1997-09-03September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
000323
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
virginia, was held on September 3, 1997, at 9:00 a.m., Room 241, County Office
Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris,
Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and
Mrs. Sally H. Thomas.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County
Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m., by the
Chairman, Mrs. Humphris.
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. Award Presentation/Employee Recognition.
Mr. John Tuey, President-Elect of the Virginia Government Finance
Officers' Association, also from Fauquier, presented the Government Finance
Officers Association's (GFOA) Award for Excellence in Budget Preparation to
Mrs. Anne Gulati, Management Analyst in the County Executive's Office.
Mrs. Humphris read the award aloud. Mr. Tuey said it is important to create a
budget that is useful to government and the public, and that Mrs. Gulati's
work on the County budget was exemplary. Mrs. Gulati thanked Mrs. Humphris
for her comments.
Mrs. Humphris presented the Atrack Award, which was awarded to Albemarle
County for consistently achieving one hundred percent compliance in eligibil-
ity of determination for food stamps from July, 1996, through February, 1997,
to the following persons in the Social Services Department:
Mr. Michael James, Ms. Debbie Kent, Ms. Nancy Patterson, Ms. Jenny Holmes,
Ms. Teena Tuttle, Ms. Debbie Butler, Mr. Paul Vernot, Ms. Kathy Jones and
Ms. Karen Gordon.
Mrs. Humphris presented the National Association of Counties (NACo) 1997
Achievement Award for the Senior Weather Busters Program to the following
persons: Mr. Darryl Lang, American Red Cross; Mr. Phil Sparks, Virginia
Power; Mr. Kaye Hardin, Albemarle County Emergency Services Coordinator;
Mrs. Lee Catlin, Albemarle County Community Resources Coordinator, and the
Albemarle County Senior Advisory Council.
Mr. Lang said all the recipients appreciate the award, and that
Albemarle County, and, in particular, Mrs. Catlin, took the lead. The Red
Cross benefits from the education to the public about disasters, and this
program sets a good example for the rest of the state.
Mrs. Humphris read a letter from an unknown person from the Senior
Department Advisory Council, which stated that the Red Cross was very helpful
in the development of the Wakefield Neighborhood Watch.
Mrs. Humphris presented the National Association of Counties (NACo)
Information Officers 1997 Excellence Award for the Senior Weather Busters
Program to the same group of people who received the previous NACo Award.
Mrs. Humphris presented the National Association of Counties (NACo)
Information Officers 1997 Excellence Award to the Quip Video Work Team,
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day M~eting)
(Page 2)
consisting of Ms. Kathy RalstOh, MX. ~a'~ ~i~aney, Ms. Amelia McCulley,
Mrs. Lee Catlin, Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Mr. Jay Schlothauer and Ms. Jan Seale.
Agenda Item No. 6. Consent Agenda.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
Items 6.1 through 6.3, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve
Items 6.1 through 6.3, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Item 6.1. Appropriation: Site Evaluation for Proposed Juvenile
Detention Facility, $5,185 (Form ~97010) .
The Executive Summary states that in October 1996, the Board approved
$71,574 for a juvenile detention facility planning study, the costs of which
were to be shared equally with the City of Charlottesville. The study was
contracted out to Mosely/Harris and excerpts and projections from the com-
pleted study were shared with the Board in March.
This request for an additional $5,185 (County's 50% share is $2,592.50)
is to extend the contract with Mosely/Harris to conduct a site evaluation on a
specific site for the proposed facility. The planning study did not indicate
a specific site, but based the design and proposed costs of the facility on a
generic site model. The scope of work for the specific site evaluation would
include:
Research and Review Site Documentation
Site Visit
Evaluate Current Design Suitability
Evaluation of Utility Systems
Preliminary Site Grading and Drainage
Cost Estimate
Preparation of Technical Memorandum and Recommendation
Mosely/Harris is prepared to commence these services immediately
following the Board's approval of the additional funds and the formal accep-
tance of their proposal.
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation %97010 in the amount of
$5,185 to extend the contract with Mosely/Harris for a site evaluation for the
proposed juvenile detention facility.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the $5,185 targeted for evaluating possible
sites for the proposed juvenile detention facility was adequate. Mr. Tucker
said that this will fund only a preliminary examination of potential sites.
Once sites have been reduced to a manageable number, a more extensive review
will be conducted.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98
NUMBER: 97010
Fl/ND: CIP-GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR JUVENILE DETENTION SITE
EVALUATION.
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeti~i
(Page 3)
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1901033203312350 JUVENILE DETENTION $5,185.00
TOTAL $5,185.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2901016000160529 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE $2,592.50
2901051000510100 CIP FI/ND BALANCE 2,592.50
TOTAL $5,185.~00
Item 6.2. Appropriation: Homebuyer's Club Donation, $1,000 (Form
~97011).
The Executive Summary states that a donation in the amount of $1,000 was
received from Jefferson National Bank for support of the County's Homebuyers
Club. The Office of Housing has requested the appropriation of this donation
to cover the expenses of food, speakers and baby-sitters incurred for the
Club's meetings.
Staff recommends approval of an appropriation in the amount of $1,000
for the Homebuyer's Club as detailed on Appropriation #97011.
Mrs. Thomas expressed the Board's appreciation and hoped that such
donations continue after the pending bank merger.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98
NUMBER: 97011
FUND: GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
DONATION FROM JEFFERSON NATIONAL BANK FOR
HOMEBUYERS CLUB.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1100081030570806 HOMEBUYERS CLUB $1,000.00
TOTAL $1,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2100018100181116 DONATIONS $1,000.00
TOTAL $1,000.00
Item 6.3. Appropriation: Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court Renova-
tions, $25,000 (Form #97012).
The Executive Summary states that the City is responsible for managing
and overseeing construction and repairs made to the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court facility. Recently they identified a need and secured bids
for work on the third floor (Court Services area) to accommodate additional
offices for intake officers. The bid for the work on the third floor was
$26,000.
The City is also prepared to solicit bids for modifications to the
second floor which will create a small court room for public hearings, the
costs of which are estimated at $15,000. Plans for both projects have been
prepared by Bushman/Dryfus Architects and the expenses for the projects are to
be shared equally by the City and the County. Total project costs, including
architectural fees, contingency and construction are estimated to be about
$5o,0o0.
Funds for these two projects were not included in the CIP requests for
FY '98. Staff recommends that the County proceed with this project and that
funding be provided from the Courthouse Maintenance Fund which currently has a
balance of $75,000.
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day M~etihg)
(Page 4)
000326
Staff requests approval of A~P~iation %97012, in the amount of
$25,000 to provide the Juvenile Court renovations.
