1987-12-09December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 1)
410
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on December 9, 1987, beginning at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting
Room #7, Second Floor, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr. and F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H.
Cooke, and Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:07
A.M.) and Peter T. Way.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney,
George R. St. John; and Director of Planning and Community Development,
John T. P. Horne.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Way.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve Items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.3a and to accept
the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as~information. Roll was called and
the motion carried by the following recorded~vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain and Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Item 4.1. Street Sign Request - Earlysville Forest Subdivision (Portions
of Sections One Through Seven). A request having been received October 17,
1986, from Craig Builders for certain street signs and the roads now being
part of the State Highway System, the following resolution was enacted by the vo
shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Earlysville Forest Drive (State RoUte 660) at its intersection
with Earlysville Road (State Route'743);
Earlysville Forest Drive (State RoUte 660) at its intersection
with Pine Grove (State Route 1580);
Earlysville Forest Drive (State Route 660) at its intersection
with Windy Cove (State Route 1581);
Earlysville Forest Drive (State Route 660) at its intersection
with Paddock Circle (State Route 1582);
Earlysville Forest Drive (State Route 660) at its intersection
with Fox Ridge Drive (State Route 1583);
Earlysville Forest Drive (State Route 660) at its intersection
with Rowan Court (State Route 1584);
Earlysville Forest Drive (State Route 660) at its intersection
with Trillium Road (State Route 1585);
Earlysville Forest Drive (State Route 660) at its intersection
with Hunt,rs Ridge Road (Stat~ Routa 1596);
Earlysville Forest Drive (State Route 660) at its intersectmon
with Saddle Court (State Route 1587);
411
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 2)
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.2. Street Sign Request - Riverbend Drive (Pantops), Tax Map 78,
Parcel 17 (part of). Request having been on file since December 9, 1982, from
Mr. James M. Hill of Virginia Land Company, and the road now being a part of
the State Secondary System of Highways, the following resolution was adopted
by the vote shown above:
WHERFAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Riverbend Drive (State Route 1116) at its intersection with U.S.
Highway 250, and
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLlrED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Depart~.ent of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and
maintain the above mentioned street signs.
Item 4.3. Street Sign Request - Raintree Subdivision (Phases I & II).
Request having been on file since August 30, 1983, from Mr. Albert M. Hauser
of Republic Homes and the roads now being in the State SeCondary System of
Highways, the following resolution was adopted by the vote shown above:
WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify
the following roads:
Old Brook Road (State Route 652) at its intersection with Shadow
Oaks Place (State Route 1035);
Shadow Oaks Place (State Route 1035) at its intersection with
Liberty Oaks Court (State Route 1036); ~
Old Brook Road (State Route 652) at its intersedtion with
Wildmere Place (State Route 1037). ~
WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these ~igns through the
Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; ~!
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation be and the same is hereby request6d to install and
maintain the above mentioned street signs. ~
Item 4.3a. Statements of Expenses (for the State ComPensation Board) for
Commonwealth s Attorney, Sheriff !and Regional Jail
the Director of Finance, '
for the Month of November, 1987, were approved as presenteid.
Item 4.4. Letter dated December 1, 1987, from Delegate George F. Allen
acknowledging receipt of resolution to the Virginia Department for the Aging
in support of appropriation request; received as information.
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 3)
412
Item 4.5. A copy of the Planning Commission Minutes for November 24,
1987, was received as information.
Item 4.6. Memorandum dated December 2, 1987, from Robert W. Tucker, Jr.,
Deputy County Executive to Karen L. Morris, Director of Social Services, in
response to her memorandum dated December 1, re: Regular Foster Care Program
- Additional Appropriation Request, which asked for an additional $16,500 to
cover the increasing number of foster care children in custody. In his
memorandum, Mr. Tucker reminded Ms. Morris that Board policy precludes appro-
priating additional funds this early in the fiscal year. If, by the end of
the fourth quarter of FY 87/88, the agency still needs the additional funding,
the Board of Supervisors will be requested to appropriate the necessary funds.
Mr. Way asked if there are enough funds available for the Foster Care
Program. Mr. Agnor replied yes.
Item 4.7. Notice dated December 3, 198~, from R. H. Connock, Jr., Acting
District Highway Engineer, re: Highway Department's willingness to hold a
public hearing concerning the proposed improvement of Route 631 from 0.096
mile east of the intersection of Route 650 to 0.313 mile east of the
intersection of Route 29 in Albemarle County;. received as information.
Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes:~ July 9, 1986; January 7,
January 14, February 11, March 18 (night), April 8, July 8 and August 12,
1987.
Mr. Henley read the minutes of February 11, pages 12 - 22; March 18
(Night), pages 8 - 26; April 8, pages 1 9; and July 8, 1987, pages 1 - 17
and found them all to be in order.
Mr. Bowie read the minutes of August 12, 1987, pages 1 - 13, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Lindstrom read the minutes of January 7, 1987, and found them to be
in order. He said the discussion at the end of the minutes that pertains to
the Committee that went to Richmond to meet with Commissioner Pethtel should
be noted as the City/County/UniverSity Transp6rtation Committee.
Mrs. Cooke read the minutes of August 12~ 1987, pages 14 - 25, and found
them to be in order.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve ihs minutes as read. Mrs. Cooke
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the'motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain.
Agenda Item N9. 6a. Highway Matters. Bentivar Road Abandonment Peti-
tion. The following letter dated November 19i 1987 from Mr. Lindsay R.
Barnes, Jr., brought this matter to the agenda: ~
realstatmAtters"ThiSefirmerepresents CharlesWilliamHurt, M.D., in certainofhis
One of Dr. Hurt's land trusts is in the process of conveying property
located in Bentivar, a subdivision on the north side of the south
fork of the Rivanna River. As part of the transaction, Dr. Hurt and
the purchaser desire to have abandoned that portion of the Iold
county road' running through the property. They would propose that
the road be.abandoned to the middle of the Rivanna River. You may
recall this roadway from the locally fam6us 'Bentivar Bridge' case of
the late 1970's.
413
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 4)
My review of the applicable sections of the Code of Virginia indi-
cates that the proper procedure is to (a) petition the County for
abandonment and (b) file plats with the County and the Circuit Court
Clerk's Office. If you would be so kind as to forward any preferred
petition form you may use for this purpose, I would be grateful. Or,
if this letter will suffice as a petition, please let me know so I
can proceed to file a plat with Mrs. Marshall's office."
Mr. Horne summarized the folloing memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.,
County Executive, dated January 20, 1988:
"Staff has reviewed a request of Dr. Charles W. Hurt to abandon an
'old County road' at the mouth of the Rivanna River in the Bentivar
subdivision. Staff aan identify no public purpose for this road
alignment to remain a public road and recommends its abandonment.
Should the Board choose to consider this abandonment, a public
hearing is required after proper notice is given, as provided in the
Code of Virginia. Staff would recommend that the hearing be set for
January 13, 1988."
Mr. Lindsay R. Barnes, said he is present to answer any questions Board
members may have. He commented that there is some doubt .after looking at the
old plats and descriptions about whether the new Bentivar~Road, which will be
in the State system, actually follows the course of the old County road.
Mr. St. John commented that Section 33.1.158 of the Code requires a 30
day advertisement notice for roads not in the State system.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to set this
request for public hearing on January 20, 1988. Roll was~called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6b. Highway Matters. Request to Abandon Portion of Old
Road Location Along State Route 600. The following letter from Mr. Norman H.
Lamson, Attorney, dated December 4, 1987, brought this matter to the Board:
"I am counsel for Barry Chlebnikow and Deborah Chlebnikow who own
property shown as Tax Map 48-56. They would like to purchase the
parcel outlined in green from Earl M. Martin's property, Tax Map
48-30, such parcel to be added to and become a part of their said
the Director of Finance, Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff and
Regional Jail for the Month of November, 1987, were approved as
presented.
;
We have done a title search of the Earl Martin tract.l No record
exists of when or how State Route 600 (formerly 'Pole Cat Road') was
relocated, as it obviously was from the plat. I hav~ contacted the
State Highway Department who claims title in the present location by
prescriptive easement and makes no claim to the 'old road location'
shown on the plat. I have contacted Tom Trevillian in your Engineer-
ing Department who advised me that Ms. Lettie Neher did a search of
her records and could find no record of where the old.'road location
was ever formally abandoned.
My clients advise me that there is merely the bare outline in the
field of the former road location. Apparently, treesiand underbrush
have long ago surfaced in the old road location. We purmise that the
relocation occurred before the Byrd Act of 1932 placed the secondary
road system in state hands.
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 5)
414
We know of no other party who would be affected by this proceeding.
The present exception to title of possible rights of the public in
the old road bed is holding up the closing with Earl Martin. My
clients would like to do a survey of the parcel, but don't want to
incur the expense if there are rights of the public in the old road
bed.
We respectfully request that the title in the old road location be
formally abandoned. I will be unable to be present in person at the
December 9, 1987 Board meeting. However, one or both of my clients
will be there who will be happy to answer any questions on their
request."
Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that a public hearing be set for
January 20, 1988, to consider the abandonment. Mr. Chlebnikow, who was
present, said there is nine-tenths of an acre in that parcel and the old road
requested for abandonment is approximately 50 years.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mr. Bain to set this
request for public hearing on January 20, 1988. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
?
Agenda Item No. 6c. Highway Matters. Discussion of Statement, re:
Route 29 Corridor Study. The Virginia Department of Transportation informed
the Board that two citizen information meetings would be held at the Uni-
versity Hilton/Charlottesville from 1:00 to 9:00 P.M. on December 14 and
December 15, 1987.
Mr. Lindstrom said he, Mr. Bowie and Mr~i Way attended a presentation by
Sverdrup Corporation, the consultants for th~ Route 29 North Corridor Study.
Board members have in their agenda packets aipamphlet and letter from the
consultants which relate to the study. As part of the data gathering process,
next week, meetings will be held and citizen~ can go and talk with officials
from the Highway Department and with the consultants "one-on-one". This is an
opportunity for everyone in the community to!pass on concerns, ideas and
suggestions. After this meeting, in late January or early February, the
consultants will begin to eliminate possible~alternatives, etc., and there
will not be another public information meeting or hearing until after that
time. He feels that the Board should take advantage of every opportunity to
address issues before the Department and to make a comprehensive presentation
to the consultants on the history of the watershed, the Board's concerns about
north-south and east-west transportation, to,some extent the expressway
concept and perhaps commenn on the Department's own analysis on the express-
way. The consultants are planning a formal briefing from 7:00 P.M. to 7:30
P.M. where they will explain how the study w~ll be conducted and then the
consultants will receive formal comments from the public. There was expressed
a willingness to have members of the consultant team meet at the County Office
Building to receive a presentation from the County staff. Mr. Agnor said a
meeting has been tentatively scheduled for 10:00 A.M., in the Fourth Floor
Conference Room, on Tuesday morning for the Consultant team to hear a presen-
tation on the County's concerns.
Mr. Way said he concurs with Mr. Lindstrom's suggestion that the Board
should take advantage of every opportunity to present its feelings. He asked
if it would be appropriate to coordinate this with the City and the Univer-
sity. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there has been any communication with the City
and University concerning this meeting. Mr. Agnor replied there there had not
been any concerning this specific presentation, but the consultants have met
with th~ City, University and County staff members on various aspects of the
study. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the consultantS have offered to make themselves
available in a similar fashion to the University and City. Mr. Tucker replied
not in the same format that the Board has been discussing. He has been
waiting to see how the Board would respond and then thought it appropriate to
make the City and University aware that the County would be doing this and
give them an opportunity to sit in on the presentation.
415
December 9, 1987~(Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 6)
Mr. Bowie said he is concerned that the Joint Transportation Committee
receive ongoing briefings before each public hearing and:.remain involved in
the process.
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that the County needs to know exactly what
the consultants are doing and get whatever information is available at all
times, because he does not feel that in the natural course of the project the
County will be actively involved. He would also like to ~emphasize which
committee is to be the local representative cox~ittee and not have another
committee formed.
Mr. Bain asked if there are one or more persons in Richmond to whom the
consultants will be submitting this data so the Transportation Committee can
have direct contact with that person. Mr. Horne said in terms of the origin
destination, the first task is to be undertaken by Comsis, who are the traffic
model subconsultants. The entire modeling procedure will be available within
the first year of the study and the staff is actively involved in training,
understanding and using the model. There is a contractual agreement that
obligates the consultants to train the staff on the model. The draft of the
contract which Sverdrup sent to the staff has specific reference to a local
advisory committee that would be set up. The committee was referenced in such
a way as to state that it was going to be involved in the routine things and
would have briefings right before the public hearing.
Mr. Agnor said in response to Mr. Bain, there is a contract manager whom
the County can go to and get available information.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks Mr. Tucker should have the chief responsi-
bility for the presentation because he is the omly staff member who has been
with the County throughout the whole history of the translportation and water-
shed issue. Mr. Lindstrom indicated that he would be at the presentation.
Mr. Bowie said that he also'would be present.
Mrs. Cooke commented that she would be present and a~ked what advertise-
ment the notice of the hearings has had so that citizens ~an attend the
meetings. She knows of several homeowner's associations Who are interested ir
attending the meetings. Mr. Agnor said the hearings wereiadvertised exten-
sively in the local newspapers. Mr. Way said he would al~o be present.
Mr. Lindstrom asked that Mr. Perkins, the newly elec{ed representative
from the White Hall District, be informed about the meeting at 10:00 A.M. on
Tuesday morning.
There was no further discussion on the matter.
Agenda Item No. 6d. Highway Matters. Report: Majo~ Road Construction
Projects. (Mr. St. John left at 9:41 A.M.)
Mr. Home summarized the following memorandum, datedi-December 3, 1987,
from Mr. Agnor, and a memorandum dated December 3, 1987, from Mr. Horne,
respectively:
"At an earlier meeting in November, you requested staff to prepare a
list of roadways which are being proposed as a part df our long-range
transportation planning effort. This request was precipitated by
ZMA-87-12 Bacon/Riley rezoning proposal as it affected a proposed
extension of Berkmar Drive to the Hilton Hotel.
The attached report from the Planning staff lists th~ various road
improvement proposals and provides a brief status su~ary for each
major roadway.
Since the ultimate implementation and financing of these roadways are
of prime importance in this issue, it is staff's intent to provide a
subsequent report, regarding, implementation and funding alternatives,
to you early next year. There are several critical issues being
discussed or under study currently that should be considered, how-
ever, before this subsequent report is finalized. They include:
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 7)
416
Comprehensive Plan (particularly the Transportation Element)
recommendations from the Planning Commission;
Commission on Transportation for the 21st Century (COT21)
recommendations to be submitted to the General Assembly; and
Alignment and cost analysis studies for certain of these major
roadways which should be available within the next two to three
months.
A map of these various roadways will bel available at the meeting, and
should you have any questions concerning this matter prior to Decem-
ber 9, please feel free to contact me."
"The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information to the
Board of Supervisors concerning various major road improvement
projects that are ~eing affected by land development in the County.
These roadways are identified in the Comprehensive Plan and fall into
a very particular category. That category is a group of new roads on
new alignments~ some of which have never been located, which would
help build a more efficient transportation network in the urbanized
areas of the County. Under current VDOT policy, these roadways are
not eligible for funding by the state ~hrough the Six Year Secondary
or Primary Road Improvement Plans. Some of the roadways are identi-
fied in the CATS Plan even though they are not eligible for funding
by Virginia Department of Transportation. There are four roads in
particular that will be affected in the~near future by land develop-
ment activities and where the Board will be called upon to make some
decisions as to the County's role in the construction of these
roadways. A common factor on the four !roadways below is that there
appears to be little hope that the entire roadway could be funded by
private developers and, therefore, the ~emaining source of funds
usually considered would be County fund~. Those roadways are as
follows:
1. BERKMAR DRIVE EXTENSION - RIO ROAD~ TO HILTON
December 9, 1987 ZMA-87-12 Bacon~Riley will come before the
Board of Supervisors and will require some decision by the Board
concerning acquisition of property, in the alignment of this
roadway.
Jefferson Square Site Plans are now being developed which will
include a portion of this roadway, built by the developer.
Staff is proceeding on the assumption that the road will be
built.
VDOT is reviewing the road design category, which may affect the
overall feasibility of this road.
2. FOREST LAKES - PORTION OF MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY NORTH OF RI0 ROAD
A preliminary plat has been approved by the Planning Commission;
final plats to be approved January through March.
The developer is voluntarily dedicating 120 feet of right-of-way
for Meadow Creek Parkway, along the approximate alignment shown
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Parkway design is an issue. The design in Forest Lakes calls
for controlled but not limited access with a design speed of 40
miles per hour.
DUNLORA - PORTION OF MEADOW CREEK PARKWAY NORTH OF RIO ROAD
A preliminary plat is scheduled fo~ review by the Planning
Commission on December 15th.
417
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 8)
Construction of this subdivision as proposed will effectively
preclude the construction of the adopted CATS alignment.
A consultant report is underway and will be available in Janu-
ary. The report will evaluate alternative alignments between
Rio Road and the river with relative cost comparisons.
MILL CREEK CONNECTOR - AVON STREET TO STAGECOACH ROAD
(Route 631)
Road plans are now under design for a portion of this roadway
within Mill Creek.
The County/Developer agreement requires extra ~ight-of-way and
complicates the current design if the road is to be continued to
Route 631.
The roadway requires a substantial bridge over Biscuit Run which
has been estimated by VDOT at $2.7 to $3.4 ~illion for the
bridge only. A consultant report is underway on an alignment
and budgetary cost estimates for the roadway and will be avail-
able in February.
