
examining the sequencing of that light. A technician noticed an erratic
traffic pattern varying from one day to the next. She will follow-up with the
technicians and report to the Board.
Mr. Perkins asked about the speed limit on Miller School Road. He
compared that road to Route 6 in Nelson County, which he considers a speed
trap, due to the 45 mph speed limit. He believes the speed limit should be
consistent through the various counties. Ms. Tucker said road side character-
istics and accident records are factored into speed limit decisions. She will
report back on what the study of Miller School Road showed.
Ms. Thomas asked about Plank Road, saying that Ms. Tucker had told her
the speed limit would be reduced to 35 mph. Ms. Tucker said she has not yet
received approval to reduce the speed limit, but it is coming.
MS. Thomas asked about the coordination of traffic lights in the area
(no details were provided). Ms. Tucker said VDoT is still working on it.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the underpass on Polo Grounds Road, saying it
is a traffic hazard. Ms. Tucker said she asked that that section of roadway
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
be reviewed, and she will follow up on her request. Mr. Bowerman said VDoT
should be able to come up with an inexpensive remedy to regulate the traffic.
Mr. Martin said local citizens know how to maneuver through the underpass, but
other people traveling to soccer games in the area will have problems.
Ms. Tucker said VDoT also has to consider whether or not repairs need to
be made to the underpass itself; if so, it would be good to coordinate all the
work at the same time. Mr. Martin said VDoT needs to proceed carefully so
that traffic is not held up by red lights. He suggested VDoT consult with
residents to make sure they are not inconvenienced.
Ms. Thomas thanked VDoT for opening the bridge in ~he North Garden area
ahead of schedule.
On an unrelated matter, regarding Ms. Thomas's request that Ms. Tucker
contact residents in the area (a reason for the phone calls was not given),
Ms. Tucker said she is still attempting to reach the residents.
Agenda Item No. 8. Presentation: Albemarle County Social Services
Advisory Board FY 1998 Annual Report.
Ms. Martha Harris, Chair of the Board of Social Services, presented a
report on the Social Services Advisory Board FY98 annual report, to familiar-
ize the Board with the many programs and services the department is responsi-
ble for delivering and administering.
There has been much media coverage about welfare reform on the national
level, as well as with state and local agencies. Although it is still too
early to draw any long-term conclusions, the short-term results are encourag-
ing in some areas. Under the Benefits Program umbrella, there have been
reductions in caseload numbers in three programs. Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) has seen the number of cases under'care decline by 24
percent, and the number of incoming TANF applications decrease by 11 percent.
Although the General Relief Program was not impacted by Welfare Reform, the
number of cases under care in the General Relief Program has diminished quite
significantly since July, 1997. A 32 percent reduction in caseload has been
realized. The Food Stamps Program caseload has decreased by 9.1 percent since
June, 1997.
The Medicaid Program has, however, seen a seven percent increase in
cases since July, 1997. The factors that contributed to this increased
caseload are fewer cases being closed or transferred, fewer applications being
denied, and several new categories being added to the Medicaid Program.
Ms. Harris said the Board of Social Services is very pleased with the
overall reduction in the Benefits Programs' caseload, but is alarmed by the
increasing number of children taken into foster care, which has increased by
94 percent during FY 98. Not only have caseloads increased, but tremendous
growth trends are compounded by more and more children requiring specialized
placement. This causes a large burden on funds.
There has also been a disturbing increase of 23 percent in child
abuse/neglect cases. Social Services is in the second year of a three-year-
old Child Protective Services (CPS) pilot that allows cPS to respond to
allegations of child abuse or neglect with differing protocols. This triple
track program is targeted to improve social worker assistance to the family
with one of three tracks, based on the severity of the alleged abuse or
neglect.
The third category of programs is Employment and Day Care Services.
This has been another positive arena with the implementation of the Virginia
Initiative for Employment Not Welfare (VIEW).
A special program, which has been expanded this year and which offers
great promise to ~at risk" four-year-olds, is Bright Stars. This is a
collaborative effort between Social Services, County schools and community
agencies to provide supportive services to these children. There are four
Bright Star Programs in the County. They are in the Stone Robinson, Agnor-
Hurt, Greer, and Cale Elementary Schools.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Ms. Harris said the department is pleased to welcome Ms. Addie Armstrong
as Assistant Director in February, 1998, and knows she will contribute much to
the operation of the department.
She further complimented and recognized staff and administrators of the
department for their efforts in providing critical services to the community.
The work has been accomplished very professionally, and, at times, under very
difficult circumstances. Additionally, they ha~e been able to achieve this
within the department's overall budget, resulting in it being ~in the black"
by $80,554.
Mr. Bowerman asked what has been the reason for the huge increase in the
number of children in foster care. Ms. Kathy Ralston, Director of Social
Services, said a variety of things contribute to the problem. Mr. Bowerman
asked if it is the result of families going off assistance. Ms. Ralston
replied, uno." Mr. Martin said it is due to dysfunctional families.
Ms. Ralston said that over the past ten to 15 years, the nation made a
shift toward family preservation in order to keep children home with the
family, at all costs, rather than moving children from the home. Foster care
was not always the answer. The shift is now moving toward the middle. Over
the past few years, many children have been in the ten- to 14-year-old age
range. The concern is that children have been left in homes too long in an
attempt to preserve families. Judicial orders are now removing children from
bad homes, and this will continue in the future.
Additionally, there is a new July, 1997 Court Improvement Program Law,
and the Safe Families Act from the fall of 1997, which require that permanency
be established within six months of a child coming into permanent care. This
means families have to get their act together faster now.
Mr. Bowerman asked why, if someone was willing to provide foster care
for ten years, they do nou adopt the child. Mr. Martin said that is not
always practical. Mr. Marshall said many people take foster children for the
income. Ms. Ralston strongly disagreed. The amount of money provided is
pitiful, as low as $300 per month and $100 for clothing per year. She said
kennel fees are higher than the money provided for care of children. Dysfunc-
tional children disrupt homes, so people involved in foster care do not do
this for the money.
Mr. Bowerman said Social Services is moving toward a positive change.
Ms. Ralston said the workload has doubled, but no additional relief has been
provided in terms of people to do the work. She added that currently only six
people can be on the computer system at one time. She hopes the number of
children coming into foster care will be reduced through the Family Support
Program.
Mr. Marshall said one facility was closed because'they could not
provide psychiatric care. Ms. Ralston said children are now going into foster
homes at younger ages. Disturbed children are placed in psychiatric residen-
tial or specialized foster care in private homes with ~wrap around services"
provided to them.
Ms. Harris addressed the reason families serve in foster care. She
attended a recent Tri- Area Foster Families (TAFF) session. Foster parents
shared moving stories with the panel, which demonstrated that people are not
in it for the money.
Ms. Thomas noticed an additional 700 cases may be added to the Medicare
load. The department received only $14,000 to fund the increase, which is not
even enough to fund one position.
Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 9:55 a.m.
Mr. Marshall said it is distressing that family values have deteriorated
so much these days. Ms. Ralston said stresses are different than they used to
be, for both children and families.
Agenda Item No. 9. Update: Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
Funding Options.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
000 9
Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary, which stated that, at its
November 4th meeting, the Board requested additional information on potential
funding sources for a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program for
Albemarle County, specifically on the use of Tourism Fund revenues and a
possible county-wide referendum. When considering potential funding sources
for a PDR program, four options are available to the Board.
Tourism Fund Revenues. These revenues will average approximately
$715,000 a year for the next five years, although several commitments already
exist for those funds. The remaining funds available total approximately
$350,000 a year, except for FY 2001/02, when tourism revenues are expected to
fund the Ivy Road Bike Lanes. Tourism Fund reserve revenues could be avail-
able to the PDR program, but only on a case-by-case basis. State law allows
the County to use three percent of the transient tax revenues only for tourism
and travel-related expenditures, so eligibility would need to be tied to the
specific development rights being purchased and the use of those development
rights.
Public Referendum on General Obligation (GO) Bonds for a PDR Program. A
public referendum could be held to issue GO bonds to finance a PDR program.
However, prior to proceeding with plans for a referendum, the Board would need
to decide how much it wants to borrow to implement a county-wide PDR program.