By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of
Appropriation:
FISCAL YEAR: 1997/98
NUMBER: 97012
FUND: GENERAL CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
RENOVATIONS AT JUVENILE COURT USING COURT HOUSE
MAINT. FUNDS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOLINT
1901021050331000 JUVENILE COURT $25,000.00
TOTAL $25,000.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2901051000512002 TRANSFER FROM CT. HSE. MT. $25,000.00
TOTAL $25,000.00
TRANSFERS
1915093010939999 TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS 25,000.00
2915051000510100 APP. FROM FUND BALANCE 25,000.00
Item 6.4. Copy of letter dated August 8, 1997, from Mr. James S.
Givens, Secondary Roads Engineer, re: Code of Virginia Section 33.1-70.1
Amended (paving of unpaved secondary roads), was received as follows:
August 8, 1997
Boards of Supervisors of Ail Counties and
the Council of the city of Suffolk
Code of virginia Section 33.1-70.1 Amended
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The 1997 General ASsembly amended Section 33.1-70.1 of the
Code of Virginia to allow the paving of unpaved secondary roads
carrying over fifty but no more than 750 vehicles per day on a
right of way of less than forty feet subject to certain condi-
tions. Briefly, the process for initiating the paving of a road
within existing right of way is as follows:
II.
The county will consult with the resident engineer to
evaluate the project for repaying within the existing
right of way. (This consultation to include his/her
review and recommendation as to the Viability of using
this procedure.)
Based on the resident engineer's recommendation the
local governing body shall, by resolution, request
that the particular road be hard surfaced on less than
a forty foot right of way. (A sample resolution is
enclosed.)
III.
The Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner may
approve the request after having taken into
consideration the following:
A. The safety of the road in its current condition
and in its paved or improved condition.
B. The views of the residents and adjacent property
owners or those served by such road.
C. The views of the governing body making the
request.
D. The historical and aesthetic significance of the
road and its general surroundings.
E. The availability of any additional land that has
been or may be acquired by gift or other means
for the purpose of paving such road within its
existing right of way or within a wider right of
September 3, 1997 (Regular DaY M~etihg)
(Page 5)
00032'7
way that is les~ than forty feet wide.
The possible impacts upon the environment.
This legislation provides flexibility in hard surfacing some
of our unpaved roads. However, safety much be our first
consideration and for this reason paving within existing right of
way may be limited in use. Should you elect to pursue the hard
surfacing of a road under this provision, your local resident
engineer can provide you with any need assistance.
Sincerely,
James S. Givens
Secondary Roads Engineer
Mr. Martin asked that this item be discussed under transportation
matters.
Item 6.5. Memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive,
providing a copy of a report on Commonality between the School Division and
Local Government, was received as information.
Mr. Bowerman asked whether the $1.0 million that comes from the General
Fund is counted in the funds that go to education. Mr. Tucker said it is not.
Item 6.6. Copy of letter dated August 20, 1997, from Ms. Janice D.
Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Ms. Judith H. McGinniss and William
Persen, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section 10.3.1, Tax
Map 47, Parcel 43, was received as information.
Item 6.7. Letter dated August 20, 1997, from Mr. Jay Roberts, Environ-
mental Engineer, Department of Environmental Quality, re: Public Notice of
Draft VWP Permit #93-0570, was received as information.
Item 6.8. Copy of memorandum dated August 22, 1997, from
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development, to
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Compliance with Comprehen-
sive Plan (456 Review) - Ragged Mountain Natural Area, was received for
information. The memorandum states:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 19,
1997, by a vote of 5-1-1, found the Ragged Mountain Natural Area to be in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan under the following conditions:
The trail must conform generally with the proposed plan and be approved
by the Water Resources Manager;
2 o
The ICF and the County will continue to work with adjacent landowners to
minimize adverse impacts in the development of trails;
The ICF will conduct a general survey of natural heritage resources and
design trails to avoid areas with identified resources;
4 o
The County will work with the City of Charlottesville and the Rivanna
Water & Sewer Authority, including an annual review, to ensure that the
proposal, including indirect effects such as increased boating access,
does not adversely impact water quality; and
5. A site plan must be approved by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Ragged Mountain Natural Area trail network has
to be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Tucker said
it was not necessary. Mr. Pat Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation,
said the trail, due to the grade, will be rustic, and thereby impossible to be
in compliance with ADA regulations. He said this does not present a problem
since other County parks meet ADA standards. Mr. Tucker noted that the
National Forrest and Appalachian Trail are not totally in compliance.
Mr. Bowerman said he was concerned that someone might try to sue the County at
a later date to make the trail in compliance.
000328
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day M~eting)
(Page 6)
Mrs. Thomas suggested that the first condition state that water quality
is paramount. She added that, while neighbors are in agreement with the
project, they are concerned about the impact on the neighborhood and the
quality of water. She then suggested rewording condition number two to
include, "...development and use of the trails". Regarding condition number
four, she suggested rewording the condition to read: "increased boating
access..." She said the Ivy Creek Foundation indicated that hunting and
trapping will be prohibited. She pointed out that deer are overpopulated, and
it should be mentioned that it may necessary to regulate the animal population
to protect the area, since deer carry a parasite and have been eating vegeta-
tion in the area. Mr. Tucker suggested that possible efforts for animal
control should be considered in collaboration with a state biologist and the
Department of Games and Inlands Fisheries.
Mrs. HumphriS said she was part of the discussion on this project and
thinks it is important to maintain this area in a wilderness state. She feels
that the Planning Commission's recent review of the project is vague about
future negative effects and pressure to use it by the public. It should be
emphasized that the County is dealing with pristine water supplies. She is
concerned that people forget that bodic~ ~%~.~re not recreational areas,
and that trails might become overused. The County needs to have a better
vision for the future of water supplies.
Regarding condition number four, Mrs. Humphris wondered if the County
should prevent access to water supply areas now. Mr. Tucker said the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) is examining the use of the reservoir, but
RWSA does not own a lot of the land area. This is a tiny watershed owned
almost entirely by the City, with County oversight. The policy could be
expanded to address Mrs. Humphris' concerns and to develop a vision of the
County's use of water bodies. Mrs. Thomas said the RWSA's new advisory
committee suggested the same thing.
Mr. David Hirschman agreed, saying that recent developments have
concerned him. Some reservoirs are well managed by the Parks and Recreation
Department, but some others, such as Sugar Hollow, are abused by citizens.
Mr. Tucker said the Ivy Creek Foundation and citizens say there is a
need for this use. He suggested that Priddy Creek might be another location
to be devoted to passive use by the Ivy Creek Foundation so that the Ragged
Mountain area is not overused. Mrs. Humphris asked about trails at Walnut
Creek Park.