5. PEYTON DRIVE
This existing roadway, which serves as a major connector roadway
in Neighborhood One, has never been accepted in the state
system. It is rapidly deteriorating and must be repaired
constantly. City bus and school bus routes use this roadway
along with over 3,000 vehicles per day. Peyton~:Drive requires
major reconstruction to be placed into the stat~ system.
6. CATS PLAN
The Board of Supervisors must readopt the CATS Plan in its final
form in the near future. Along with other roadway improvements,
the Meadow Creek Parkway is listed in the CATS Plan in the
alignment through Dunlora.
There are other roadways of a similar nature identified in the
current Comprehensive Plan. They are:
Avon Street to Route 20 connector;
Extreme southern urban area connector from Route 20 to Old
Lynchburg Road;
Greenbrier Drive Extended;
Route 240 to Route 250 connector in Crozet;
Miscellaneous Crozet improvements;
Route 643/Hollymead connector.
The Planning Commission has been reviewing, at the s~bcommittee
level, the need for transportation improvements in the urbanized
areas. It is clear from that review, that some of these roadways
will not be viable if the sole reliance is to be on p~ivate or state
funding. The issue of County funding of roadway improvements should
be a major consideration for the Board of Supervisors~ in reviewing
the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission will be ready to
meet with the Board of Supervisors on the Comprehensiye Plan in
December or January. ~
In summary, these roads have been caught in the dile~a of not being
eligible for state funding under current state law and policy, while
there are not sufficient private funds to build these!roadways to
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 9)
418
their ultimate design. Eligible projects for the Six Year Secondary
Road Improvement Plan can include only improvements to existing state
highways or construction of new roads which will offset the need to
improve existing state highways."
Mr. Lindstrom asked why the alignment shown in the CATS Study is there.
Mr. Home said the staff has reviewed all of the County's records and is not
sure why that took place. The original idea from the owner of some surround-
ing property and from the owner of the Hollymead property was that a connector
between the areas would be a good idea and thus this alignment. He thinks
that when the Comprehensive Plan was done and the CATS Plan was not yet
available someone used that idea for the alignment. Mr. Lindstrom asked if
the alignment shown in the Comprehensive Plan avoids a conflict with the
potential Dunlora Subdivision. Mr. Home replied almost, but not totally. If
there is to be an interchange at the intersection of Rio Road, it would take a
large amount of frontage of the proposed development and probably impact the
recreation facility planned for Dunlora. Mr~ Lindstrom asked if there is a
topographic problem with either alignment. Mr. Home replied yes. A consul-
tant has been hired to look at the alignment in the CATS Plan and the align-
ment as shown in the Comprehensive Plan. BaSed on preliminary information,
the cut and fill necessary is less severe if ~the Comprehensive Plan alignment
is used as opposed to the CATS alignment. Hopefully a final report from the
consultant will be available to the Board within the next 30 to 45 days. It
will contain relative cost estimates for the~'two alignments. (Mr. St. John
returned to the meeting at 9:56 A.M.)
Mr. Home said the other roads listed in this report are in the Plan for
a good reason. They would be good roadways to have and in the staff's opinion
would be of material benefit to the transportation system in the County.
Mr. Bain asked if the Planning Commissidn can meet with the Board this
month to discuss the revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Home replied
the Commission will finish its work sessions Next week and will soon have a
unified document of decisions for the Board. ~ Mr. Bain asked if that informa-
tion can be available to the Board to review 7during the holidays. Mr. Home
responded yes.
Mr. Way asked what other localities are Idoing about road problems and if
they are putting County funds into their projects. Mr. Home said the general
problem is state-wide. There is a limitation on the use~of secondary funds.
Some larger jurisdictions have gone to road bonds and to building portions of
the roadways. Other jurisdictions have attempted special legislation.
Loudoun County is an example where there is developer participation in the
building of state roadways. It is an unsolved problem state-wide. He thinks
Albemarle has the most problems. Most counti~es have not started to use large
amounts of County taxpayer money. Mr. Lindst~om said he feels that the County
should be lobbying with its state legislatorsi to allow local governments the
use of allocated secondary road funds to built roads shown in that localities'
Comprehensive Plan; and secondly to allow developers to be assessed a portion
of the costs for building the roads shown in the adopted Comprehensive Plan as
the development proceeds. ~
Mr. Bain asked if the County has the legal authority now to build roads
with its own funds. Mr. St. John replied yes~ but the issue is whether the
Board has the legal power to preserve the corridor from development for these
roads in order to minimize the cost of obtain%ng right-of-way. He does not
think enabling legislation can solve that problem because it is a consti-
tutional problem. The Supreme Court has stated that the need for these roads
must be a public need and not be generated byithe development in question.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board s~ould meet with its state legis-
lators to develop some language for consideration. He also suggested seeing
if there are similar requests from other loca%ities and to work with VACo to
gain support. Mr. Bowie said he is in agreement and thinks there would be
tremendous support from other localities.
Mr. Agnor said he would encourage workin~ through VACo and the individual
legislators on the results of the report prepared by the Commission on Trans-
portation in the Twenty-First Century. The r~port can be modified at the
419
December 9, 1987,(Regular Day Meeting
(Page 10)
General Assembly level. Mr. Lindstrom suggested staff draft language on the
two items for presentation to the General Assembly and set up a meeting with
the area legislators. Mr. Bain said he thinks it would be beneficial for the
Board to meet with the legislators regarding the whole transportation issue.
Mr. Way suggested meeting on the afternoon of January 6, 1988.
Mr. Horne said the next most critical roadway will be Meadow Creek
Parkway north of Rio Road. Based on preliminary submissions, he believes
there is a better place to locate it other than what is shown in the CATS
Plan. If another corridor is found, then the County will be involved in the
acquisition of land and the construction and would need, shortly thereafter,
to start taking steps to design the roadway for its location and acquiring the
property.
Mr. Lindstrom asked how definite and precise plans must be to qualify for
condemnation proceedings to acquire the right-of-way for ~one or more of the
projects. Mr. St. John said the centerline must be surveyed not just shown on
a Comprehensive Plan map. It has to be located to the inch and the width of
the right-of-way, and then must be adopted by the Board through the Planning
Commission and approved by the State Highway Department. Mr. Horne said he
believes that is not necessary if the County does not want to prepare an
official map. The only thing necessary is to develop the' road plans and get
them approved by the Highway Department. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that on
these roads where development is imminent the Board needs to proceed to
drafting the precise alignment and getting State approval:~
Mr. St. John questioned Mr. Horne's comment about an~official map not
being necessary in order to condemn. He also questions whether a court will
allow condemnation of land for the purposes of a state highway until the
Department has approved the precise location. He does not think a county has
the power to condemn land for that particular purpose. MC. Lindstrom said he
thinks it is a policy matter that the Board needs to makei~a decision on. He
thinks every effort must be made to cooperate and coordinate with developers.
Mr. Way said he agrees with Mr. Lindstrom. ~
Mrs. Cooke said the magnitude and scope of this doesinot allow a decision
to be made this morning. She feels there is a need for additional input from
the staff and County Attorney. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the Board needs
to decide within the near future whether it wants to get into the road con-
struction business. He does not think the decision the B~ard will make on the
Bacon/Riley issue later this morning will prejudice whatever comes after. Mr.
Horne agreed with Mr. Lindstrom, and thinks the Board can!look at each indi-
vidual roadway on its own merits. ~
Agenda Item No. 6e. Highway Matters. Presentation: Meadow Creek
Parkway Plan.
Mr. Home said there has been discussion as to whether the roadway should
be designed as.a limited access facility or a controlled access facility. A
limited access facility is comparable to the access on interstates. There
would be no local street intersections; only a series of ~idely~spaced,
grade-separated intersections. A controlled access is a d!esign that severely
limits the kinds of access onto the roadway and limits th~ number of street
intersections on the roadway. The CATS Plan, as adopted, .discusses the
portion of McIntire Road Extended from the Route 250 Bypass to south of Rio
Road as being a four-lane divided, limited-access facility. The design speed
referenced in the EIS is 50 mph. It is designed as heavily landscaped, with
wide separations at certain points between vertical and horizontal lanes to
minimize the visual impact of the roadway. The CATS Plan, las adopted, for the
portion of that roadway north of Rio Road through Hollymead shows a four-lane
divided, partially-controlled access facility. A partially-controlled access
facility is a facility that has no direct access by individual homes and
minimizes and controls the street intersection access. The staff has instruc-
ted the consultants to use the same general concept as thak used in Forest
Lakes Subdivision. Mr. Bain asked if the Highway Department is amendable to
that. Mr. Home said the Highway Department has approved ~hat as the ultimate
design in Forest Lakes. Mr. Lindstrom said if that would ~e significantly
different kind of road than the partially-controlled access road, his general
sentiment would be to work with developers and get their assistance to limit
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 11)
420
the number of entrances onto the road. He wOuld prefer one entrance for each
major subdivision, as three or more would lessen the efficiency of the road-
way. As long as there is that one access it is accessible to and serviceable
for the developments in an effective way and~lessens the possibility of
becoming a residential street. Mr. Bowie said he also would like to see one
connector per subdivision.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the County acquires right-of-way through that
area, particularly in Dunlora, if that enhances the County's ability to
require that major developments have only onA access. Mr. Home said
considering it would be built at the County's expense, it could be built
almost anyway as long as it met State Highway Department standards. If the
County wants any si§nificant developer participation, the developers are going
to look to maximize their access and this would require negotiation. Mr.