Although the PDR committee's report requested an initial commitment of $1.0
million for the program; the amount of funding required to sustain a success-
ful or meaningful program has not yet been determined. Before considering a
referendum, the ongoing cost of a PDR program for the County requires further
investigation and the possible assistance of a financial advisor. An advisor
would provide a better understanding of the long-term costs of a PDR program
and help establish maximum and minimum funding levels prior to a bond referen-
dum. A financial advisor would also be able to assist staff in developing the
most effective way to raise the required funds without jeopardizing the
County's bond rating or its ability to borrow for other needed capital
projects.
If the Board only wishes to commit to an annual investment of $1.0
million to the PDR program, combining a PDR bond referendum with a bond
referendum for other capital-related projects makes more sense. Since issuing
GO bonds requires a great deal of preparation time and expense, i.e., hiring a
bond consultant, preparing a bond portfolio, and obtaining a bond rating, it
would be relatively expensive to issue the GO bond unless the issue was large
enough that the reduced cost of borrowing would outweigh the issuance costs.
The Department of Finance has indicated that a referendum should be for a
minimum $20.0 million bond. The PDR question could be presented to the public
along with several other major capital projects for general government, such
as a new juvenile courthouse, library, public safety facilities, etc., to
create a viable GO bond package.
Virginia State law does not allow a County to hold an Advisory Referen-
dum simply to pose the question of whether a Board should take a particular
action. The referendum has to address the question of whether to issue long-
term debt for a particular project.
Public Referendum on an Agreement to Commit (x) Cents on the Tax Rate to
a PDR Proqram. The Board could authorize a public referendum on an agreement,
similar to the Revenue Sharing Agreement, to commit a certain amount of the
tax rate to a PDR program. This option would provide an opportunity for
public discussion and, if approved, would give the Board the mandate to
increase the tax rate to fund a PDR program. This option would provide public
input and direction without the expense of issuing GO bonds for a PDR program.
This option would require identifying an entity that the County could enter
into a contract with requiring the County to expend funds for a PDR program,
which would bind future boards to what would legally be ~alled "long-term
debt". A formula or benchmark for the amount of mandated payment by future
boards would be a critical element of that contract. The referendum would be
to accept or reject this long-term debt.
Fund Balance. Should the Board wish to fund the PDR program within
current revenues, and without increasing taxes, $500,000 could be approved and
transferred from the County's General Fund balance. However, unless an
immediate commitment is required to begin this program, the Board may want to
defer a funding decision until they have had an opportunity to review both the
FY 99/00 capital and operating budgets. Although the PDR program is impor-
tant, committing sizeable funding to PDR's at this time may be premature and
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
outside the context of other public needs reviewed in the normal budget review
process.
Mr. Tucker said if the Board wishes to pursue the idea of funding PDR's
through a referendum for GO bonds, staff will begin to develop costs and a
proposed time line to present to the Board in February. To assess the true
financial costs of an effective PDR program, staff would recommend hiring a
financial consultant to provide some additional fiscal a~alysis of the program
and the bond referendum process.
~ I Should the Board wish to commit immediate
~ staff will prepare a transfer appropriation for $500,000 to begin implementing
funding
to
the
PDR
program,
the program. Tourism funds of approximately $350,000 will be available to the
PDR program on a case-by-case basis, depending on the link to tourism or
travel.
He added that there are some things happening at the state level,
pending approval by the General Assembly, that were unknown in November, such
as additional funding for the schools and additional 599 funds. Those funds
can help the County work through some of these issues, but they will not solve
all of them in terms of the CIP time line. Because there are major commit-
ments of revenues, he felt the Board needed to consider both the GO bond and
other major projects. Staff will provide the Board more of a time line at its
February meeting, if they choose to go the GO bond route.
Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:58 a.m.
Mr. Marshall said he did not realize the County was considering issuing
bonds for the firehouse and library. Mr. Tucker said there is currently
inadequate funding for these projects unless the County raises taxes. The
County could also postpone the projects. The only caveat he knows about now
is what is happening at the state level. The additional funds will not wipe
out all of the needs, but it will help fund some of the capital projects. On
the other hand, a lot can happen with the General Assembly.
· 1 Mr. Bowerman said if there is a voter referendum on two cents of the tax
~ rate devoted to the PDR program, there would be no interest payments. Tax
dollars would go directly into funding until the program stops. The other
recommendations are not "real time"; they are capital items that require a lot
of money in one year, and then there is a payback. Bundling them together
makes it more difficult, in his opinion. The idea of having an agreement with
the citizens on what to do with the two cents ms complicated if it is combined
with capital items. Mr. Tucker said there would be two different issues. The
GO bond would be the approach that would be tied with capital items. It does
not make fiscal sense to go after the $1.0 million investment. Mr. Bowerman
said the agreement could not be used to fund long-term debt. Mr. Tucker said
that, in a way, long-term debt is funded, because the Board would be commit-
ting itself to debt. There would have to be two referendums if the Board
wants to do that.
Ms. Humphris said she supports the concept of PDR's, because the County
needs to contain sprawl. Yesterday she saw materials that showed that PDR
programs put before the public are more successful at ge6ting funding if there
are a couple of year's figures to back it up. Ms. Thomas said she saw the
same materials. The ones that were in existence before going after funding
with a public vote were more successful than new programs. There were 224
measures that went to referendum throughout the country, and 75 percent were
successful.
i' ] Ms. Humphris said this is not cutting-edge. Smaller counties have
passed such referendums. For example, New Hope, Pennsylvania passed a $4.0
million referendum this year, and Buck's County, Pennsylvania passed a $57.0
or $59.0 million referendum for PDR's. She wonders about the cost, what
criteria must be met, and the amount of money the County is considering. She
_ would like to discuss the possibility of using monies from the Tourism Fund
and the Fund Balance for two years to see if the program can get up and
running so that it sells itself to the voters as worthy of a tax rate in-
crease.
Ms. Thomas said it is dangerous to start at too low a level, because it
can jeopardize other programs if the PDR program fails. The Board has told
the committee to develop a consensus, and now she feels like the Board ms
sending mixed messages. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with Ms. Humphris, and
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
000' 31
the program should be funded. He suggested the Board hear from Ms. White and
then return to the discussion.
Ms. Sherry Buttrick, Chair of the PDR Committee, said the committee
suggested an annual appropriation of $1.0 million per year, which was not the
~politically cagey" thing to do. The "politically cagey" people suggested the
committee recommend two or three times the amount needed, hoping that once the
program was cut, it would wind up with the $1.0 million per year, which is the
minimum needed to make such a program successful. Less than that would be a
pilot-like program that might not show good enough public benefit. Everyone
on the committee she spoke with felt they would like to see the program funded
out of existing revenues. There was no support whatsoever for a general
obligation bond. The Farm Bureau representative said other needs would kill
the program, so they would not support it. There is more preliminary support
for a tax referendum that would actually earmark 1.5 cents on the tax rate,
but everyone agrees they do not want to do that for at least two years. They
would prefer to get the program up and running and let the public see that it
works. Additionally, they have to make sure there are even landowners who
want to participate. The committee would like to get some predictability of
the Tourism allocation, and eligible properties should be identified. This
could also be of assistance when seeking other monies. She added that the
committee had suggested that using the VDoT Revenue Sharing Transportation
Fund is worthy of the Board's on-going consideration.
Mr. Marshall asked if the Board wished to wait until the CIP was
discussed before taking action. Mr. Tucker said the CIP is tied more to the
GO Bond. If the Board wants to move toward interim funding, it could act on
this item now, using Fund Balance and Tourism Revenues.
Mr. Marshall said the Board was talking about $1.0 million, and he only
saw $850,00. Mr. Tucker said the Board has to live with what is available.
Ms. Thomas said the state may provide some funds, but they would be tied into
solid waste. She added it is possible PDR funding at the state level may
apply only to areas with programs already in place.
Mr. Tucker said the amount he suggested is just a recommendation. The
Board might decide, after looking at the figures, to use the operating budget
to fund the additional needs. There is the possibility of some state funds,
or the Board could use the VDoT Revenue Sharing Transportation Fund, if they
so choose. Mr. Perkins asked how much the Board has been getting in the past.
Mr. Tucker replied that it has usually been $100,000, but the state could come
up with additional monies.
Ms. Humphris asked if this part of the funding package could be left up
in the air. Mr. Tucker said it is up to the Board to identify priorities.
Mr. Martin said the Board has to put its money where its mouth is. It is a
good idea to have something in place a couple of years b~fore going to a
referendum. At that time the public can tell the Board whether they want to
proceed with the program. Usually the Board makes the rules, and the property
owners have to live with them, at the taxpayers' expense. This program is,
therefore, important and should be adequately funded. The Board should show
its resolve now, and the public can'show its resolve two years from now.