Mr. Bowerman said the County must educate citizens about the importancq_
of ~he watersheds. An overall plan should be developed, because there
~ a greenbelt from the Meadow Creek Parkway to the Rivanna Greenway and
Darden Park, and the RWSA should be made aware of any plans.
Mr. Marshall said usage of these areas has increased beyond previous
Boards' expectations. Mrs. Humphris said the Planning Commission voted that
this plan was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, but additional
suggestions were made at the meeting. She asked Mr. Davis for direction.
Mr. Davis suggested the Board approve the plan with modifications.
Mr. Bowerman suggested adding a comment about a strategic plan.
Mr. Tucker suggested the Board support this plan and review progress in the
future.
Mrs. Humphris said it is important to protect water supplies.
Mr. Bowerman suggested the Board review the plan on September 17, 1997, with
proposed changes to the Planning Commission's conditions.
Mr. Perkins said there needs to be a comprehensive review of County
resources. Mr. Tucker said this is being done because of issues with Buck
Mountain Creek.
Mr. Marshall asked if the County could use the James River as a water
source. Mr. Perkins said there are other much more affordable locations
available. Mrs. Thomas added that the City of Richmond has water rights to
the James River.
At this time, it was the consensus of the Board to defer this item until
September 17, 1997, and asked that the conditions be amended to reflect the
following changes:
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day ~et~ng)
(Page 7)
000329
The trail must conform generally with the proposed plan and be
approved by the Water Resources Manager. The protection of water
quality shall remain paramount;
2 o
The ICF and the County will continue to work with adjacent land-
owners to minimize adverse impacts in the development and use of
trails;
The ICF will conduct a general survey of natural heritage re-
sources and design trails to avoid areas with identified re-
sources.
The County will work with the City of~Charlottesville and the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, including an annual review, to
ensure that the proposal, including indircct cffccts suck az
increased boating access, does not adversely impact water quality.
5. A site plan must be approved by the Planning Commission.
The Board also asked that a condition be added to state that:
There may be a need, at times, to reduce the animal population in
order to protect the area, in collaboration with the State biolo-
gist and the Department of Games and Inlands Fisheries.
Item 6.9. Copy of minutes of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
Board of Directors meeting and minutes of a joint meeting of Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority Board of Directors and Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Board of
Directors meetings of June 23, 1997, were received for information.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters.
Mrs. Humphris said the Board had not received the monthly update from
Mrs. Tucker. Mrs. Tucker said there was one issue to be examined, so she
would combine the August and September reports and forward them to the Board
for the October 1 meeting.
Mr. Marshall asked about the request to reduce the speed limit in the
Keene area. Mrs. Tucker said that is currently under review.
Mr. Marshall again expressed concerns about Route 20 and the road to
Monticello High School. It is difficult now, under normal conditions and
without the added buses and vehicles, to get onto Route 20. He does not think
the current situation will work when the school opens. He asked about VDoT
plans for Route 20. He suggested the road be four-laned, and that the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) install right and left turn
lanes.
Mrs. Tucker said the entrance onto Route 20 is currently under permit to
VDoT. Before VDoT releases that permit, the contractor must build right and
left turn lanes into the connector road. Mr. Marshall asked if the current
turn lane will be widened, and Mrs. Tucker responded ~yes". In addition,
there will be appropriate sight distance available through clearing of
easements to the north of that entrance. The sight distance necessary for
that street connection is 550 feet in both directions. There may have to be a
"school zone" designation on the connector road and Route 20. It is not
completely constructed as yet.
Mr. Tucker suggested it may be necessary to look at a reduction in speed
limit from Route 53 to this connector road. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT will
consider that suggestion.
Mr. Perkins said the speed limit from Avon Street to 1-64 should be
reduced once the new entrance meets compliance.
Mrs. Tucker said improvements have already been accounted for in the Six
Year Plan, and that public hearings will be held next year. Funds are not yet
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
ooosao
available for the rights-of-way or construction that will need to take place
after the school opens.
Mr. Marshall suggested naming the connector road Mill Creek Drive (or
whatever the road directly across is already named). The name seems logical
since this is a straight connection directly across from Mill Creek Drive.
Mrs. Tucker will refer the suggestion to VDoT.
Mr. Martin asked how the Board can proceed with funding for roads under
the ~Pave In Place" Program. Mrs. Tucker said ~Pave In Place" is misleading,
in that it is not a program independent of the Six Year planning process.
There is no money set up for the Program. This is to be applied to those
projects already prioritized and included in the Six Year Plan. It does allow
roads with minimal grading needed (which means you do not have to make severe
cuts into embankments or provide extreme fill materials into drop offs) that
do not have right-of-way available can be looked at for the ~Pave In Place"
application. Those standards are an 18 foot width pavement, three foot
minimal shoulders and two foot minimal ditch lines, which comes to a 28 foot
typical section of roadway.
Mr. Martin asked if the staff is going to move forward with only roads
that are currently in the Six Year Plan or look at roads that may not be in
the Plan. He has had people suggest other roads to him. He said the Board
needs to reach a consensus on how to deal with roads that qualify for this
Program. Mr. Cilimberg commented that each year the Board includes in the Six
Year Plan nearly 20 sections of unpaved road, of which some may qualify for
the ~Pave In Place" Program, that are prioritized based on need and the
ability to get right-of-way. The ~Pave In Place" Program may provide the
opportunity to upgrade some roads where the right-of-way was not obtained, but
the road is still on the list. The Program will not change the priorities; it
will just give the Board another option of the way the roads can be built.
The Program provides an option for a lesser design improvement, but it is for
the roads that need to be addressed and have been on the list. Mr. Cilimberg
said staff is working, in conjunction with VDoT, on developing a list of roads
that qualify for "Pave In Place".
Mr. Tucker suggested Board members inform constituents that currently
there is no change in the way the Board deal with roads, but there is a
possibility that some additional roads can be moved forward. During review of
the Six Year Plan, the Board can consider which other roads can move forward
into the ~Pave In Place" Program. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that if a constitu-
ent approaches a Board member about a road, ask that person to get in touch
with someone from the Planning staff.
Mrs. Thomas ~said that Route 702 (the road to the Ragged Mountain
Reservoir) is an intolerable, winding and narrow road. It is in the Six Year
Road Plan, but is not planned to be paved for another six to eight years. She
asked VDoT to look at possible ways to make the road safer, which may include
marking curves with chevrons, installing of rails, and making other spot
improvements. Signs should be posted to make road conditions clear to people.