Lindstrom said if the County acquires the right-of-way then it has bought some
time and can attempt to negotiate with the State to get some policies changed.
Mr. Home said while developers may wish to maximize their access to a con-
trolled access facility, many of them, particularly for residential develop-
ment, want to completely divorce themselves from a limited access roadway.
There was no further discussion on the matter.
Agenda Item No. 6f. Other Highway Matters.
Mr. Bowie said he received a request from a constituent who asked for
information on the traffic count on Route 610 and when the next count would be
held. He has spoken to Mr. Roosevelt about ~he request.
Mr. Bowie said the residents on Route 785, who got all of the necessary
right-of-way dedications, asked that Mr. Jef~ Echols, of the Highway Depart-
ment, be commended for his competence and courtesy in working with them for
more than a year and a half.
Mr. Way handed a letter to Mr. Roosevelt concerning a request for a
guardrail on Route 627. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 10:50 A.M.)
Mr. Dan Roosevelt said the Department h~s~ posted a willingness to hold a
public hearing for the improvement of Rio Ro~d for the four-laning from Route
29 North to Route 650 near the Southern railroad tracks. A set of plans will
be given to Mr. Home. He would be glad to r~view the plans with anyone. The
Department does not intend to hold a public hearing unless there is a request
for one. The request for the public hearing must be received by the Depart-
ment by December 31, 1987. If no response i~ received, the plans will be
forwarded as they now exist with a recommendation that the location and design
be approved. For the Board's information, the plans do not require any
additional right-of-way. Mrs. Cooke said she!would like to request a public
hearing and asked if it needs to be in a written form. Mr. Roosevelt replied
the request needs to be written. He commented that holding a public hearing
will delay the project a minimum of six months. (Mr. Henley returned to the
meeting at 10:53 A.M.). Mrs. Cooke said she will talk with Mr. Roosevelt and
determine whether it is necessary to hold a p~blic hearing. Mr. Bain asked
the tentative schedule for bids and construction, assuming there is no public
hearing. Mr. RoosevElt said the project could be advertised for April with
construction in the next construction season.
Mr. Roosevelt said Mrs. Cooke previouslylrequested a traffic signal study
at the intersection of the Squire Hills road with Rio Road. He has received
the Traffic Engineer's report and the report indicated that the location still
does not meet the warrants. There are only two hours on one of the warrants
where traffic warrants the signal. The warrants require that traffic meet it
for eight hours. He handed Mrs. Cooke a copy~of the Traffic Engineer's
letter.
421
December 9, 1987 .(Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 12)
Mr. Roosevelt said he met with the District Traffic Engineer and looked
at the traffic controls at the Airport. The pavement was remarked in Novembe~
and the major change that has occurred is that one can no longer drive down
Route 649 directly into the old Airport entrance. That location has been
marked "Do Not Enter". A sign has been upgraded and is very noticeable at
Route 606 northbound toward the Airport. The pavement markings go around the
curve before the opening to go straight ahead on Route 606. Both he and the
Traffic Engineer agree that there is nothing more that can be done from a
signing standpoint based on the configuration of that intersection. Any
construction to the intersection would mean allocating Secondary Road Funds.
The Traffic Engineer indicated that he was unaware of any accidents at that
specific location, but he can request accident data from Richmond. He handed
to Board members a copy of a sketch of the intersection. Mr. Bowie said he
drives the road quite often and has no problem with it.
Mr. Roosevelt said Mr. Lindstrom had recently asked him if the Depart-
ment's Gravel Road Paving Policy is in fact a policy or just something that
has occurred over the years. It does appear that the policy is something that
has built up over the years and is not a written policy. During recent
discussions, he has been told that the Department no longer requires that road
paving projects tie into an existing paved road.
(Not Docketed: The Chairman called a recess at 11:08 A.M. The Board
reconvened at 11:08.)
Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-87-12. Martha and Albert Bacon/Althea Riley
(deferred from November 4, 1987). Immediately after calling this item, motion
was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into execu-
tive session to allow the County Attorney to give the Board legal advice.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 11:50 A.M.
Mr. Home said on November 4 the Board deferred action on ZMA-87-12
because of concerns about a road design in the Comprehensive Plan. The road
is designed to go through portions of the property subject to this rezoning
request. The petition was deferred so as to receive finat comments from the
Highway Department on the overall design of the roadway. He has received a
letter from Mr. Roosevelt and the roadway design is buildable and feasible to
construct. To reiterate, the proposal is to rezone eight!!lots from R-6 to CO.
The staff's recommendation was to rezone two of the lots ~ubject to the
petition and the County take action to acquire the three ~ots involved with
the extension of Berkmar Drive. The Planning Commission heard the request on
October 20 and unanimously recommended that the Board approve the rezoning of
parcels 153 through 157 to CO and recommended that the Board acquire parcels
150, 151 and 152. If the Board chooses not to acquire th~ three parcels then
those parcels also should be rezoned to CO. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the implications are for th~ mobile home park
behind the subject property if this rezoning is approved. ~Mr. Horne said
based on curvature requirements and design requirements a ~substantial portion
of the mobile home park will be impacted if Berkmar extension occurs, and will
no longer be useful as a mobile home park. ~
Mr. Bowie referenced a December 2 letter and a December 13 letter whereby
reference is made to an offer by Mr. Charles Lebo to sell the lots to the
County. He would like to know why that offer was not mentioned to the Board
at the time of deferral. Mr. Horne said during initial discussions of rezon-
lng of these properties, he indicated to the applicant thei plans shown in the
Comprehensive Plan. During the course of a 30 minute discussion, two to three
seconds were devoted to a brief comment that "if the Count~ wants the property
certainly they can buy it". Mr. Bowie asked if that was the only offer. Mr.
Horne replied yes.
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 13)
422
The public hearing was reopened.
Mr. Roger Wiley, representing the applicant, asked that the following
letter, dated December 2, be made a part of the record:
December 2, 1987
Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Re: ZMA-87-12
Gentlemen and Mrs. Cooke:
We represent Martha and Albert Bacon, the owners of Lots 3 and 4 of
Greenfield Court Subdivision. These are two of the lots that are the
subject of the above referenced rezoning application and that lie
within the probable alignment of the proposed extension of Berkmar
Drive north of Rio Road.
As you were made aware at the November 4 public hearing on this
rezoning application, our clients have signed a contract to sell
these lots to Dr. Charles Hurt, contingent upon their being rezoned
from their present R-6 classification to CO. You may not be aware,
however, that in May of this year our c~ients listing agent, Charles
Lebo, who had become aware of the propoMal to extend Berkmar Drive,
approached John Home and offered the l~ts for sale to the county.
Only after several weeks had passed wit~ no further expression of
interest on the county's part did our c~ients proceed to enter into
the contract with Dr. Hurt.
As both your own staff reports and the record before the planning
commission clearly indicate, R-6 is no ~onger a reasonable zoning
classification for these lots. Over half the lots in this small
subdivision have already been rezoned for and developed as commercial
or light industrial uses. These changes in the surrounding area, as
well the prospect of increased traffic and commercial activity in the
area if the Berkmar Drive extension is built have rendered the lots
unattractive to prospective residential buyers.
The zoning history of Mr. and Mrs. Bacon'~s lots provides further
strong support for the reasonableness, of the pending request. As
the enclosed excerpt from the Board's minutes indicates, these two
lots actually were rezoned to CO classification on January 2, 1980.
A site plan for construction of a model tog home sales office was
approved in March 1980.
The subsequent history is not entirely clear from the public record,
but it appears that the lots were then d~wn zoned when the new zoning
ordinance and map were adopted in December 1980. We haven't found
anything in the record to indicate that khis was intentional; we
believe it may have been a clerical error. Common sense indicates
that the Board would not have intended tl reverse its January deci-
sion to rezone less than twelve months l~ter, while an approved site
plan for commercial development of the lots was still in force.
Ron Keeler has told us that it is his recollection there was not any
discussion of individual lots at the time the new map was adopted. He
is doing some further checking and may b~ better able to verify this
by the December 9 meeting. ~
In the light of all this, we have advised our clients that, as the
County Attorney suggested at your November 4 meeting, any delay in
rezoning of their lots for the purpose of allowing the county to
acquire them at a more favorable price w~uld be an unconstitutional
infringement of their property rights, ~ '
p~rtlcularly in view of the
fact that they had previously offered th~ county the opportunity to
buy the lots.
423
December 9, 1987 .(Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 14)
Accordingly Mr. and Mrs. Bacon respectfully request that the pending
rezoning petition be approved when this matter reappears on your
agenda on December 9, and that the county proceed to acquire the
necessary right of way for the extension of Berkmar Drive in the
ordinary course of events, when the route and right of way require-
ments have finally been determined.