Ms. Humphris noted that the County asked for $500,000 from funding from
VDoT this year, but only received $385,000. She asked Mr. Cilimberg to
explain what the back-up plan was to have been. Mr. Cilimberg said the
remainder of monies in the CIP were to be used for traffic calming, sidewalks,
etc., as long as VDoT bought into the traffic calming program. Staff is
working on speed study projects now. Staff is pushing VDoT to be more liberal
in its speed regulations, because right now the measures do not serve neigh-
borhoods very well. He added that, in the past, staff has used these monies
for other projects such as Berkmar Drive and the Meadow Creek Parkway.
Ms. Humphris said the Board has to make choices. If it is the consensus
of the Board to move froward with the PDR program, it will not be able to nail
down funding sources until it works through the budget. Mr. Tucker said it is
important to commit the Board to a two-year window, since the fund balance is
insecure and can fluctuate. Mr. Bowerman agreed that it is good to measure
public response and participation after two years' time.. Mr. Martin said if
the Board earmarks the Tourism Fund for entrance corridors and the Monticello
viewshed, there are people who might donate additional funds.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
000'1.32
Mr. Martin moved that the PDR program move forward utilizing funds staff
had identified, plus any additional funds, and asked staff to prepare a
transfer appropriation in the amount of $500,000. Ms. Humphris seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Note: The Board took a break at 10:30 a.m. and returned at 10:38 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation: FY 1999/2000 Recommended Capital
Improvements Program.
Ms. Roxanne White summarized the executive summary, which detailed the
recommended Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY 99/00 to FY 03/04 from
the CIP Technical Review Committee. She said this work session will provide
an overview of the recommended capital projects for the next five years for
both General Government and the School Division. A public hearing is tenta-
tively scheduled for January 13th, with approval of the five-year plan on
February 10th. Final adoption of the FY 99/00 CIP budget is scheduled for
April 14th, in conjunction with the FY 99/00 operating budget.
The FY 99/00 - FY 03/04 CIP totals $50.52 million, which includes
$15.744 million for General Government projects, $34,220 million for School
Division projects, $0.445 million for tourism projects, and $0.11 million for
storm water projects. The CIP Technical Committee balanced the FY 99/00 - FY
03/04 projects within available revenues, i.e., general fund transfers and
debt service levels, that were approved in the FY 98/99 - FY 02/03 CIP. This
left approximately $12.0 million of requested General Government projects
unfunded, and $10.5 million in unfunded School Division projects.
The Technical Committee does not recommend changes to School Division
projects, but only recommends a funding level for the General Fund transfer
and debt service around which the School Division can build their CIP budget.
If the school CIP is approved as recommended, the School Board will then need
to reduce their requested CIP by $10.5 million; however, options will be
presented. The specific project reductions or deferrals would be determined
by the School Board prior to the January public hearing.
Ms. White said the Planning Commission, at its November 17, 1998
meeting, reviewed and approved the proposed CIP.
General Government Fund Overview. Requested projects total $27.752
million. Projects funded over the five-year period total $15.744 million,
leaving $12.008 unfunded.
General Government - Administrative Courts. The County computer upgrade
continues; $220,000 was added into the last year of the CIP to fund it. There
have been significant changes in monies for County Office Building mainte-
nance/replacement. Those monies will increase in the future. The Juvenile
Court building will probably be replaced. A courthouse replacement study is
underway to replace the Juvenile Court facility and increase General District
Court space. It is estimated that the total cost of that project will be up
to $10.0 to $30.0 million, but staff put in $5.0 million as a minimum esti-
mate. Mr. Huff said there is no money in the five-year plan. Court staff
said an interim plan has to be in place until the project is done. In late
January, or early February, staff will present an interim plan to the Board.
A committee is also examining the cost comparison between tearing down the old
jail and refurbishing it.
Public Safety Projects. There is an on-going building and equipment
fund for fire and rescue construction that adds about $500,000 in the last
year. There are plans for the construction of a fire and rescue station in FY
2001. The Juvenile 'Detention Facility is unchanged at $1.466 million. It
should be completed in the summer of 2001. A Regional Police Firing Range and
Training Facility at a cost of $1.2 million to the County will be shared with
the City and the University of Virginia. Mr. Martin asked if any other
counties were interested in this endeavor. Ms. White said no one has pursued
that, nor have they looked into private use. A mobile command center will
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
000 .33
replace the bus currently in use; this is another regional project shared with
the University and City.
Unfunded projects include fire/rescue management software to track
activities. The department is not currently compatible with the police
department or Egll. A public safety facility will house police and fire
rescue. Firearms will be stored there, and it will provide a training
facility.
Highway/Transportation. Sidewalk construction includes projects not
already on VDoT or Neighborhood Improvement projects lists. Mr. Cilimberg
advised the Board that Engineering did an estimate of 20'sidewalks, which
would cost over $300,000. Mr. Tucker said this is due to grade problems, not
actual construction. It is not easy to put in simple temporary solutions. On
the west side of Route 20 North, the County might be able to put in a sidewalk
on a portion of the west side. That project is being reviewed. This would
require a crossing at the Elks Drive intersection. A developer may be willing
to build sidewalks, but they cannot be required. He said staff will know more
when it is time to approve the budget. Ms. Thomas said she thought the
unfunded project amount would be much higher. Ms. White said the amount will
not cover the projects; this will be an ongoing requirement. Mr. Cilimberg
said staff has only asked for what was received last year. Needs far exceed
these figures. Ms. Thomas said she is concerned about not showing a need for
Neighborhood Improvement funds.
Library Pro~ects. The computer upgrade will be completed, at a cost of
$0.146 in FY 00/01. Maintenance/Repair is budgeted at $0.187.
Parks/Recreation Projects, The cashier booths will be replaced at three
parks: Walnut Creek, Chris Greene and Mint Springs, as there was no money in
the department budget. The County plans to buy a 7-acre parcel next to Chris
Greene Lake, at a cost of $0.113 million. The Monticello Recreational
Facility will fund a feasibility study to see if the County can build a 50-
meter swimming pool. Crozet Park fields will be completsd, as will an Ivy
Landfill Recreational area. Lighting at PVCC will be provided for the
softball fields. A Southern Albemarle Park is proposed for a ten-acre site
located across from Yancey School in Esmont. Funds have been set aside to
irrigate Henley and Jack Jouett athletic fields. Additionally, $0.125 will
finish up a lot of projects in the Scottsville area. A technical committee is
looking at expanding both the gym at Northern Elementary and Hollymead
Elementary Schools to provide 9,000 square foot gyms and to add bleachers.
Irrigation of Little League fields at Towe Park will cost $0.020 million, but
the City will reimburse $8,000. Walnut Creek Improvements will be completed.
Ms. Humphris said she read somewhere that the City is going to share the
cost of lighting Towe Park. Mr. Martin said that was a mistake. Mr. Mullaney
said that came from the Athletic Field Study. One recommendation of the study
is to consider the lighting of the Towe Park softball fields. Mr. Bowerman
and Ms. Humphris said that might as well be taken out right now, because the
Board is committed to that neighborhood. Mr. Mullaney said the City/County
agreement states that no lighting of the Towe Park facility will take place
during the first three development stages. The intent was to argue the value
of lighting the park, but this will need to be discussed further.
Unfunded projects include ADA Improvements, athletic field development,
and an urban area gym. The gym was a proposal for a new gym to be built in an
urban area to relieve the congestion at current recreatiOnal spaces.
Ms. Thomas asked if the Chris Greene property will be available if the
County does not buy it now. Mr. Mullaney said the property is currently on
the market. He said the fact that the project has been pushed back four years
tells him to forget about that property. If the property is purchased in the
future, the amount will have to be increased due to inflation. Ms. Thomas
said the County should either make the purchase now or remove it from the list
of projects. Mr. Huff said there are other reasons why the property has not
yet sold.
(Note: At this time, the Board moved to the scheduled public hearing.)
Agenda Item No. 11. 11:00 a.m. Public hearing to consider an ordinance
to amend and reordain Chapter 4, Animals and fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other
Animals, of the Code of Albemarle, in §4-213, In certain areas, to add
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
000134
subsection (36) to readopt and reordain the designation of Lexington Subdivi-
sion as previously adopted on March 12, 1997, as one of those areas where dogs
are prohibited from running at large, and to add subsection (37) to include
Bedford Hills Subdivision as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from
running at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 16 and 23,
1998.)
Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary, which stated that, under
§ 4-213 of the County Code, homeowners may request the restriction of dogs
running at large in certain areas approved by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors.
The Bedford Hills Homeowners Association requests to be included in the
County's Dog Leash Ordinance. Of the 52 homeowners located in the Bedford
Hills Subdivision, 29 have signed a petition supporting the adoption of the
leash law request; 13 are opposed to the request, and ten are neither in favor
nor opposed to the request. The petition is on file in the Clerk's Office and
a permanent part of the record.
The Lexington Subdivision had previously submitted the required documen-
tation for inclusion in the Dog Leash Ordinance, but was omitted from the
current list during the recodification process. Therefore, a public hearing
is required to amend the County Code.
The petition submitted by the Bedford Hills Subdivision meets the
criteria for the Board to authorize amending the County Code. With over 55
percent of the homeowners signing the petition, the 51 percent threshold has
been reached to include Bedford Hills Subdivision in the Dog Leash ordinance.
Staff recommends the Board readopt and reordain the designation of the
Lexington Subdivision as previously adopted on March 12, 1997 as one of those
areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large.
Mr. Bowerman asked where the subdivision is, but no one knew, except to
say it is in the Earlysville area. Mr. Davis noted this was simply previously
omitted from the Code.
Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Gordon, a Bedford Hills resident, said the petition was begun
by a new resident as the result of a feud with one dog. There has never been
a problem in the past, and he felt dogs should be allowed to roam. He said
the petition may not have been submitted accurately to residents, and that it
is unreasonable to expect dogs to be chained up after having been able to
roam freely in the past. Ms. Thomas asked how long the subdivision has
existed. Mr. Gordon replied, "Thirty years or more."
Ms. Sandy Mawyer, a Bedford Hills resident of 14 y~ars, owns the dog
that Ms. Hayes, who began the petition, does not like. She said dogs love to
run, and are not mean. She lives in the rural area so that her dogs can roam.
She said the residents maintain the roads, and therefore should be able to
handle this situation themselves. Mr. Martin asked if Ms. Mawyer knew the
residents had signed the petition. Ms. Mawyer said she did, but was not sure
the residents knew what they were signing.
Ms. Harri Wasch, president of the homeowners association, said at least
two people had asked her to see that a leash law was implemented. She polled
her board, and all but one person desired a leash law. At the annual member-
ship meeting the announcement was made that a leash law was being discussed,
and that all interested persons should participate. Ms. Wasch said Ms. Hayes
even went so far as to make calls to encourage neighbors to come.
Ms. Hayes said she has been having trouble with dogs in the neighbor-
hood, and that other families have also complained that one particular dog
_ will not leave their yards. Families want protection for their young chil-
dren, and so do the elderly. Long-term residents are in favor of the leash
law, as well as newcomers. She added that she did not misrepresent the
petition.
Mr. David Schumacher, a resident of the area for 11 years, said most
residents of that area have cattle and horses. He said this is mostly a
community of elderly citizens, and not many in the area have children. He has
never had a problem with dogs and does not feel a leash law is necessary.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
000135
With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Bowerman read the wording of the petition aloud to the Board. He
then concluded its intent was very clear. He said the county has leash law
policies because neighbors sometimes cannot settle their problems. He said if
his dog bothers someone by running loose, the dog is no longer allowed to run
loose. He therefore moved that the Board adopt an ordinance to amend the
County Code to include Bedford Hills Subdivision as an area where dogs are
prohibited from running at-large, and to readopt and reordain the designation
of the Lexington Subdivision as previously adopted on March 12, 1997, as one
of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. Ms. Humphris
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Ms. Humphris said this is the fair thing to do since the majority of the
residents want it. Everyone has a right to enjoy their property. If homeown-
ers cannot resolve their problems, the Board unfortunately has to get in-
volved. Ms. Thomas asked if there is an opposite provision if problems arise
when dogs howl because of being chained up. Mr. Davis said the only recourse
is to repeal the Ordinance through a majority vote. Mr. Martin said he does
not like leash laws, but the neighborhood majority rules, and Mr. Marshall
agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said he had asked for a review of the police policy for
handling such complaints, and found that this is a low priority matter unless
the dog bites someone. The dog warden deals with repetitive complaints on one
identified dog and can fine the owner.
ORDINANCE NO. 98-4 (_1)
AN ORDINAi~CE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County'of Albemarle,
Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article II, Dogs and Other
Animals, Division 2, Running At Large, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Section 4-213
In certain areas.
CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL
ARTICLE II. DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS
DIVISION 2. RUNNING AT LARGE
Sec. 4-213 In certain areas.
A. It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dog to permit such
dog to run at large at any time within the following designated areas of the
county:
×
(1) University of Virginia grounds lying within the county.
(7-19-73)
(2) Orchard Acres Subdivision, Crozet, as platted and put to
record in the clerk's office of the county: Section 1, Deed Book 322, page
146; section 2, Deed Book 471, page 401. (7-19-73)
(3) Woodbrook Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
clerk's office of the county: Section 1, Deed Book 358, page 297; section 2,
vacated, Deed Book 414, page 115; section 3, Deed Book 386, page 39; section
4, Deed Book 397, page 177; section 4A, Deed Book 408, page 215; section 5,
Deed Book 402, page 111; section 6, Deed Book 408, page 215; section 7, Deed
Book 419, page 359; section 8, Deed Book 459, page 209; section SA, Deed Book
481, page 231. (8-22-73)
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 0001~G
(Page 20) ....
(4) Georgetown Green as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of the county in Deed Book 440, page 93. (9-26-73)
(5) Crozet areas, beginning at a point, a corner common to
parcels 96, 46 and 45B of section 56 of the county tax maps; thence in a
westerly direction and 45B of section 56 of the county tax maps; thence, in a
westerly direction along the southern boundaries of parcels 45B and 39,
section 56 of the county tax maps to the centerline of State Route 240; thence
with State Route 240 north to the intersection of the northeastern corner of
parcel 11 of section 56 of the county tax map; thence, in a westerly direction
with the northern boundary of parcel 11 to a corner with parcel 10D of section
56 of the county tax map; thence, in a southerly and westerly direction with
the eastern and southern boundaries of parcels 10D, 10 and 9 of section 56 and
parcel 69 of section 55 to a corner with parcels 69 and 7lA of section 55;
thence, with the boundaries of parcel 7lA of section 56 in a southerly,
westerly and northerly direction to the corner with parcel 70F of section 55;
thence, in a westerly direction with the southern boundaries of parcels 70F,
72 (13), and 72B of section 55 to the southwestern corner of parcel 72B, a
corner common with parcels 74 and 75 of section 55; thence, with the eastern
boundary of parcel 74 in a northerly direction to the center of State Route
691 and continuing in a northerly direction across State Route 691 and along
the eastern boundary of parcel 66 of section 55 to a corner with Orchard
Acres, (section 55C); thence, with Orchard Acres in a clockwise direction to
its intersection with the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway and continuing across
the railway to its northern right-of-way; thence, in an easterly direction
along the C & 0 right-of-way to its intersection with the western boundary of
parcel 51 of section 55 extended; thence, in a northeasterly direction across
State Route 788 to its intersection with the western boundary of parcel 51 of
section 55; thence, in a northeasterly direction along the western boundaries
of parcels 51, 50, and 49 section 55 and parcel 1 of section 56 to a corner
with parcel 48 of section 55; thence, in a northwesterly and northeasterly
direction along the southern boundary of parcel 48 of se6tion 55 and the
southern and western boundary of parcel 47 of section 55 continuing in a
northeastern direction along the western boundaries of parcels 1, 3 and 5E of
section 56 to a corner with parcel 5E of section 55, parcel 17 of section 40
and Sunrise Acres (section 40A); thence, with Sunrise Acres in a clockwise
direction to the intersection with the centerline of State Route 810; thence,
in a southwesterly and south-easterly direction with State Route 810 to the
intersection with the southern boundary of parcel 64 of section 56; thence, in
an eastern direction with the southern boundary of its inter-section with
parcel 66 of section 56; thence, in a southerly and easterly direction around
the western and southern boundaries of parcel 66 of section 56 to its inter-
section with parcel 66B of section 56; thence, in an eastern direction along
the southern boundary of parcel 66B, section 56, to a corner with parcel 58 of
section 56A (2); thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along the
western boundary of parcel 58 to section 56A (2) to its inter-section with
State Route 240 and continuing across State Route 240 and parcel 60 to section
56A (2) and the C & 0 Railway to a corner common to parcels 67 and 68 of
section 56A (2) on the southern right-of-way of the C & 0 Railway; thence,
with the southern right-of-way of the C & 0 Railway in a westerly direction to
its intersection with a corner common to parcel 58 of section 56 and parcel
7lB of section 56A (2); thence, in a southerly and easterly direction along
the western and southern boundary of parcel 58 of section 56 to a corner with
parcel 57A (1) of section 56; thence, in a southerly and.easterly direction
along the western and southern boundary of parcel 57A (1) of section 56 and
the southern boundary of parcel 57 of section 56 to a corner with parcel 55 of
section 56; thence, with parcel 55 of section 56 in a northeasterly direction
to a corner with parcel 54 of section 56; thence, in a southeasterly direction
with the southern boundary of parcel 54 of section 56 to its intersection with
parcel 48 of section 56; thence, in a southeasterly and southern direction
along the eastern boundary of parcel 48 of section 56 to its corner with
parcel 47 of section 56; thence, in a southerly direction along the eastern
boundaries of parcels 47 and 46 of section 56 to the point of beginning.