Mrs. Thomas said it was brought to her attention that graffiti is
increasing in her district. One of the worst places is the area off the Route
250 Bypass going west on Route 250 near the Bellair Station. She suggested
that some people, including local business people, get together to discuss how
to deal with this issue. Mr. Tucker suggested forming a neighborhood group to
look at the situation.
Mr. Bowerman asked when the traffic signal on Old Brook Road would be
activated. Mrs. Tucker said she will look into this.
Mrs. Tucker said she received a letter from a citizen interested in
signal hardware painted green such as those in the City. VDoT's standard is
to use galvanized signal poles and hardware. Funds to change to the other
hardware would have to come from incidental funds. The Board expressed no
support for this change.
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
000 !
Mr. Marshall asked who is responsible for lighting entranceways to
subdivisions to keep down vandalism. Mrs. Tucker said requests should be
submitted to the County's Engineering Department. If they are next to or
within VDoT's right-of-way, VDoT will review the impact to the roadway. She
believes the lighting program is paid for by the homeowner's association.
Mr. Tucker suggested contacting the Engineering Department.
Mrs. Tucker reported that VDoT removed graffiti that had been painted on
signs and mailboxes in Marshall Manor and other areas along Route 20 South.
Mrs. Humphris said she liked Mrs. Tucker's comments about the Rio Road
intersection in the Daily Progress. There was supposed to have been a grade
separated intersection at Rio Road in 1980, which was strongly supported by
the public. The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) said it would not
build it due to public comments. She also thought that VDoT, under a sequenc-
ing agreement, was to provide three intersections. However,
Mr. Bill Roudabush, the local representative on the CTB, introduced a resolu-
tion to remove the interchanges from the Route 29 North improvement plans.
She added that the situation will get worse, and the public should know the
Board can do nothing about it.
Mr. Perkins said he received a complaint'about poor sight distance at
the Route 810/614 intersection in White Hall, noting that a hedge blocks
visibility. Mrs. Tucker said the hedges have been limbed out into VDoT's
right-of-way. V/DoT is working with the homeowner to have them trimmed back to
the wall. Mr. Perkins added that the Route 810 trimming operation was
impressive.
Mr. Bill Mawyer, County Engineer, said the connector road to Monticello
High School is expected to be completed within 90 days. A light will be
installed at the intersection of Avon Street and Mill Creek Drive within three
to six months. The Engineering Department has recommended to the School
Transportation Department to use Avon Street rather than driving south on
Route 20.
Mr. Mawyer added that the Engineering Department has a street lighting
program. They use the policy to provide guidance and determine whether the
applicant must provide funds. The County pays the continuing monthly electri-
cal charge. Mr. Marshall commented that earlier in the meeting he was
inquiring about Marshall Manor, and that he would discuss the matter further
with Mr. Mawyer.
Agenda Item No. 8. Request to adopt a Resolution Approving the Filing
of an Application to the Virginia Public School Authority for a Loan in a
Principal Amount not to Exceed $20,455,000.
Mr. Tucker said funding for the FY 1997/98 Capital Improvement Budget
anticipated the issuance of $20,455,000 in bonds through the Virginia Public
School Authority (VPSA) for various school projects. Participation in the
bond issue requires both the School Board and Board of Supervisors to pass a
resolution authorizing application to VPSA. It is anticipated, at this time,
that the School Board will pass the resolution at their meeting on
August 25, 1997 and this Board today. The required application has already
been submitted to VPSA by their September 3, 1997 deadline. A number of
actions (resolutions, public hearings, approvals) will be required between now
and November, 1997 to meet the requirements of VPSA and to maintain their time
schedule. The required documents will be submitted to the Board as received
by the Director of Finance from the County's bond counsel.
Mr. Tucker said staff recommends adoption of the resolution authorizing
and approving the application to VPSA.
Mr. Bowerman asked about the funds from split billing that goes into the
General Fund for capital improvements. He knew that did not all go to the new
high school, and that some went to other school projects. He asked what the
construction costs are for Monticello High School, including those with
oooaaz
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 10)
sustainable aspects. Mr. Tucker said he will provide that information to the
Board.
Mr. Martin made the motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the
Resolution Approving the Filing of an Application to the Virginia Public
School authority for a Loan in a Principal Amount not to Exceed $20,455,000.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FILING OF AN
APPLICATION TO THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY FOR A LOAN IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT
NOT TO EXCEED $20,455,000
W~EREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the " Board") of Albemarle County,
Virginia (the "County"), in collaboration with the Albemarle County School Board,
has determined that it is necessary and desirable for the County to undertake
various capital improvements for its public school system;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board hereby approves the filing of an application to the
Virginia Public School Authority for a loan to the County in a principal amount
not to exceed $20,455,000 to finance various capital improvements for its public
school system. The actions of the County Executive, in collaboration with the
other officers of the County and the Albemarle County School Board, in completing
and delivering an application to the Virginia Public School Authority are hereby
approved.
2. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract
from the minutes of a regular meeting of the Board held on the 3rd day of
September, 1997, and of the whole thereof so far as applicable to the matters
referred to in such extract.
WITNESS my signature and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, this 3rd day of September, 1997.
(SEAL)
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia
Agenda Item No. 9. 10:00 A.M. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend the
service area boundaries of Albemarle County Service Authority for limited sewer
service to existing warehouse structures only on TM59, P23B1 for W. J. Kirtley,
Jr. Property is located on Route 250 West in the Ivy area. (Advertised in the
Daily Progress on August 18 and August 25, 1997.)
Mrs. Thomas offered motion, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer this item
until October 1, 1997, at the request of the applicant. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
(The Board took a break at 10:38 a.m. The Board returned at 10:48 a.m.)
Agenda Item No. 10. Presentation: Neighborhood Team Matching Grant
Program.
Mrs. Lee Catlin, Community Resources Coordinator, said the Board
approved $10,000 for the Neighborhood Team for FY 1997/98 to create a Neigh-
borhood Matching Grant Fund to be administered by the Team and made available
00o3;33
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
to neighborhoods in the County to serve as seed money for small-scale improve-
ment/enhancement projects with a clear public benefit. Eligible enhancements
could include a particular program, service or infrastructure improvement.
For every dollar requested (the maximum amount of any one grant is $1000), the
neighborhood must provide a ~match" in donated services or materials, volun-
teer labor or cash.
The Team has developed a program description, application packet and
informational brochure for the Matching Grant Program in consultation with
citizens who have had the opportunity to review and comment on the procedures
and forms. Because this is a new initiative, parameters have been left
purposely broad to encourage neighborhoods and community groups to be creative
in coming forward with improvement/enhancement proposals. The team wants
groups to assess their needs and submit applications or projects that meet
their specific individual needs.