Sincerely yours,
PAXSON, SMITH, GILLIAM AND SCOTT, P.C.
(Signed) Larry J. McElwain
Roger ~C. Wiley"
Mr. Wiley called the Board's attention to the minutes attached to the
December 2 letter for a meeting when the Bacon's two lotswere rezoned in
1980. The reasons for rezoning the lots in 1980 are still valid reasons today
and he asks that those reasons be taken into consideration. Also present are
Mrs. Virginia Gardner, who represents the contract purchaser of all of the
lots subject to the rezoning, and Mr. Charles Lebo, the listing agent for the
Bacon lots, to answer any questions Board members may have.
There being no one else present to speak, the public,hearing was closed.
Mr. Way asked Mr. Horne to summarize the request agaSn. Mr. Horne
summarized the request as set out in the: minutes of November 4. Mr. Lindstrom
asked for a description of the land use surrounding the r~quest. Mr. Horne
said-the surrounding properties are zoned LI, C-l, CO andiito the rear is R-6.
For information, the balance of the property at this location is shown on the
Comprehensive Plan map as medium density residential. Mr~ Bain asked the
zoning of the property to the south of Greenfield Court. ~Mr. Home said that
is zoned Highway Commercial. ~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any logical break point either on the
ground, topographically or street wise between the land f6r which this rezon-
lng is requested and the other residential lands. Mr. Home said yes, there
are the access points and topographically to the rear of ~he property there is
a steep swale that goes through the middle of the propert~ and rises. Mr.
Lindstrom asked if the rezoning would lessen the chances Of the mobile home
park remaining a residential area. Mr. Horne replied yes~
Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is any reason the property subject to the
rezoning is not usable for residential. Mr. Horne said hs does not believe
so. The land is difficult topographically to do anything ion, but he does not
believe it is any less difficult to develop multi-family than it is to regrade
and build offices. It is reasonable to assume that the land would be more
usable as some type of commercial designation. In terms Of the impact on the
adjoining properties, the properties are impacted more heavily by the commer-
cial areas than by the residential areas due to the topographical separations.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if an expansion of the mobile home pa~k goes in on the
subject property. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Lindstrom ~sked if there are
other areas in the County where residential uses such as ~his are in proximity
to commercial. Mr. Horne replied yes. Commercial office .is generally noted
in the Plan as a valid transitional use between other commercial designations
or industrial designations and residential designations.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would feel more comfortable abo~t this rezoning if
the Planning Commission had recommended a redefinition of khe line of where
commercial ends and begins and the Board accepted that action. He does not
want to see the commercial encroachment continue on northward, but is not sure
how the Board would make that distinction with regard to f~ture applications.
Mr. Bain commented that one distinction which can be defended with regard to
future rezoning is Greenfield Court. ~
Mr. Bain said he believes this is a close issue, but it is not something
he is concerned will set a precedent. Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded
by Mr. Henley, to approve ZMA-87-12 for rezoning as presented to the staff and
Planning Commission subject to the following proffer dated!November 13, 1987:
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 15)
424
"Shall the parcels known as Tax Map #45i parcels 150, 151, 153, 154,
155, 156 and 157 be rezoned to Commercial Office designation, the
following proffers will run with the land:
When the property is developed, (1) use of the properties will
include utilization of public water and sewer, and (2) Greenfield
Court will be upgraded to County private road standards or state
standards."
There being no further discussion, roll was called and themotion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Way.
NAYS: Mr. Lindstrom.
Mr. Lindstrom said there is an interest on the part of some Board members
to bring to fruition the County's road plans in that area. The Board was
advised that this petition was a land use issue and not should be looked at it
as a potential road site.
Agenda Item No. 8. Senior Center, Inc.: Resolution requested for
property tax exemption status in the County.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated December 2, 1987,
from himself and letter dated December 2, 1987, from The Senior Center, Inc.,
respectively:
"The attached correspondence and draft resolution, I believe, are
self-explanatory. Upon reading it, you will see that the Senior
Center is seeking County support for property tax exemption in the
County.
Exemption from property taxes is a General Assembly legislative
process, which requires a resolution by the governing body of the
locality where the property is located, that supports or refuses to
support the exemption. Consideration of~the resolution requires a
public hearing at which a number of questions are considered. Those
questions are listed and numbered 1 to 7~in the attached draft
resolution.
In 1987 the Senior Center was considering a piece of property in the
City, and received City support of the r~quested exemption, and
General Assembly approval. The property~acquisition was not consum-
mated. Currently the Senior Center is considering the purchase of
some property in the County, and will therefore be seeking property
tax exemption from the 1988 General Assembly.
Staff recommends that a public hearing on this matter be set for
January 6, 1988."
"The Senior Center, Inc. requests a resolution supporting tax exempt
status, under Article X, Section 6 of th~ Virginia Constitution and
Section 58-12 of the Virginia Code.
The Senior Center is a non-profit, charibable organization and is a
community focal point on aging. It is a ~lace where older persons
meet together, receive services and participate in activities which
enhance their dignity, support their independence and encourage
involvement in and with the community.
The Center is governed by a Board of DireCtors who receive no com-
pensation for their services. The salaries of the paid staff are set
by the Board on an annual basis. ~
The United Way provides about 50 percent of our operating budget
which for 1987 is about $122,000. The other 50 percent is self
425
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 16)
generated from bazaars, yard sales, travel, plays, dues and modest
contributions. Membership dues are $15.00 per year ~but no one is
turned away for lack of funds. About 200 volunteers donate their
'services to the Center and community programs. We serve members from
District 10, 55 years and older. We are an equal opportunity employ-
er and have adopted the Affirmative Action Plan. Our current member-
ship is approximately 1700 and we do not discriminate on the basis of
religion, race, creed, color, sex or natural origin.
We are exempt from Federal taxation pursuant to Section 501(C)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code. We do not have a license from the Alcohol
Control Board. We do not conduct or carry on any pOlitical activity
and we do not endorse any candidate for public office.
We will appreciate your favorable action on this request."
Mr. Alva Johnson, President, Board of Directors of The Senior Center,
Inc., said the Center desires tax exempt status in the County in the event it
is successful in obtaining property with the intent to building a new senior
center building. The Center is in need of larger facilities with parking.
The Center would appreciate the Board's support by passing this resolution on
to the General Assembly.
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. BOWie, to set a public
hearing for January 6, 1988, for consideration of the required resolution.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board has done this for Other organizations in
the past. Mr. Agnor said this has not been done in the ll years he has been
with the County. Mr. Bowie said he intends to vote in support of the motion,
but would like to know the effect supporting the resolution would have. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 9. Jail Expansion: Resolution Requested for State
Funding of.
Mr. Agnor said the County and City Capital Budgets include a $1.2 million
expansion project of the Joint Security Complex. The State requires a resolu-
tion from the localities requesting State funding participation for the
project. City Council has adopted a similar resolution. .~The resolution
requests the maximum amount allowable under State law. M~. Bowie asked if the
State still has a fixed dollar limit of $600,000 on the amount it will con-
tribute. Mr. Agnor replied yes. Mr. Bowie said last year the Planning
District Commission was successful in changing the law that would allow the
County to bring in a third jurisdiction which would increase the State's
share, namely Scottsville, even if the jurisdiction could.~not put up its'
share, and the County would fund the share. If the price ~of the expansion
goes over $1.2 million it would be to the County's advantage to do that.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bai~, to adopt the
following resolution: ~
WHEREAS, a resolution is needed from both the City of Charlottes-
ville and the County of Albemarle to request the Virginia Department
of Corrections to pay its share of costs of the previbusly approved
Expansion Project for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Jbint Security
Complex; and ~i
WHEREAS, the localities desire that the Department of Correc-
tions pay the maximum share allowable under state law for this
project, the total cost for which is estimated to be ~1,200,000;
NOW THIIREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County that the Department of Corrections i~s hereby re-
quested to pay the maximum share allowable under stat~ law and in
particular Section 53.1-81 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, with
respect to the previously approved Expansion Project.~
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 426
(Page 17)
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Regional Comprehensive Transit Service Study,
Approval of.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated November 24, 1987,
from his staff:
"At their meeting on November 18, 1987, the City, County, University
Planning and Coordination Council (PACC) requested the County's
participation in the funding of a regional comprehensive transit
study for this area. This study will look at current duplication of
services and ways of providing better coordination of services among
all transportation providers. More impprtantly, the study will
identify and evaluate the future transit needs of the community and
recommend alternatives for meeting those needs, focusing on the
organizational and financial implications of those alternatives.
Staff envisions that each entity will need to appropriate approxi-
mately $10,000 to $15,000 in order to fund the study. Staff recom-
mends that the Board agree to participate in this study and once bids
have been received we will be better informed on the actual costs of
the study and the amount needed for appropriation. Should you have
any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact Mr.
Tucker or me." ~
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bain, to endorse the
concept to participate in the planning procesls. Roll was called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. lla. Appropriations. Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO).