(6) Jefferson Village Subdivision as platted and put to record
in the clerk's office of the county in Deep Book 449, page 637 and Deed Book
452, page 87. (12-19-73)
(7) Camelot Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 450, pages 127 through 129, Deed
Book 545, page 68 and Deed Book 653, page 79. (1-23-74; 5-21-86)
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21) .....
(8) Sherwood Manor Subdivision as platted and put to record in
the clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 504, page 114 and Deed Book 514,
page 505. (1-23-74)
(9) Four Seasons as platted and put to record in the clerk's
office of the county in Deed Book 467, page 378 and Deed Book 481, page 417.
(3-27-74)
(10) Earlysville Heights Subdivision as platted and put to record
in the clerk's office of the county in Deed Book 452, page 165 and Deed Book
491, page 3. (3-27-74)
(11) Westmoreland Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed
Book 402, page 91; section 2, Deed Book 414, page 29; section 3, Deed Book
419, page 265, and section 4, Deed Book 423, page 19. (5-22-74)
(12) Hessian Hills Subdivision as platted and put to record in
the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, as section 1, Deed
Book 316, page 254; section 2, Deed Book 327, page 327; section 3, Deed Book
370, page 145; Deed Book 379, page 365 and section 4, Deed Book 378, page 107.
(10-9-74)
(13) Knollwood Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deep Book 272, page
3. (Does not include Old Forge Road or Hessian Hills Apartments.) (10-9-74)
(14) Stonehenge Subdivision as platted and put to record in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 543, page
409; Deed Book 545, page 660; Deed Book 548, pages 326, 345, 346, 347, 348,
522 and Deed Book 550, page 320. (1-22-75)
(15) Queen Charlotte Subdivision as platted and recorded in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 395, page
6. (3-10-76)
(16) Country Green Apartments as platted and recorded in the
office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 453, page
553. (12-7-77
(17) Oak Hill Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 360, page 105;
Deed Book 362, page 22; Deed Book 391, page 483; Deed Book 396, page 291; Deed
Book 398, page 317; Deed Book 401, page 228; Deed Book 405, page 433; Deed
Book 441, page 299 and Deed Book 468, page 85. (5-22-78)
(18) Westgate Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42, 42C and
42D) as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court
of the county, in Deed Book 497, page 636; and Deed Book.529, page 147. (5-
22-78)
(19) Solomon Court Apartments (County Tax Map 61, parcels 42 and
43D) as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk of the circuit court
of the county, in Deed Book 349, page 390; Deed Book 353, page 145 and Deed
Book 430, page 181. (5-22-78)
(20) Carrsbrook Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 357, page 55;
Deed Book 361, page 127; Deed Book 376, page 224, Deed Book 380, pages 249,
251 and 253; Deed Book 384, page 27 and Deed Book 387, page 469. (6-21-78)
(21) Deerwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 426, page 457;
and Deed Book 455, page 16. (6-21-78)
(22) Greenbrier Heights Subdivision as platted and recorded in
the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 550,
page 601. (10-7-81)
(23) Huntwood Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court in Deed Book 728, page 377; and Deed Book
728, page 378. (5-13-87)
(24) Hollymead as platted and recorded in the office of the clerk
of the circuit court for the following areas: Sections 1 and 2 in Deed Book
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
000 .35
531, pages 309 through 313; section 3 in Deed Book 714, page 444; Hollymead
Square in Deed Book 633, page 330; tax map 46, parcel 28G in Deed Book 418,
page 440; tax map 46, parcel 26B2 in Deed Book 741, page 304; and tax map
46B1-01-1 in Deed Book 489, page 381. (9-16-87)
(25) The urban area of the county, the communities of Hollymead
and Crozet and the village of Scottsville, all as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan for Albemarle County, Virginia, and as shown on a map which is on file in
the office of the clerk to the board of supervisors. (11-4-87)
(26) Waverly Subdivision as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 697, page 382; and
Deed Book 781, pages 267 and 270. (12-16-87)
(27) Whipporwill Hollow as platted and recorded in the office of
the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 643, pages 285 to
292; Deed Book 644, pages 269 and 270; Deed Book 646, pages 220 to 221; Deed
Book 657, pages 789 to 790; Deed Book 659, pages 561 to 565; Deed Book 694,
pages 544 .to 545; and Deed Book 867, page 253. (12-16-87)
(28) Key West/Cedar Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in
the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 353,
pages 193 to 197; Deed Book 365, page 202; Deed Book 371, page 474; Deed Book
388, page 514; Deed Book 393, page 417; Deed Book 410, page 577; Deed Book
420, page 259; Deed Book 505, page 607; Deed Book 530, page 351; Deed Book
543, page 114; Deed Book 661, page 44; Deed Book 692, page 453; and Deed Book
809, page 623. (9-7-88)
(29) North Pines Subdivision as platted and recorded in the
office of the clerk of the circuit cour~ of the county, in Deed Book 703,
pages 742, 743 and 744. (1-17-90)
(30) The Meadows in Crozet as platted and recorded in the office
of the clerk of the circuit court of the county, in Deed Book 651, page 149.
(8-8-90)
(31) Milton ~{eights Subdivision as platted and recorded in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 343, page
64. (8-17-94)
(32) Shadwell Estates Subdivision as platted and recorded in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 339, page
458. (8-17-94)
(33) Thurston Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 637, page 456.
(12-7-94)
(34) Glenmore Planned Residential Development as recorded in the
Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 1074, page
203 and Deed Book 1209, page 257. (1-4-95)
(35) Peacock Hill as recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 589, pages 205-212; Deed Book 708,
pages 286; Deed Book 777, pages 039; Deed Book 904, pages 182, Deed Book 960,
page 174; Deed Book 1025, page 610; Deed Book 1123, pages 071; Deed Book 1189,
page 407; Deed Book 1310, page 128. (9-6-95)
(36) Lexington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Deed Book 564, page 088.
(3-12-97)
(37) Bedford Hills Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office
of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County, in Deed Book 365, page 212.
(12-2-98)
B. For the purposes of this section, a dog shall be deemed to be running
at large while roaming, running or self-hunting off the property of its owner or
custodian and not under its owner's or custodian's immediate control. Any person
who permits his dog to run at large shall be deemed to have violated the
provisions of this section, and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than
five dollars ($5.00) nor more than twenty-five dollars ($25.00). It shall be the
duty of the animal control officer to enforce the provisions of this section.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true,
correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of ! to ~ , as recorded below, at
a regular meeting held on December 2, 1998
Aye Nay
Mr
Ms
Mr
Mr
Mr
Ms
Bowerman x
Humphris ~
Marshall x
Martin x
Perkins x
Thomas x
Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Request from The Municipal Band of
Charlottesville, Inc., for one-time contribution to the Band's new building.
Mr. Tucker summarized the executive summary, which stated the Char-
lottesville Municipal Band began a fund raising campaign five years ago to
build a Municipal Arts Center, to provide a permanent home for the band, as
well as space for other arts organizations in the area. To-date, the band has
raised over $360,000 toward the projected $600,000 cost of the facility. They
anticipate receiving an additional $80,000 to $100,000 from in-kind donations.
Ground was broken for the facility on October 17, 1998, and they project a 14-
month completion date.