Mrs. Catlin said after this meeting, the Team will begin publicizing the
availability of funds to the community through a variety of means including
media announcements, directed mailings, announcements at appropriate public
forums and in newsletters and other County publications.
Mrs. Catlin said this item provided for information only and does not
require any action at this time. She provided flyers to the Board for
distribution.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this will be put on the County's home page on the
Internet. Mrs. Catlin said it would.
Mrs. Humphris asked that Mrs. Catlin provide an update on the Program in
a few months' time.
Agenda Item No. 11. Presentation: Overview of Five Year Forecast of
Revenues and Expenditures.
Mrs. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, made the presentation,
providing a handout with the four-year forecast. Mr. Tucker said staff will
provide an update on revenues in November.
Mrs. White said forecast assumptions are based on 1) the County's
adopted financial policies (adopted in October, 1994, which includes policies
for capital transfers and debt service); 2) current operational policies
(including how the County organizes departments, funds vehicles and staffing);
3) current levels of service; and 4) March, 1997 revenue projections (updated
at the budget work sessions). The forecast assumes the County will maintain
the current level of service with the same tax rates. Staff will present
final projections for FY 1999 and the five year projections in November.
The expenditure assumptions are based on 1) baseline operations
increases by a combined factor of inflation and growth; 2) FY 1998-2002
capital project operational costs; 3) transfer to capital projects continuing
to increase; 4) other fixed costs, basically in the School Division; and 5)
debt service increases are funded by the County's reserve and annual contribu-
tions.
Using a slide presentation, Mrs. White presented charts that showed the
basis for how staff projected baseline increases. In FY 1999 the inflation is
projected to be 2.91 percent. The inflation factors are an average of
estimates from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional
Budget Office. The chart showed projections for the next four years. The
population is projected to increase 1.5 percent a year. In the September
projections staff had listed a projection of 1.0 percent, based on Virginia
Employment Commission projections. After seeing how VEC calculated population
increases, staff arrived at what they felt was a much more reasonable method
for projections. The figure for the cost of local government is 4.45 percent,
a multiplied factor, based on the assumption that inflation ~grows". Regard-
ing cost of education factors, staff used the inflation factor and the
enrollment projections to determine those growth costs. In FY 1999, staff
projects a 2.62 percent enrollment factor, an increase of 350 students.
Regarding increased enrollment projections, Mrs. White said staff used
the September projections. Shortfalls have occurred because in November the
school enrollment projections changed, and almost 500 students will be added
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
000 84
over the next five years. This is the difference between the September and
November projections. Mrs. Thomas asked how accurate the figures were.
Mrs. White said, in the past, figures have been pretty accurate. During the
past two years, staff estimates have been somewhat low.
The next chart demonstrated how staff, using growth factors, calculated
General Government's needs for next year. The chart does not include Debt
Service or Revenue Sharing; just operational costs. The baseline funding
number is then used as the base for the next year. That figure, multiplied by
the cost of government, provides the baseline funding figure of $34.6 million.
Capital operating costs, costs that were identified in the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget, were added to the baseline funding figure, resulting in
a figure of $1.8 million, or a 5.43 percent increase.
The bulk of the capital project operating costs over the four year
period of FY '99 until FY '02, are for paid fire fighters. Technology
projects are any for maintenance support and training costs associated with
the new computers. Parks and Recreation projects are maintenance and repair,
and possibly staffing, costs. Juvenile Detention facility accounts for
$200,000 in the last two years of the CIP for increased operating costs.
Landscaping projects total $100,000, as do miscellaneous items.
Mrs. White showed a chart that demonstrated increasing costs, mainly due
to fire and rescue, because they are cumulative, as additional fire fighters
are added to the payroll over a five year period. These are not one-time
costs; they repeat themselves each year and grow by inflation and growth.
Regarding School Division expenditure assumptions, Mrs. White showed a
chart that showed baseline funding. It included capital operating costs
included costs for the new high school and bottom line operating expenses.
Baseline funding is shown as the prior year baseline, and is repeated across
the chart. For FY '99, there is an additional $200,000 in additional costs
for the textbook fund, a cost identified but not funded last year, plus a
$180,000 bus replacement fund. The VRS COLA is mandated by VRS, and repre-
sents a significant increase in the school budget. It is added into the
baseline, but also increases each year. This will come to nearly $1.0 million
over the next five years. The baseline and fixed costs, if funded, are then
multiplied by the cost of government factors, to come to the new baseline
funding request of $76.19 million. On top of that, staff project that $1.65
million in capital operating costs are added onto that, resulting in a total
budget need of $77.75 million. Out of the capital operating cost is $1.3
million for operating the new high school.
Mrs. Thomas asked why capital operating monies are not added to baseline
figures, since they carry over from year to year. Mrs. White said they could
be put in the baseline, but staff wanted to show that these are ongoing and
cumulative costs, and that inflation and growth costs are also included.
These are capital operating costs associated with capital projects, which may
or may not always be funded. Mrs. Thomas said once projects have been funded,
there is no longer a choice about whether or not they will exist, so they
should become part of the budget. Proposed projects which have not been
funded could be set out from the baseline figures. Mrs. White said staff
could include the high school's capital costs into the baseline for the next
year. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that there is an inconsistency in what is
presented, because the VRS COLA payment is shown as accumulative on one line,
but it is shown as not accumulative on another. Mr. Tucker agreed that, to be
consistent, once a budget has been adopted, and it includes capital operating
expenses, they should be made part of the baseline. Mrs. White said there
still needs to be a way to identify those costs that are being rolled into the
baseline, because there will be some significant increases. Staff can design
another way to show those costs.
Mr. Marshall asked if staff anticipates that the School Board will
operate within these guidelines. Mr. Tucker said these are expected expendi-
tures for FY 1999.
Mr. Martin asked how the bus replacement fund was determined.
Mrs. White said the figure showed what needed to be added to the monies
already in the fund. Mrs. Thomas thought the bus replacement fund for FY 1999
was going to be large. Mrs. White said the $180,000 is added to what had
been projected last year, splitting the whole cost over two fiscal years.
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
Mr. Martin asked about the $180,000 slated for the Monticello High
School buses. Mrs. White said the $180,000 was needed to be added to the
current fund. The schools have tried to increase that fund each year, and
this is what is currently needed. This cost will be included in the baseline
yearly so there are enough monies in the budget to fund the ongoing costs of
bus replacement. Mrs. Thomas said she thought there was to be a large jump in
the bus replacement figure this year. Mr. Tucker said the schools did not
fund the entire expense in FY 1998; the costs were split between this year and
next year, by shifting $180,000 to next year's budget, rather than funding the
entire amount in FY 1998.