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated November 30, 1987,
from his staff:
"Since the creation of the MPO, the County Planning Department has
provided staff for the transportation planning activities of that
group. Each year a grant is authorized by the Federal Highway
Administration and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for
their planning activities. For the Federal FY 87/88, we have been
advised a grant of $44,314 has been authorized, funded 85 percent
Federal, 7.5 percent State, and 7.5 percent local.
The activities include maintenance of a regional statistical data-
base, development of a transportation computer model in conjunction
with the Route 29 corridor study, classification of highways/streets
by function, safety studies at intersections, and administration/
mapping. ~
To use these grant funds for the County Staff work, it is necessary
they be incorporated in the grants portion of the current budget.
Your approval of the appropriation of $44,314 as coded on the
attached appropriation form is requested.?
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the
following resolution: ~
427
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 18)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $44,314.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated
from the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Fund for the
funding of FY 87/88 MPO.
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Itam No. llb. Appropriations: Soil Conservation Grant.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated November 30, 1987,
from his staff:
"For the past several years our Department of Engineering has shared
the services of a Conservation Engineer with the Soil Conservation
Service (SCS). This position is funded through a state Soil Conser-
vation Grant on a 75 percent State and 25 percent Local funding
basis.
Staff recommends your approval of the attached appropriation request
for the 1987/88 Soil Conservation Grant."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the
following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that $25,182.30 be, and the same hereby is~ appropriated
from the Soil and Water Conservation Fund for its 1987/88 Grant.
AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date.
Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. llc. Appropriations:
that this item be removed from the agenda.
with in the final part of the fiscal year.
Social Services. Mr. Agnor asked
He said this request will be dealt
Agenda Item No. lld. Appropriations: Education.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated November 11, 1987,
from N. Andrew Overstreet, Division Superintendent:
"At its meeting on November 9, 1987 the School Board requested that
the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriations fo= Education to
reflect changes in categories listed below and to add $192,883 in
additional revenue from the State of Virginia.
ChanKes in CateKory
Administration
Instruction
Transportation
Operations
Fixed Charges
$ 61,438.00
200,875.00
-96,401.00
98,084.00
-71,113.00
Additional State Revenue
$192,883.00
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 19)
428
These changes are the result of several factors. The increase in the
administrative category is largely caused by the addition of the
DirectOr of Facilities Planning to manage the accelerated Capital
Improvements Program.
Instructional costs are influenced by the significant increase in
enrollment. The budget for the current year did not include funding
for the anticipated 10 additional teaching positions. It was sug-
gested the turnover rate would result in significant recoveries to
offset these 10 positions. The attrition did not occur at the usual
rate. Further, 21 new teaching positions were required. The pilot
program for the Teacher Career Incentive Plan has resulted in unex-
pected demands in this category.
Lower insurance rates have allowed a reduction in the Transportation
category. Increases in the Plant Operations category result from
leasing and furnishing six mobile classrooms and purchase of library
equipment for Burley. The Fixed Charges category can be reduced by
$71,113.00.
In addition to these adjustments and the addition of $192,883 in
state aid, expenditures must be reducedlby $211,347.00 to achieve a
balanced budget. A five percent holdback of all discretionary funds
is in effect to attempt to make up this ~amount."
Mr. Lindstrom asked if the statement "In addition to these adjustments
and the addition of $192,883 .... "means that the total of those two figures
provides an idea of how much over budget the School Division already is. Mr.
Agnor said yes, depending on revenues which the School Board is uncertain of
at this time. The five percent holdback is for unanticipated expenses and a
shortfall in projected revenues.
Mr. Lindstrom asked what the $61,438 under Administration is for. Mr.
Bain said he thinks most of the $61,438 is for salary and expenses of the
person in charge of construction projects. Mr. Bowie commented the Board has
no way of knowing if these figures are correct. Also, this is a projection of
costs for the remainder of the year. He has~a problem with the release of the
offsetting $192,883 with no indication of where it is going.
Mr. Agnor said since Mr. Overstreet cannot be available this afternoon,
the item can be deferred until next Wednesday for further discussion. Mr. Way
said if someone from the School Division cannot be available this afternoon,
then this matter will be deferred. That being the consensus of the Board,
there was no further discussion. ~
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: !~Sale of Property.
Mr. Bowie requested that personnel matters be added as a subject for the
executive session. At 12:39 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn into
executive session for the stated purposes. Mt. Lindstrom seconded the motion.
Roll was called and the motion carried by thelfollowing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, MessrA. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
The Board reconvened into open session at 1:47 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 17. 1:30 P.M. Certificate of Appreciation.
Mr. Way said George Bailey served Albemarle County for more than 32
years. Sheriff Bailey has served in his present capacity since 1970. Mr. Way
said it gives him a great deal of pleasure topresent Sheriff Bailey with this
Certificate of Appreciation from the Board upon his retirement. He then
thanked Sheriff Bailey for all the work he has done for the County.
429
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 20)
Sheriff Bailey said Albemarle County has been a good employer for his
more than 32 years of employment. He has had the pleasure of working with
five County Executives and feels that they deserve a lot of credit for their
support in him. He also has had the pleasure of working with five chairmen of
the Board of Supervisors. He also feels that the County is indeed fortunate
to have Mr. St. John representing it as County Attorney. Finally, he would
like to thank everyone in Albemarle County for allowing him to work for them
for all of these years.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks that Sheriff Bailey's personality trait of
just liking people has earned him the confidence and respect of all the
citizens. He would like to express his appreciation to the Sheriff for his
dedication to the County and its' people.
Agenda Item No. 12. Set Public Hearing to Appropriate Federal Revenue
Sharing Fund Balance.
Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated December 2, 1987:
"The FY 86/87 audit shows a balance of $89,063.30 in'the Federal
Revenue Sharing Fund. As you know, Federal Revenue funds for several
years have been allocated for fuel expenditures in the school system,
replacing the use of local funds for other needs.
The appropriation of Federal Revenue Sharing funds require a public
hearing for citizen comment. Staff recommends that you set a public
hearing on January 13 to appropriate the Revenue Sharing fund balance
to the School Fund, replacing a like amount in the local funds
already appropriated from the General Fund to the school budget."
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to set this matter
for public hearing on January 13, 1988. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 13. Albemarle Housing Improvement P~ogram (AHIP) -
Retention of FY 86/87 Carry-Over Balance. i
Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated D~cember 3, 1987:
"AHIP is requesting the Board to retain their FY 86/87 carry-over
balance of $4,318.29 for the following purposes:
Funding for a temporary Rehabilitation SpecialiSt from May
through August, 1987 which was part of the County's Community
Development Block Grant; and
Fund the Grants to Families program for expense~ which were
anticipated to be incurred prior to June 30, 1987; but which
were actually incurred in July.
Staff has examined the AHIP audit report, and recommgnds your
approval of this retention of funds as requested, to iavoid difficul-
ties in financing AHIP projects for the current year.!"
Mr. Bowie asked how much of the funding would aq%ually help the
families and how much would go towards the Specialist. M~. Agnor said he does
not have the information with him, but thinks that the funds necessary for the
Specialist are less than $1,000 and the funds necessary t~ help the families
are more than $4,000.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve
the request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 21)
430
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 18. Task Force on Children and Youth.
Mr. Agnor said Board members received a copy of the letter dated November
1987 (copy on file), that Mr. Way transmitted to Mayor Buck concerning areas
the Board had concerns with in the "Charge" to the Children and Youth Task
Force. Mr. Agnor said the charge has been extensively rewritten to address
the matter of evaluating current programs in their coordination and duplica-
tion; the underlying problem of the breakup of family causing the need for
these programs; and the addition of a member of the clergy to the Task Force.
The charge is now ready to go to the City. The City discussed Mr. Way's
letter at City Council meeting on Monday night and voiced no objections to the
County's approach to the Task Force so would appear to be receptive of the
rewritten charge. He recommends that the charge be forwarded to the City.
Mr. Bowie said the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission at its
last annual work plan meeting, discussed a request from the City and County
for the PDC's involvement with the Task Force because it already has much of
the information in the Task Force report. The Board of Directors of the PDC
voted unanimously to leave this item in its work schedule. He would like to
make sure that the Task Force knows that there is a coordinating agency
expecting to work with it in developing this plan, and that they already have
much of the information needed.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstro~, seconded by Mr. Bain, to
approve the charge as set out below:
CHARGE
TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH
BACKGROUND:
Response to the November 1986 Forum on Children & Youth was enthu-
siastic. It suggested widespread interest in coming together to help
the local government(s) develop policy directed at providing for the
nurturance and support of children, youth, and families in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The reasons for this interest are
two: Resources are diminished and the family has changed. Dimin-
ished resources require that local governments critically evaluate
the effectiveness and efficiency of current programs, while the
changing structure of the family has created additional problems and
needs for the children in our community Thus, within the community,
there is a feeling that we may not be meeting the needs of today's
families and that we must look for new and creative ways to bridge
the gap on one hand and, on the other, wbrk together to strengthen
and support the family unit to insure that the Charlottesville/
Albemarle area is a good place for families and children.