The Municipal Band requests a one-time contribution of $30,000 from the
County and the City to help reach their fundraising goal of $600,000. The
Band performs approximately 15 concerts each year to an estimated combined
audience of approximately 15,000 persons. It is also estimated that approxi-
mately ten percent of their audience members come from the Central Virginia
area (Harrisonburg, Waynesboro, Madison, Orange, and Richmond). Since the
Municipal Band is an arts organization that brings visitors and tourists to
the area from the surrounding counties, a one-time donation could be consid-
ered from the Tourism Fund.
Staff recommends approval of a $30,000 one-time contribution to the
Municipal Band for their new building, with funds to be appropriated from the
County's Tourism Fund.
Ms. Humphris said she appreciates what the band does for the community.
She then moved that a $30,000 one-time contribution be made to the Municipal
Band for their new building with funds to be appropriated from the County's
Tourism fund. Mr. Perkins seconded the motion. Ms. Thomas asked if the funds
could be done over a two-year period of time, but Ms. Humphris said since the
amount of money is so small, that would not be necessary. Mr. James Simmons
thanked the Board for its contribution, on behalf of the band. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
At this time, the Board returned to its discussion on the CIP, with
Ms. White making the presentation.
Utility Improvement Projects. The Keene landfill closure is budgeted at
$0.475 million.
General Govt. Summary of Revenues. General Fund transfer is $12.716
million, borrowed funds $1.465 million, courthouse maintenance funds $0.234
million, interest/carry-over $0.313, and misc. Reimbursements from the City
and U.Va. total $1.014 million. Total Revenue is $15.744 million.
Tourism Fund Projects. Ivy Road Bike Lanes are estimated at $0.232
million, and the Rivanna Greenway at $0.150 million. There is a river access
project to purchase five acres of land at Warren Ferry and to install a gate.
There is a state right-of-way where there was an abandoned ferry. People who
use the ~put-in" [landing] park on the adjacent property owners' land, and the
County is trying to acquire that property or take it by eminent domain.
Mr. Tucker said the County does not currently have adequate river access.
Ms. Thomas said these are transportation projects, and asked if they could be
funded by Tea-21 funds. Ms. White said the Ivy Road bike lanes might qualify,
and staff will go through the application process.
000 140
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Storm water Projects. A master drainage program is budgeted at $0.060
million, and drainage/erosion at $0.050 million.
School Projects. There is a shortfall of $10.5 million dollars. Staff
based funded projects on approved VPSA bond amounts in the FY99-03 CIP.
School Fund Summary. Requested projects total $44.697 million, funded
projects total $34.220 million, resulting in a $10.476 million shortfall.
Requested School Project~, Mr. Martin asked how the Hollymead gym
figure related to the urban gym. Ms. White said this just makes the gym 7,000
square feet in size, making it comparable to Agnor-Hurt and Cale gyms. This
is not the urban gym that has been suggested, but it will help address the
problem. Ms. Thomas asked if anyone had looked at whether this is the right
place for an urban gym. Ms. White said that has not been done yet. The
Monticello High School addition adds an additional 44,000 square feet of space
to accommodate the additional 500 students and an auxiliary gym. There will
be general renovations at Murray High School, replacing the heating and
cooling system and replacing windows.
Ms. Thomas asked about asbestos at Murray School. Mr. A1 Reasor,
Director of Building Services, said there is asbestos in the floor tile and
walls, but it is encapsulated. The Northern Elementary School project is to
construct a 600-pupil school at a cost of $10.319 million. Western Albemarle
High School renovations add classrooms, an auxiliary gym; a new roof, a new
bus staging area, an additional parking lot, and reworking of baseball fields.
Mr. Marshall asked if negotiations are underway for a site for the school.
Ms. White replied, ~Yes." Ms. Thomas asked if plans have begun far enough
ahead of time so that things are not rushed like they were with Monticello
High School. Mr. Reasor said as long as the land is purchased in January or
February, the schedule will be fine. An addition to Walton Middle School will
cost $0.606 million to add classrooms and workrooms.
Added Projects. These are additional dollars that were included in the
numbers in the shortfall presented.
Ms. White asked Mr. Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support
Services, to explain why the School Board feels these are important projects
in the next four years. Mr. Morgan said a long-range planning committee made
up of staff and citizens developed the list after looking at long-range needs.
Enrollment growth drove the recommendations. Over the next ten years there is
a projected 1.6 to 1.8 percent increase in enrollment per year, translating
into 1,000 students over the next five years, and another 1,000 over the
subsequent five years. There will be 342 more middle school students,
necessitating additional seats at Jack Jouett and Burley schools. The library
at Burley has needed expansion for years. The Northern Elementary project is
for an additional 200 students, from 400 to 600, in the northern corridor.
Building to serve 600 students up-front makes sense and ~implifies the
redistricting process.
Mr. Martin asked what happened to 600 being the maximum size recommended
for middle schools. Hollymead currently serves 600 students; Cale's capacity
is 500 students. Mr. Morgan said specialized programs have eaten up some of
the space that could have been used for students. Mr. Reasor said
Mr. Bowerman is correct in saying that Agnor Hurt houses 25 students per
classroom and provides no auxiliary spaces. Both Cale and Agnor Hurt were
built to 600 using the traditional formula, but for practical purposes, it is
a different number. Regarding the southern elementary school, it appeared
that simply expanding Cale and Red Hill schools would not be sufficient with
the growth in the North Garden area, but the growth has not materialized. It
seemed appropriate to take the funding for those expansions and move the money
toward the southern elementary school.
Mr. Marshall asked if there was enough room to put an elementary school
at the Walton Middle School site. Mr. Morgan replied, "Yes." Mr. Marshall
then asked if that meant the County has to build the Southern Parkway first to
provide access for the students. Mr. Morgan said access is always an issue
when building schools.
Mr. Morgan said 750 is the largest number of middle school students that
should be in one school. Henley has the largest capacity now, being built up
to 750 students.
Impact of Requested Projects on Annual Debt Service. Ms. White said
staff recommended the level of bonds available, which is dependent upon the
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
000 .4 .
level of debt service the County can afford. Total new debt each year is
$1.145 million, if all recommended projects are funded.
Funding Options. Options include funding as recommended, resulting in
$12.0 to $22.0 million in unfunded General Government projects and $10.5
million in unfunded School projects, increasing resources for projects and/or
debt service, eliminating or deferring specific projects, lease purchase of
General Government projects, using school transfer funds for debt service
instead of maintenance and repair, and considering a referendum for General
Government projects, i.e., courthouse, public safety facilities, 800 MHZ radio
system, libraries, and COB space.
Dr. Castner said he recently attended a legislative conference which
dealt with funding sources. Everyone felt the state is trying to help local
government. There is going to be a burden put on the public. Virginia is at
the bottom of the list of states receiving funding for schools. Even if the
County gets a little more money, there will still be a huge need to deal with
continued growth. It is fortunate that the County's growth is more modest
than neighboring counties.
Ms. Thomas said if the Board uses school transfer funds for debt
service, the County will still have to borrow for maintenance and repair.
Regarding using the school transfer for debt service, Ms. White said the
total amount needed to borrow over the next five years is $26.0 million. The
payment in debt service over the next five years is $52.7 million for six
years, FY 2000 through FY 2005. If the County borrows $40.896 million, that
includes the $10.5 million for the requested projects, and also includes $4.0
million in maintenance and repair projects. The budgeted payment for all
projects is $57.5 million. The County can then take the $6.5 million capital
transfer to pay the debt service. That means the County will owe $51.9
million, and using the capital transfer the $5.6 million takes the capital
transfer for each year, which increases each year, and puts it toward debt
service. If this is done, it would be a way to pay for all requested school
projects by increasing bonds by $14.7 million and increasing budgeted debt
service by $4.8 million. Transfer funds of $5.6 million would be used to pay
that debt service. Mr. Bowerman asked if the maintenance and repair are long-
term items. Mr. Reasor replied, "Yes." Mr. Tucker said.many items that used
to be considered short-term, such as tables and chairs, can be considered
long-term, because the schools use them for so long.
Debt Service Ratios. The County is still under its self-imposed ten
percent maximum, with the debt service being at nine percent. If the Board
aproved the recommended budget, the figure would drop back down to 7.8
percent. If the Board did a referendum or lease purchase, debt service would
probably go above ten percent. Mr. Bowerman asked what would be the impact of
stopping new bonding now. Ms. White said the debt ratio is going down because
the County is not borrowing as much as in the past when it built Monticello
High School. Mr. Breeden said the percentage is based on the General Fund
budget, which is based on the increase in taxes. Mr. Bowerman said if the
County continued paying the same amount in debt service, the percentage would
drop as revenues increase. He asked for a time frame in which the money
borrowed 15 years ago will be paid off. That represents monies that will be
freed up. Ms. White said staff will prepare a cash flow analysis of current
debts and present it to the Board. Ms. Thomas asked if VPSA is looking at
refinancing anything since interest rates are falling. Mr. Breeden replied,
~Yes, that is happening now."
Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 12:17 p.m.
Ms. White said the public hearing on the CIP will ~ake place on
January 3, 1999.
Ms. Thomas asked about the Jefferson Madison Regional Library's long-
range planning. She wondered if their plans mesh with the County's.
Note: Mr. Bowerman returned at 12:19 p.m.
Ms. White said the County needs to make a decision abut the Northside
Library because the lease is going to expire. It will cost $200,000 per year
until 2001. Mr. Bowerman said the Board needs good information on rental
rates in order to make an informed decision. Mr. Tucker said staff will
provide that information.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
000142
Regarding funding options, Mr. Perkins asked if it makes sense to go to
referendum on a General Obligation Bond to borrow monies for General Govern-
ment and schools. Mr. Tucker said that depends on rates.
Ms. Thomas asked about the cost of going to referendum. Mr. Breeden
said the cost would be between $75,000 and $100,000. Mr. Davis said some of
the legwork has already been done, which would be necessary for the County to
obtain a bond rating. The County would still have to get a financial advisor
to put together a financial prospectus of the County. The bond rating would
then be determined.
Mr. Breeden said if the County is going to go for a GO bond, it should
combine with the schools and ask voter approval for $26.0 million. If
maintenance is added, it would be $40.0 million. His recommendation would be
based on whether or not the Board wants to go to referendum. VPSA funds can
be used for the school projects. If the Board goes to referendum, the County
has to pay to apply, taking the chance that the public will not go for the
referendum. Mr. Davis said when doing a bond referendum, the County can list
specific projects and their dollar amounts, or it can ask for a lump sum for a
total group of projects, with it being all or nothing. As for the School
Board, it would have to know the rating, costs, etc. Mr. Breeden said he
already has a good idea that the County would get a AA plus rating. There is
not a lot of difference in the money between the two approaches, once it is
spread over 20 years. It is more a matter of principle.
Mr. Bowerman said he would rather go out for a bond referendum for
everything, or else go to VPSA for the school portion and not do a referendum
on the other projects.
Ms. Thomas asked if the County is being told it has to do something with
courts. Ms. White said it has been told something has to be done with the
Juvenile Court. Mr. Martin said the Juvenile Court has been way below
adequate square footage for years.
Ms. Thomas said the public has a right to be asked the question.
Mr. Perkins and Mr. Marshall said they would like to go for a referendum on
everything. Mr. Martin said he would like to see the County go to VPSA for
school projects, and to referendum to borrow the $26.0 million for General
Government. Ms. Thomas asked if the County can do the $26.0 with a bond
issue. ~Yes," said Ms. White. Ms. Thomas said she agrees that doing a fund
transfer for long-term maintenance is a good idea, but she does not think that
is tied to whether or not the Board goes through VPSA.
Mr. Tucker said there are $44.47 million in requested renovation and
maintenance/repair projects; those requested and committed total $34.0 million
(already in VPSA), so the shortage is $10.0 million. The County has budgeted
the $34.0 million already, and funded programs were approved based on antici-
pated revenues and borrowing, as approved in last year's CIP. Ms. White noted
that the Board could select different projects and go out on bonds for them.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County needs to borrow an additional $14.0 million
from VPSA, but Ms. White said it is actually an additional $10.5 million.
That would leave General Government with a shortfall. But, Ms. Thomas said
that, for any portion of the $34.0 million, the County could go to the public.
The $45.0 million becomes $26.0 million if you use the School Transfer funds
for debt service. Ms. White said the bond would be increased by $14.5
million, which includes the $10.5 million in the projects that are not funded,
and $4.0 million to be used for maintenance/repair projects, so the County, if
it used the transfer method, would be borrowing an additional $14.5 million,
the difference between the recommended and the requested amounts.
Mr. Bowerman said that, using the transfer of debt service method, the
bonded amount of the $40.0 million, which includes anticipated and unantici-
pated expenses, comes down to $51,900. He said the County has not gone to the
state to borrow any of that money. The Board has only approved the plan, but
has not actually borrowed the money. Mr. Tucker said if the Board goes out
for a bond referendum, it is asking for approval from the citizens to raise
the tax rate enough to cover the debt service, but the Board does not really
have to do that. Mr. Bowerman said this is a lot of money, even without
General Government expenses. The Board is looking at $70.0 million in debt to
finance capital items, part of which can be done through borrowing, part of
which would have to be done through referendum. He believes that, if the
Board is going to go for a referendum, it should go for the total amount and
let the public tell the Board what to do. The risk is that the public may
tell the Board not to do anything, in which case the Board cannot then go to
the VPSA for the $40.0, for which the Board has the revenue.
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000143
(Page 27)
Mr. Tucker said he is afraid the citizens would nog realize how much
this would increase the tax rate. Ms. Thomas said that information could be
included in the bond issue. Mr. Perkins said he did not think the tax rate
would necessarily increase, since there is a transfer each year used to pay
off obligations. Ms. Thomas said that would only pay off $50.0 million.
Mr. Martin said $41.0 million is already projected to be paid out of current
revenue. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board decides to do this with the $70.0
million, it would take only four cents on the tax rate.
Mr. Tucker said he understood Mr. Perkins to say that the public should
be given the opportunity to vote on whether that amount of money should be
spent on these capital items. If the rest of the Board agrees, he thinks they
should go for the whole amount.
Ms. Humphris said if the Board went for an unidentified lump sum, she
wanted to know what happens to established levels for school enrollment, class
size, etc., and whether the standards would be maintained. She agrees with
not going to referendum for a small amount. It is up to the Board whether to
do capital expenditures for schools or not. It cannot be a popularity
contest; it comes down to whether or not the Board is going to adhere to
physical plant standards it set, in the face of huge growth. Ms. Thomas
suggested the Board say it will build schools through a VPSA referendum.
Mr. Davis said once a GO bond is approved, the Board would have up to
eight years to borrow (issue) the monies in two or three borrowings.
Mr. Bowerman said VPSA does it in $500 million increments, and the County can
draw as they need it.
Mr. Martin said he would prefer to make up the $10.0 million shortfall
in school projects by using a transfer bond over five years and borrowing
$52,000. If going to referendum, the Board should do it for those projects on
which the County has little say so, such as the courts.
Mr. Tucker said the Board can always do a lease purchase if they choose,
for the General Government items. Mr. Breeden added that the Board could,
alternatively get a GO Bond. Mr. Bowerman said the perception of a GO bond is
not good. Mr. Martin said if a lease purchase was done, the Board would still
be adding to the debt service. A referendum would not be required, but the
Board would then be over the ten percent cap. Mr. Davis added that might lead
to a tax increase. Mr. Breeden said it is the same amount of money, regard-
less of which way the Board chooses to proceed. Ms. Thomas said if the tax
rate is raised three cents, there is a bigger base on which to figure out the
ten percent.
Ms. White said if it used the school transfer, the Board would be locked
into using the money for the payments for a longer period than five years.
Mr. Perkins said again that the Board needs to hear from the public.
Mr. Bowerman said if the tax rate is raised by 22 percent for six years,
the Board could pay for everything. There cannot be a referendum on that,
however. He noted that several Board members stated the Board is committed to
education and its physical plant. He asked if there is any flexibility of
standards which might reduce these figures. For example, the number of
students per class can be higher, according to the state. Administrative
space could be reduced, sprinkling could be revisited, etc. Mr. Martin said
he does not want to increase the number of students per class; the states
figures are not realistic. Mr. Perkins said the Board does not have to house
additional students by building new schools. Instead it could increase the
size of existing schools, add trailers, etc. There would still be a rela-
tively low number of children per class.
Mr. Perkins said the County could always go back to community schools
with small numbers. Ms. Thomas said the County quit that years ago, with good
reason.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much it would cost on the tax rate to fund the
additional amount from $40.0 million to $52.0 million, using the transfer.
Mr. Tucker replied, ~$5.6 million over five years." Mr. Bowerman said the
Board cannot expect to borrow the full amount and keep the tax rate at 72
cents and still do the unfunded portion recommended by the CIP committee.