Mr. Marshall pointed out that there was a $3.5 million shortfall
proposed for FY 1998-99. Mr. Tucker said these projections are based on
assumptions. Mr. Marshall said if the School Board brings forward their
proposed budget, and there is a $3.5 million shortfall, it will represent a
six to seven cent increase in taxes. A 79 cent tax rate will be needed next
year to fund the request, based on anticipated revenues. Mr. Tucker said it
is hoped there will be some growth in the revenues, but there could be a
reduction.
Mr. Martin asked if bus expenditures for Monticello High School show
up as capital operating expenses. Mrs. White said they are in the operating
funds along with maintenance costs, electricity, staff support and other
things necessary to open the school. Mrs. Thomas said she did not think the
purchase of buses for Monticello High School should be included in capital
operating expenses. Capital operating expenses should be made up only of
expenses created by the additional items that had been purchased. Mrs. White
said all costs associated with opening the school, except bricks, mortar and
furniture, etc., are included in capital operating expenses. The associated
costs, such as maintenance, custodial care, bus drivers, etc., are included.
This category is different from the bus replacement fund. Mrs. Thomas asked
if it included additional library books. Mrs. White said one-time purchases
are shown in the operating budget. Mr. Bowerman agreed that buses should be
in the capital operating costs, since a bus purchase is a one-time purchase.
The report indicates that capital operating costs include everything that has
to do with maintenance of the high school, and bus purchases. This is
inconsistent with a one-time expense and an on-going expense. Once purchased,
these items become part of the replacement schedule, but during the first
year, they should not be included in the capital operating costs. Mr. Tucker
suggested that ~growth operating costs" of the high school might be a better
term. These items were identified as part of a capital project, so staff
showed the costs associated with the capital project for operating purposes.
Buses are one of the necessary items to accommodate that capital cost, but
they are also part of the growth costs for the school. Mr. Bowerman said
buses are part of building a high school, and should therefore be part of the
capital costs initially for opening the school, not part of the operating
capital costs. Mr. Martin agreed.
Mr. Bowerman said the budget must be consistent and clear enough for the
public to follow. Mr. Tucker said staff tried to consolidate figures, but
could break them down further so that the public can clearly understand what
capital operating costs are associated with the high school or growth.
Mrs. Thomas said it must be clear what goes into the $1.5 million. Mrs. White
said staff can list those items.
Mr. Marshall noted that there are no reserve funds. Mr. Tucker said
funds are put into reserve funds after the Board reviews the annual operating
budget.
Mrs. Humphris said these are revenue projections, not a proposed budget.
Reserves can be determined later. Mrs. White said a Debt Reserve Fund and a
Jail Reserve Fund are identified. Staff did not list reserves since funds are
already limited. Mr. Martin pointed out that to put money into reserves would
simply increase the deficit.
Mr. Marshall said the County needs to pass a meals tax to avoid increas-
ing real estate taxes. He is concerned about the large shortfall. Assess-
ments are at 97 percent now, property values are not increasing, and he
wonders where the money will come from for next year. Mr. Tucker commented
that next year is not a reassessment year. The Board has the option of
reducing some expenditures to save money in the form of capital transfers.
000336
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Mrs. White reviewed the School Division's capital project operating
costs, which include the new high school, costs of a northern elementary
school, operating costs for some of the technology projects, including support
and maintenance to computers, and various additions, renovations and improve-
ments, to include custodial service and increased electrical service.
The next chart pertained to non-departmental expenditures, which
Mrs. White said included the debt service, debt service reserve, capital
transfer, the jail debt service and revenue sharing.
Mrs. White then showed a chart which represented debt service. Debt
service in FY 1991 was $3.5 million. It is projected to increase in FY 1998
- to $6.7 million and in the year 2000 to $10.0 million.
The next chart explained the difference between actual debt and the debt
service reserve fund. In FY 1998 actual debt service increases from $6.7
million to $8.8 million. That is the projected actual increase for FY 1999.
The Board would need to find an addition $2.1 million. Expecting this
significant increase in FY 1999, which is the result of borrowing for the high
school, the County has been, since 1994 or 1995, setting aside debt service
funds in a reserve fund. They are contributions that are projected to level
out at $10.0 million. Therefore, next year, rather than having to add to it
$2.1 million, the County would need an additional $400,000. The projected
reserve balance for the end of this year is $2.7 million. Mr. Tucker said
this points out that staff had been planning for this for the past two to
three years.
Mrs. White said the budgeted debt service over the five-year period is
$34.23 million. The reserve contributions, if they follow projections, totals
$8.4 million from contributions and savings. Additional savings identified
are approximately $1.3 million, from maintaining a level debt service for the
past three years. There were also savings because borrowing had been budgeted
at 7.0 percent, but the bonds came in at a lower interest rate. Therefore,
the actual debt payment has not been as high as budgeted.
The next chart shows total resources to be $43.9 million. The total
debt service payments will total approximately $44.37 million. Based on
projections for the next five-year period, it is projected that, in the fifth
year, the reserve fund will be short $440,000. This is based on examining the
debt service with the additional high school costs and staging of some of the
projects. The School Division cut a certain amount of money out of its
capital budget, but some of the projects were moved forward, which increased
the debt service over the next five years. Debt service payments are larger
in the beginning years. If a project is moved forward, costs in the initial
years are much higher. Figures in the reserve fund have not been adjusted; it
is hoped that some savings can be realized to cover the shortfall by the end
of the fifth year.
Regarding capital transfers, it has been the Board's financial policy to
increase the level of capital transfers. As a result, the figure has gone
from $1.0 million to $2.3 million this year; by the year 2002 it is expected
the figure for capital transfer of current revenues to increase to $4.0
million. This is to be used for General Government projects and School
maintenance projects. There has been an increase in the transfer to the
School Division for its repair and maintenance projects from $500,000 this
year to $1.0 million in FY 2002. This is due to the Board's policy not to pay
for repair and maintenance to school facilities with borrowed funds; they
should be paid from current revenues. Mrs. Thomas added that equipment such
as computers would not be paid from these funds. Mr. Tucker said the Board
will want to examine this area. It is one area where the Board can make a
conscious decision not to fund some projects. Mrs. Thomas said the result
would then be a higher debt service for things that do not last for 20 years.
Mr. Tucker said that was true only if the Board borrowed money to fund the
projects anyway. General Government items may not need to be put on a bond
- issue. The County could look at lease/purchase options, for example, for
shorter-term borrowing.