Addressing these two broad factors and the many smaller issues
contained within them, and, more importantly, developing realistic
approaches for their resolution, will require systematic study and
cooperative action by many segments of the community. To that end,
the steering committee of the Forum on Children and Youth is asking
the Charlottesville City Council to invi{e the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors to join with Council in e~tablishing a Community Task
Force on Children and Youth. ~
PURPOSE: ~
The purposes of the Task Force shall be:!
1. To evaluate current programs f~r children and youth in
terms of the efficient use of %ocal resources, and the
degree of coordination and/or duplication of services among
existing agencies, evaluating the possible merger of
agencies and/or a common Children and Youth Board of
Directors;
431
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 22)
To develop cost estimates for improved services and/or
expanded programs or facilities;
To use the best information available on child development
to help make our community a good place for children and
youth~
To use the best information available on the changing
family and the causes of family breakup to help strengthen
and support all families - troubled as well as healthy;
To take a holistic, family-systems approach to services and
programs for children and youth;
To facilitate coordination among and between service
providers~
CHARGE:
The Community Task Force on Children and Youth shall develop a policy
statement regarding the status of children and youth in Charlottesville/
Albemarle with specific recommendations designed to support sound
individual development, enhance the quality of life for the area's
children and youth, encourage healthy families, and provide needed
services efficiently and effectively. These recommendations shall be
based on the Task Force review of the Forum recommendations and shall
incorporate realistic implementation strategies.
COMPOSITION:
The Task Force shall be composed of thirteen membersito include: the
3udge of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, one representative
from the University of Virginia Administration, one representative
from the clergy, five City and five County appointees. The steering
committee recommends that each jurisdiction select the five appoint-
ees from the following categories:
One representative from the Charlottesville Social Development
Commission or an elected or appointed official;
One executive from business or industry;
One recognized professional in child development:;
One representative designated by the respective School Boards;
One at-large representative.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION:
The task force would be open to volunteers at the sub%ommittee level.
The steering committee hopes to recruit volunteers from agencies
serving children and youth, the schools, the courts and police,
recreation departments, the Social Development CommisSion, the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, community youth, government
officials, business and industry, service users, interested parents,
university professionals who conduct research in the ~reas of chil-
dren, youth, families, or related policy fields.
SUBCOMMITTEES:
Coordination, Planning, Intervention, Child Development/Resources for
Growth, Child Care and Family Support Approximately twelve to fifteen
members each.
ORGANIZATION and WORK PLAN:
The Steering committee proposes the following course of action:
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 23)
432
The City Council and the Board of Supervisors approve a
joint resolution establishing a Community Task Force on
Children and Youth.
The Task Force consist of thirteen voting members and two
nonvoting staff, as follows: ion, representative from the
University of Virginia administration, the judge of Juve-
nile and Domestic Relations COurt, one representative of
the clergy, five members appointed by the Charlottesville
City Council, five members appointed by the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, one City staff, and one County
staff.
The representatives from each jurisdiction would be select-
ed by Council or the Board from a slate of candidates
submitted by the steering committee or through position
advertisement; the manner of selection will be determined
by the governing body.
Once appointed, the Task Force will meet in a working
session with the steering committee to review the organ-
izational chart and to be briefed on the effort to date.
The steering committee will then disband.
The Task Force will convene ai"kick-off'' meeting to invite
community participation. Work will be done by subcommit-
tees organized under the direction of the Task Force.
Participants will be invited 5o sign up for a sUbcommittee
and work programs established with the help of facilitators
selected by the Task Force.
The subcommittees shall be ba:
which emerged in the forum, al
a. Coordination
b. Planning
c. Child Development/RE
d. Intervention
e. Child Care/Family Ss
ed on the general issues
modified:
sources for Growth
pport.
At the discretion of the Task Force, the work could be
directed by an executive committee of the Task Force who
will consult with the five subcommittee chairs and report
back to the whole Task Force gs appropriate. The chairman
of the executive committee wi%l be the chairman of the Task
Force and will be responsible ~or facilitating the project
and for advising and consulting with the jurisdictions.
The Task Force will receive its mandate from the Charlottes-
ville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors and will present its report to those bodies.
SUBCOMMITTEE CHARGES:
Subcommittee on Coordination
The Subcommittee on Coordination shall assess and prioritize Forum
recommendations on the coordination of services provision; including,
but not limited to, how information is disseminated and referrals
made, suggestions for ways to make information available, and sugges-
tions for ways to avoid duplication and strengthen linkages among
service providers.
Membership should include, but would not necessarily be limited to,
representatives from the Youth Commission, Information and Referral,
City and County Social Services, servicelproviders and service
receivers.
433
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 24)
Subcommittee on Plannin8
The Subcommittee on Planning shall first assess current services for
children and youth in the community to determine the level of coordi-
nation among various programs as well as possible duplication of
services and considering the possibility of agency merger and a
central or common Children and Youth Board of Directors. After
evaluating the present level of services, the Subcommittee on Plan-
ning shall assess and prioritize Forum recommendatiOns with respect
to the planning for services to Children and Youth. These would
include looking at the planning process; coordinating short and
long-range planning; and coordinating the planning which is done
within agencies with community-wide planning for children and youth.
Membership should include but would not necessarily be limited to
representatives from the Youth Commission, the Social Development
Commission, the University, County Administration, the Thomas Jeffer-
son Planning District Commission, service providers, community
people, Region Ten, the Health Department, League of Women Voters,
Junior League, University Administration, City and County planners
and planning staff.
Subcommittee on Child Development/Resources for Growth
The Subcommittee on Child Development/Resources for Growth shall
assess and prioritize Forum recommendations with respect to child
development and primary prevention (e.g. prenatal clinics, screening,
etc.). The subcommittee would focus on the developing child and
assess those services designed to promote healthy depelopment. It
would include looking at a broad range of the develo~J~ng child's
needs, including, but not limited to, educational, s6cial, and
recreational needs. It would focus on the needs of ~pecmfmc groups
(e.g. preschoolers, single-parent children) as well ~s on specific
issues such as summer needs.
Membership should include, but would not necessarily~!be limited to,
representatives from the Charlottesville and Albemarle County school
divisions, preschools, the Library, the Discovery Museum, McGuffey
Art Center, the Health Department, child care providers, Central
Virginia Child Development Association (CVCDA), Recrgation Depart-
ments, Curry School of Education, Infant Development?roject, the
Prevention Council, and Family Services.
The Subcommittee on Intervention
The Subcommittee on Intervention shall assess and prioritize Forum
recommendations with respect to planning for intervention strategies
for children and youth. These would include crisis ~ntervention
services, residential care, counseling and treatment~I the role of the
police and the courts, alternative education program~ and community
service systems. The programs and services considered by this
Subcommittee are those categorized as secondary or t~rtiary preven-
tive programs.
Membership should include but would not be limited t~ representatives
from the various treatment programs currently operating in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area, the Charlottesville ahd Albemarle
Departments of Social Services, service users, educators, University
researchers in child psychology and counseling, Regio~ Ten, the
police and the courts, and the Monticello Area Community Action
Agency (MACAA). .~
The Subcommittee on Child Care and Family Support ~
The Subcommittee on Child Care and Family Support sha~l assess and
prioritize Forum recommendations with respect to chil~ care and
family support systems. It would focus on the changin~ needs of
families in the community, paying particular attentio~ to the under-
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 25)
434
lying problem of broken families, and examining the roles played by
government, business, and the family who share responsibility for the
well-being of the family unit or the children. Emphasis should be on
provision of adequate child care services.
Membership should include, but would not be limited to, representa-
tives from MACAA, JAUNT, C¥CDA, Family Services, private day care
providers, local businesses, the University administration, Univer-
sity Day Care Committee, service users, League of Women Voters,
FOCUS, United Way.
Mr. Way asked that when the charge is forwarded to City Council a note be
forwarded indicatiNG that the Planning District Commission has this item as
part of its annual work plan, is a coordinating agency that already has much
of the information that will be needed by the Task Force, and the PDC staff is
expecting to work on this item. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
None. ~
(Note: Mr. St. John left at 2:00 P.M.)~
Agenda Item No. lld. Appropriations: Education (continued from the
morning's discussion).
Mr. Bowie asked why the Board is being ~equested to commit funds for
expenses that have not yet occurred and ther~ are no hard figures. Mr. N. A.
Overstreet, Division Superintendent, said th~ School Board and staff, after
some discussion with Mr. Agnor, decided to dd a major quarterly review and if
it was found that major adjustments were needed to make everyone aware of the
fact and make the adjustments so as to keep 6he budget in balance. This
year's quarterly review showed a number of s~gnificant problems that needed to
be addressed and he recommended to the School Board to overhaul the entire
budget and in a sense rebudget the entire budget rather than just address
those problems. The catalyst is to make sure the budget stays in balance by
doing interim assessments. To his knowledgeithere is nothing proposed in the
changes that the Board should not already know about in terms of projections
or have already engaged in terms of liability. The biggest change is in
instructional costs and this is directly attributed to enrollment increases in
the school system. There also are other expenditures for operations associ-
ated with enrollment expenses such as rent a~d purchase of mobile classrooms.