Within budget projections, the County could do the $26.0 million. There are
an additional $10.0 million in unfunded needs. These come to $36.0 million.
If the County borrows $51,900 from money that has been budgeted into capital
transfers, he asked if the County, with available resources, can pay the
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28) ·
000144
indebtedness out of available resources. Mr. Martin and Ms. Thomas said,
~Yes." Then, Mr. Bowerman said, this would leave the County at a 72-cent tax
rate to fund the school items only.
Ms. Thomas asked what effect tackling the General Government items at a
~medium figure", would have on the tax rate. Mr. Martin said that would put
the County above the ten percent top. Mr. Tucker said he does not know what
the total dollar figure is for General Government projects, so he cannot
project what the tax rate might be, and revenues have not even been included
at this point.
Mr. Marshall suggested accepting staff's recommendation for the 9.3
percent and see how 599 funds and other funds wash out. Mr. Bowerman said
that would mean borrowing over $51.0 million. Mr. Marshall said the Board
does not have enough information at this time to make a decision. Mr. Tucker
said once the Board has more information, it can make those decisions. Mr.
Martin noted that the public hearing is not until Januar~ 13, so it would not
hurt anything to wait for now.
Mr. Marshall suggested setting the issue aside for now.
Ms. Thomas said she was impressed by what is already in place at the
firing range and wanted to know why additional monies were requested. She
also believed that, by decreasing money for the Neighborhood Plan Implementa-
tion, traffic calming and sidewalk construction, the Board is increasing its
obligation to urbanizing the County. If a fair amount of resources are not
put into urbanizing areas which will cut down on urban sprawl, citizens will
not see why they should develop land in the urban area. The Neighborhood Plan
Implementation Program, sidewalks and increased gym space, etc., all fit
together, and she hopes this will become a County that has some real urban
sections to it, in order to preserve the rural sections.
Mr. Martin said as the Board deals with the operatin9 budget, he hopes
CIP numbers, including unfunded projects, are updated, so everything is
handled at the same time. He added that he agrees with Ms. Thomas. If the
County hopes to convince people to be part of the infill process, the Board
has to make it worthwhile in terms of sidewalks, etc. Growth of communities
continues each year, and expenditures for capital items for schools continue
to rise. Mr. Bowerman noted that as growth continues, the amount the County
borrows continues to rise each year. It was $7.8 million in the first year of
this budget, $9.5 million in the fifth year of the budget, and the figures
will continue to rise.
Ms. Thomas said the population will continue to grow, as the County is a
pleasing place in which to live. If the Board goes to a referendum for the
entire amount, it could still be looking at funding something they do not have
the resources for, and would have to go to VPSA anyway. There is no final
fix.
Regarding the old Crozet School, Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Tucker to obtain
copies of the student report on uses for the building. She said there are
still questions about taking care of the lead paint. If it would cost
$600,000 to $700,000 to renovate the old building, and it would cost $1.0
million to replace it, there is not much of a difference. Mr. Perkins said it
was estimated that renovations would cost $2.3 million, and a new building
would cost $3.6 million. Ms. Thomas said that leaves about $1.0 million
difference between the two options. If the County has to maintain the
building, the costs will rise as the facility ages.
Mr. Bowerman said staff needs to carefully track the cost of maintaining
the building and turning it into something different. Maintenance costs
should not rise to the extent that it is a losing proposition. Mr. Perkins
suggested continuing with option i-G, which is to continue to lease the
building to the private school, with any necessary maintenance provided by the
County. He added there is enough property there to build another building,
such as a library.
Mr. Bowerman said there is balance between restoring the facility now
and doing all the maintenance and restoration inside, so that the building can
be used by the County, and continuing the process of maintaining it with a
tenant in it, whose rent covers some, but not all, of the cost of maintaining
it.
Ms. Thomas said she was worried to hear there were structural problems
with the roof. If that is the only problem, that is one thing, but if there
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
are other large problems, that would determine what to do with the building.
Mr. Huff said the roof problem was noticed when the roof trusses were exam-
ined. They had sagged nine inches, but have since been shored back up.
Mr. Huff said the County spent $336,000 in the past few months on the problems
that were readily visible. The building generates $28,000 in rent per year
for 22,000 to 23,000 square feet of space, so it is priced far below market.
Ms. Thomas said it sounds as if the County is going to keep the building
for now, in hopes of using it later. Mr. Bowerman asked if replacing the
windows will make them good for one use only, or if they will have to be
replaced again. Mr. Huff said the windows have to come 6ut, no matter what
the building is used for, so the County does need to decide how it will be
used. Ms. Thomas said perhaps the Board needs to make a decision now. By
July 1, 2001, the Waldorf School has to make a decision on whether to stay.
At the same time, there have been discussions as to whether that might be a
good location for the library.
Ms. Humphris said the County should decide what is best for the County,
instead of asking the Waldorf School to tell the County what they want.
Mr. Bowerman said he is not willing to finance the Waldorf School for five to
ten years. Mr. Perkins said it is better to have revenue coming in, than to
have the building sit empty. He suggested the whole site be examined, as it
may be cheaper to build a new library rather than to renovate the old school
for that purpose.
Mr. Perkins asked about replacement windows at Western Albemarle High
School. Mr. Reasor said it would be expensive to replace the windows. Some
might need to be replaced; others may not. Mr. Bowerman asked if the County
could use ~off the shelf windows" for that purpose. Mr. Reaser replied,
bYes.-
Ms. Thomas asked if the Board was in agreement that more planning needs
to be done. Mr. Tucker said staff will work on this further, and will involve
the community.
In summary, Mr. Tucker said the issue boils down to how to fund the
projects. If the Board agrees that these projects are needed, it comes down
to how they will be funded. He heard a general consensus on how the School
items should be handled. Regarding General Government issues, if those
projects are needed, and what the Board now needs is the final numbers, he
suggested staff come back at the February 3, 1999 meeting with options. The
General Government issues can be funded in more than one manner. The Board
needs to settle on the projects, determine how to fund them (using the
transfer and borrowing the money for the school projects), and let the public
react.
Mr. Martin said he wants to hear from the School Board too. Mr. Tucker
said that Mr. Reasor was present at this meeting to get a reaction from the
Board. Ms. Thomas said there is nothing wasteful in the figures, and
Mr. Bowerman agreed that Mr. Reasor runs a tight ship.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Perkins asked staff to bring back to the Board~ as quickly as
possible, information on whether it has made any difference using deputies to
handle hunting violations. Mr. Tucker said staff will provide a report to the
Board in February. Mr. Bowerman said one person told him they were very
appreciative of the prompt response. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Jeff Blank, of the
County Executive's Office, told her that deputies had handled many reports.
Mr. Marshall said he had received a copy of a letter addressed to
Ms. McCulley. He asked Mr. Tucker to follow up. (No further information was
provided.)
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel Matters.
At 12:30 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by
Ms. Thomas, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to § 2.1-344(A) of the
Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to consider appointments to boards and
commissions; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
000146
regarding pending litigation concerning the Ivy Landfill; under subsection (7)
to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation concern-
ing the transition of the City of Charlottesville to town status; and under
subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding an
interjurisdictional service agreement. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and
Mr. Perkins.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session.
(Note: Mr. Martin did not return after the Executive Session.)
The Board reconvened at 3:00 p.m. Motion was immediately offered by
Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded
vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business
matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia
Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the
executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive
session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the ~ollowing recorded
vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Mr. Perkins moved to:
- appoint Mr. Leo Mallect to the Joint Airport Commission, with said
term to expire on December 1, 2001, and
- appoint Ms. Joy Matthews to the Housing Committee, with said term
to expire on December 31, 2001.
Ms. Thomas moved to:
- appoint Ms. Leslie Reed to the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens
Advisory Committee, with said term to expire December 31, 2000.
Ms. Humphris moved to:
- reappoint Mr. Bryson Glover to the Commission On Children and
Families, with said term to expire on January 31, 2000.
Mr. Bowerman moved to:
- appoint Mr. Michael Stewart as the Rio District appointee to the
Equalization Board, with said term to expire December 31, 1999.
Mr. Bowerman seconded all nominations. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn to December 7, 1998 for Joint meeting with
School Board and Legislators.
At 3:55 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board,
Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board adjourn the meeting to.4:00 p.m.,
December 7, 1998, for a joint meeting with the School Board and State Legisla-
tors. Ms. Thomas seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
December 2, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
000147
AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
~ C~hairman~~