Mrs. White said that, of the $1.0 million transfer going to the School
Division for repair and maintenance, it is not yet known how much will go
towards repair and maintenance and how much will go towards purchase of
computers. This amount has not always covered all repairs and maintenance.
There have been occasions when the County has had to borrow some money.
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
000337
Mrs. White then showed a chart that reflected revenue sharing payments,
showing growth from $2.8 million in FY 1991 to $5.5 million in FY 1998, and
$6.2 million in FY 2002. The percentage of the General Fund made up of
revenue sharing payments is decreasing, which is a factor of declining
increases in reassessments. As reassessment increases decline, so do the
revenue sharing payments. Mrs. Thomas pointed out this is not shaped by tax
rates. Mrs. White said it is shaped by the market value of assessed property.
The revenue sharing payments are based on the projected increases of the
market value of real estate. Mr. Marshall said that the value of some
in the County and City has increased significantly, while other
property values have decreased or remained the same. Mr. Tucker said property
values have been decreasing, which was expected.
Mrs. White said the Jail Reserve Fund is approximately $200,000 per
year. That fund was included in projections to show concern about the
increased costs in debt service and operating costs for the new jail expan-
sion. Five-year projections are now being developed. The $200,000 set aside
each year is to help lessen expenses when the facility opens. This was begun
in FY 1995.
She said General Fund revenue estimates are based upon projections done
in March of 1996 and school revenues, with estimates from the School Division.
Revenue projections will be revised in October. Revenue assumptions may be
conservative. Mr. Bowerman asked how much of a variance there has been. Mrs.
White said historical variances have averaged about 2.1 percent, or about $1.5
million, variances being the difference between what was budgeted for revenues
what was collected. For example, in the past there was an underestimate
of personal property taxes, there was an increase in sales taxes due to new
stores and split billing resulted in the County receiving approximately $1.3
million more than budgeted. Staff feels it is better to err on the side of
being conservative rather than having shortfalls at the end of the year.
Mrs. White said that projections are based on collections from FY 1991
through FY 1996, which show that the average annual real estate increase was
about 8.6 percent, and declining reassessment increases will be an average of
3.7 percent, so there is a significant decline in what is projected to be the
average annual increase. Personal property is about the same. The sales tax
revenues will decrease.
Mr. Bowerman asked why there is a decrease in sales tax revenue.
Mr. Robert Walters, of the Finance Department, said the increases in FY 1991
through 1996 were due to a period of growth, the opening of large facilities
in the area and some audits that increased sales tax receipts. For fiscal
years 1998 to 2002, the rate of decline is based on County and state projec-
tions. When asked, Mr. Walters said the rate is historically from six to
seven percent. Mr. Tucker added that increased shopping areas may shift,
not increase, sales tax revenues.
Mrs. White said the money coming from the State and Federal government
has decreased. The average annual increase to schools had been four percent,
but it has dropped to an average of 1.8 percent increase during the last five-
year period. A one percent variance represents $1.0 million, but it is an
insignificant part of the projections.
Mr. Martin questioned State/Federal funding to schools and wondered if
it included a growth factor. Mrs. White said the figure is based on what the
~chool system projects it will receive from the State, which may be affected
by the County's composite index and the General Assembly.
Responding to a question from Mr. Marshall, Mr. Tucker said average
mncreases in reassessments have been cut in half each assessment year, which
severely impacts revenues. Mr. Marshall said the County must have grossly
underassessed property values years ago, and that they are now more aligned
with true market values. Mr. Bowerman commented that this mimics trends
across the country. Mr. Martin pointed out that the demand for homes is still
there and prices continue to rise. Mrs. Thomas disagreed, saying that many
homes cannot be sold for more than what they cost, due to overbuilding.
Mrs. White then showed a chart of the historical rate of growth for
schools. The schools estimate that with every one percent increase in the
composite index the County loses $390,000.
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
O00 B8
She then showed a chart which detailed the trend in sources of revenue
for education. In 1980, the State and Federal governments contributed almost
40 percent of the operational costs; in the year 2002, that figure is pro-
jected to be 34.4 percent. The County's contribution has grown from 60
percent to 65.6 percent. When you add debt service, the share of local
revenue needed for both operational and capital costs was 64.2 percent in
1980; it is now almost 70 percent. These State-wide trends explain the impact
on the need for local funds for School Division costs.
Regarding how the County compares with its per capita expenditures for
the School Division expenses, the County is at $910 per capita; the State
average is $917.90. The County has a 62 cent tax rate for operational costs;
the State average is 60 cents. Some localities are spending more money per
capita on education by their composite index, even though they are receiving a
larger share of state revenues. The only ones that are comparable to
Albemarle County are Loudon, Fauquier and Louisa counties.
Mr. Marshall said the FY 1995 tax rate should be averaged against other
counties with similar populations. Mr. Tucker said the tax rate for counties
that have similar population figures are much higher than Albemarle County.
Mr. Bowerman suggested staff use COHORT figures when making comparisons.
Mr. Marshall asked how much of an impact there is on the County when
land is purchased by the State, for example, the University of Virginia.
Mr. Tucker said the University Real Estate Foundation (UREF) was created so as
to not take land off the tax roles. When UREF buys property, it remains on
the tax rolls, but when the University purchases property for educational
purposes, it is nOt taxed.
Mrs. White then showed the final projections on the shortfall between
revenues and expenditures. The first chart took baseline costs and projected
inflation and growth only--no capital costs, no operating costs, no fixed
costs were included. The beginning of the range is a shortfall of $800,000,
going up to a surplus of $4.3 million in the final year. When fixed and
expanded costs of capital facilities are included, there is a projected
shortfall of $3.5 million that goes up to $1.6 million.
Mr. Bowerman said that the public will ask what happens to the surplus.
Mrs. White said it all goes into the fund balance. Mr. Bowerman then asked
why it is not available to pay the deficit when it exists. Mrs. White
responded that the fund balance is sometimes used as cash flow monies for
various projects. Money is spent out of the fund balance and money goes back
to replenish the fund balance. Mr. Tucker added that unused funds have been
used to balance the budget. Mr. Bowerman observed that, if that is true,
there is no real surplus. The chart actually shows the difference between
projected expenditures over revenues; it is not really surplus money. The
word ~surplus" will confuse the public and should not be used.
Mrs. Thomas said the information was very useful, particularly since the
meals tax will be an issue soon.
Agenda Item No. 12. Cancel Board of Supervisors meeting for September
10, 1997.
Mr. Marshall offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to cancel the
Board of Supervisors meeting for September 10, 1997. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Other matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that it was recently brought to his attention
that the State Code had been changed to allow siblings to be included in
family divisions. The County Attorney has advised that the County cannot
allow siblings to be included in a family division without a change to the
Subdivision Ordinance, which would have to be initiated by either the Board or
the Planning Commission.
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 17)
00O339
Mrs. Humphris suggested that the Board take no action until such time as
there is a problem.
Mrs. Humphris said she is still waiting for the GE Fanuc employment
report.
Mrs. Humphris said she received a letter from Mr. Dale Gardner,
Supervisor of the Babe Ruth Baseball League, thanking County staff for all
their help. He mentioned Mr. Matt Smith, Mr. Tim Hughes, ~'David", ~John",
"Travis", ~Bud" and ~Jim" by name.
Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters.
At 11:30 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, that the Board go
into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia
under subsection (1) to discuss appointments to Boards and Commissions; under
subsection (3) to discuss disposition of County interest in a specific
property and under subsection (7) to discuss probable litigation regarding a
public safety matter and to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding
specific legal matters relating to reversion. Mrs. Thomas seconded the
motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and
Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Reconvene and Certify Executive Session.
(Note: Mr. Martin did not return from the Executive Session.) At 4:20
p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered
by Mr..Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, 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 following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
None.
Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments.
Mr. Bowerman recommended that Mr. Charles J. Gross be appointed to the
Community College Board, to fill out the unexpired term of
Mr. William A. Finley, Jr., with said term to expire on June 30, 2000.
Mrs. Thomas recommended that Mr. Kenneth O. Lee be appointed to the
Library Board, to fill out the unexpired term of Ms. Marian Schwartz, with
said term to expire on June 30, 1999.
Mrs. Thomas reconunended that Ms. Karen Waters be appointed as the
consumer representative of low/moderate income housing to the Housing
Committee, to fill out the unexpired term of Ms. Beverly Terrell, with said
term to expire on December 31, 1998.
Mrs. Thomas recommended that Mr. Michael Gaffney, be appointed as the
construction/development representative, to the Housing Committee, to fill out
the unexpired term of Mr. Stephen N. Runkle, with said term to expire on
December 31, 1999.
Mr. Marshall reco=~ended that Mr. Frank Kessler be appointed to the
Architectural Review Board, to fill out the unexpired term of
Mr. Steve Runkle, with said term to expire on November 14, 1998.
OO0840
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
Mr. Marshall recommended that Ms. Susan Winslow be appointed to the
Advisory Council on Aging, with said term to expire on May 31, 1999.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motions
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
Non-Agenda Item.
Mr. Bowerman offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the
following resolution regarding the District Home Board. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Martin.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the District Home Board for Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath
and Rockbridge Counties and the Cities of Charlottesville, Covington, Lexing-
ton and Waynesboro (the ~District Home Board") and the Counties of Albemarle,
Alleghany, Augusta, Bath and Rockbridge and the Cities of Charlottesville,
Covington, Lexington and Walrnesboro, Virginia (collectively the
~Jurisdictions" and each singularly referred to as a ~Jurisdiction") own the
District Home located at 1400 District Home Drive, Walrnesboro, Virginia (the
~District Home"); and
WHEREAS, on or about February 15, 1996 the Board engaged the law firm of
Crews & Hancock, P.L.C. and its subcontractors, Goodman & Company, L.L.P.,
Mary Childs, RN, CRRN and Sybil Parker, RN, BSN (collectively, the ~Consulting
Team") to study the District Home's operations and make recommendations
regarding alternatives for nursing home and adult care residence organization
and operation, enhancing financial performance, and enhancing the overall
quality of resident care services; and
WHEREAS, in April of 1996 the Consulting Team submitted its operational
study of the Home for the Board's consideration which included, among other
things, an analysis of various options of privatization which identified the
advantages and risks of privatization and took into account the goals of the
District Home Board; and
WHEREAS, the District Home has analyzed and considered the operational
study prepared by the Consulting Team and has determined that it is in the
best interest of the District Home, the Jurisdictions and the residents of the
District Home to enter into one or a series of transactions (the
~Transactions") to accomplish the sale of certain assets under the supervision
of the District Home Board;
WHEREAS, the District Home Board has received a proposal from Smith/
Packett Med. Com. Inc. ("Smith/Packett"), a Virginia corporation and private
provider of adult care resident and nursing home services, to purchase certain
tangible and intangible assets of the District Home including, the goodwill of
the District Home, ninety-one (91) licensed nursing facility beds and forty
(40) adult care residence licensed beds (to the extent transferable), and
medical records and patient lists (subject to all necessary governmental and
patient approvals), to relocate such assets and the Home operations from its
current site to one or more facilities owned and operated by Smith/Packett;
and
WHEREAS, the District Home Board and the Jurisdictions believe it is in
the best interest of the District Home and this Jurisdiction to execute an
Asset Purchase Agreement in form and substance as those presented at this
meeting (the "Transaction Document") to consummate the sale of certain assets
to Smith/Packett; and
WHEREAS, the Jurisdiction further desires to empower the District Home
Board to further dispose of any remaining real or personal property under its
Approved by
Board
Initials B~
September 3, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
00034 .
supervision, in such manner as the District Home Board determines and to
authorize the County Executive to execute, on behalf of this Jurisdiction, any
such other document, resolution, certificate, consent or instrument of any
kind to permit the District Home Board to further transfer or dispose of any
personal property under its supervision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Albemarle:
1. The form, terms and conditions of the Transaction Document by and
among the District Home Board, the Jurisdictions and Smith-Packett are hereby
approved.
2. The Chairman of the District Home Board is hereby authorized and
directed to further negotiate, on behalf of the District Home Board and
Jurisdictions, the Transaction Document with such changes, additions or
deletions he deems necessary or desirable so long as any changes, additions or
deletions do not substantially alter the Transaction Document.
3. The County Executive is authorized and directed to execute on
behalf of the Jurisdiction, and the County Clerk is authorized to attest, the
Asset Purchase Agreement among Smith-Packett, the District Home Board and the
Jurisdictions with such changes, additions or deletions as may be recommended
or approved by the Chairman of the District Home Board.
4. The District Home Board is hereby authorized, without the
necessity of any further action by this body, to dispose of any and all
remaining assets under its supervision except for real property, which shall
require additional authorization by this body after a public hearing.
5. The County Executive is authorized and directed to execute a bill
of sale and to take all such further actions and to execute all such further
instruments, agreements, documents, and certificates as he shall deem
necessary or desirable to carry out the purposes of this Resolution.
6. Ail acts of the Chairman of the Board of the District Home, the
board of the District Home and its authorized agents, and the County Executive
which are in conformity with the purposes and intent of this Resolution are
hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. At 4:25 p.m., with no further business to
come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
~nairman C/