There has been some new revenue generated as ~ell. The budget is actually out
of balance by abou $400,000. A five percent ~oldback has been deducted from
all cost centers and discretionary funds. T~e requested increase in the
School's appropriation level of $192,883, whfch is excess State money, offsets
half of the liabilities. The School Divisio~ has offset the other liabilities
through a five percent reduction in all cost icenters. He also is requesting
the Board's approval of major category changes. The reason this request is
before the Board early in the year is because he thought it was significant
and he wanted to make sure the budget would ba in balance early in the year
and not wait until Spring and try to make the adjustments then. Mr. Agnor
said he has discussed these requests with Mr.~ Overstreet and he encouraged Mr.
Overstreet to make the change now from a budget management point. Mr.
said he shared Mr. Bowie's concerns and appreciates the explanation.
Mr. Bowie said he also appreciates the explanation, but he is bothered by
the fact that as soon as some extra money comes in there is no attempt to try
and save some of it. This is school money which could offset the withdrawal
of local funds. Mr. Overstreet said he agrees with that on the whole, but in
this particular instance, the majority of newi expenditures and new state
revenue are a direct result of enrollment increases over which there is no
control. Mr. Bowie said he still has some problems with the $61i438 and would
like to see some attempt to generate the funds internally. Mr. Overstreet
said that might can be done. He thinks that on the whole the budget is in
good shape.
435
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 26)
Mr. Lindstrom asked which year the acquisition of three, four-wheel drive
vehicles was requested. Mr. Overstreet said the vehicles were purchased in
the current year's budget. He commented that the only persons that should be
seen using those vehicles are persons involved with capital projects, trans-
portation or maintenance. Mr. Overstreet commented that a cost analysis was
done and it was apparent to him that the four-wheel drive vehicles were the
more cost effective.
There being no further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Henley,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the categorical amendments as requested by
Mr. Overstreet and set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by
the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
(The categorical amendements are as follows:)
EXPENDITURES
Administration
Instruction
Transportation
Operations
Fixed Charges
Total
REVENUES
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from State
$ 61,438.00
200,875.00
-96,401.00
98,084,0Q
-71,113.00
$ 192,883.00
[
$ 32,748.00.
160,135.00
Total $ 192,883.00
Agenda Item No. 14. Audit Committee Report - FY 86-87 Audit.
Mr. Bowie said the Audit Committee met officially thcee times with the
Auditors this year. Mr. Bowie then highlighted several areas of the Audit
Report and said the County cannot receive an unqualified ~udit until it has a
general fixed asset account group. The report indicates that the County is in
compliance with provisions of the law and administered its major federal
financial assistance programs in substantial compliance w~th laws and regula-
tions. The Auditors did find that the County had received funds directly from
the Department of Housing and Urban Development and deposSted those funds in
the County's interest bearing checking account of which none of the interest
had been remitted to the federal government, which was caused by a management
oversight. In addition, the Audit Committee and the DireCtor of Finance were
made aware of three minor areas which were not significan~ enough to include
in the audit. The areas were transfers being made directly from the fund
balance, the auditors felt the transfers should have been~imade through anothex
account, and a misclassification in the general account. ~The findings from
last year's audit are being worked on or have been eliminated. The Audit
Committee is satisfied with the audit and recommends acceptance.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept the
1986-87 Audit Committee Report. Roll was called and the Motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Review: Analysis of Revenues a~d Expenditures -
Fiscal Year Ending 3une 30, 1987.
Mr. Bowie presented the following report:
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 27)
436
"I. Introduction
By my memo of January 9, 1987, I presented an analysis of the Financial
Reports and Audits for the years 1982 to 1986. This report was discussed at
the January 14, 1987, Board meeting, was generally.approved and led to a
reduction in the Real Property Tax Rate from 776/$100 to 726/$100 for FY
87/88. That report also required two future actions:
VIII. Recommendations.
That this review be updated next year to determine if further tax
rate reductions are possible;
That this type review be conducted annually to determine a tax rate
which would be used as initial budget guidance from the Board to the
County Executive.
The purpose of this report is to satisfy the above two requirements.
January 9 memo and report is on file in the Clerk's office.)
II. Analysis of 86/87 Budgeted vs. Actual Revenues and Expenditures
Revenues: Budgeted
General Fund $37,557,230
School Fund 16,183~402 $53,740,632
Actual
General Fund $39,728,033
School Fund 15~988,698
55~716~731
Surplus Revenues
(Source:
FY 86/87 Audit, Schedule 1, .pp. 30 and 32)
Budgeted
General Fund
School Fund
$15,817,488
35~514,317
51,331,805
$15,116,272
34,813,605
49,929,877
Savings
Total Surplus
Expenditures:
Actual
General Fund
School Fund
(Copy of
$1,976,099
$1,401~928
$3,378,027
(Source: FY 86/87 Audit, Schedule 2, pp. 37 and 38)
III. Break-Even Tax Rate
Using Real Property as the base, the break-even tax rate is that rate
which would have allowed the County to do everything it actually did
during the audit period, July 1, 1986,1 to June 30, 1987. The value of
of real property taxes is $243,039.
Surplus $3,378,027 , $243,039 = 13.896 (146)
FY 86/87 rate 776 less 146 = 636 RE break-even tax rate
IV. End of Year Adjustments
The above break-even tax rate considers only those actions actually
taking place during the audit year. At the end of each year, the Board
may take actions which change the final balance, but because of timing of
the actions do not show up in the audited figures. For the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1987, several such actions were taken:
VI.
437
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 28)
Reallocations to FY 87/88 (to balance budget)
General Fund
School Fund
Carry-over 86/8~ (to complete 86/87 programs)
General Fund
School Fund
Stone Robinson School Cost Over-run
General Fund
School Fund
Adjusted Surplus:
Less
Total
$ 369,255
425,000
194,114
82,403
200,000
210,000
Total Actions $1,480,772
$3,378,027 (II above)
1,480~772 (end of year actions)
$1,897,255
Adjusted Break-even Tax Rate:
Surplus $1,897,255 , $243,039 = 7.806 (86)
FY 86/87 RE tax rate 776 less 86 = 696 RE break-even rate
Comparison of Surplus with Capital Improvements ProEram (CIP)
The currently approved CIP relies rather heavily (over 25 percent) on
General Fund and School Fund Carry-over Balances (Surpluses) and
'Interest on Idle Funds' for~ funding the program. I.t also assumes a '0'
beginning balance, that i~ no funds available at the beginning of FY
87/88 for the Program.
Of the $1,897.255 final surplus available from FY 86~87, $138,496 is in
the School Fund, and $1,758,759 is in the General Fund. The approved
funding plan for the CIP calls for $3.8 million in s~rpluses from the tw¢
funds during the period FY 87/88 to 91/92. The surplus from FY 86/87
gives us a 'head start' by providing 49.9 percent or, the total expected
surpluses ($1,897,255 · $3,800,000). Additionally, ~he CIP plan calls
for income revenue on idle funds of $1.35 million. If the current
surplus were invested at just six percent, it would ~ield an additional
$113,835 annually, or $569,176 for the five year period. This is 42.16
percent of the entire expected amount.
Although there is evidence of problems with accuracy of cost forecasts in
the CIP, the funding plan seems very sound with 40 percent to 50 percent
of expected surplus and investment funding already a~ailable.
Albemarle County Tax Rates Compared to Other Countie~
Despite three tax rate reductions in the past four y~ars (two in personal
property and one real property) Albemarle County remains in the top ten
percent of Virginia counties in rate of taxation. I
In personal property at $4.40 we tie for ninth place iwith Loudoun County.
In real property at 72 cents we tie for eleventh pla~e with Northhampton
and Greene Counties.
Although there are uncertainties in the cost estimates for the CIP as
discussed above, Albemarle County has now realized i~s sixth consecutive
year of significant tax surpluses. Additionally, ea=ly indications are
that we will realize a surplus again during the currsnt fiscal year. It
would seem that some further adjustment in tax rates Would be feasible.
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 29)
438
VII. Recommendations.
That the $1,897,255 surplus from FY 86/87 be escrowed for use in the CIP
as determined in the next update of the CIP.
That the above surplus be invested and that the income from that invest-
ment also be dedicated to the CIP.
That the 72 cents Real Property Tax Rate be maintained for FY 88/89
budget planning and be reviewed after the revised CIP and the 1988
reassessment is complete.
That in the development of the FY 88/89,budget (currently in process) the
County Executive attempt to bring in a budget that will allow for a
reduction in the Personal Property Tax Rate.
That this annual reporting function become the official responsibility of
the Board's Audit Committee, with the report presented with the annual
Audit Review.
Following the report is the proposed funding for the Five Year Capital
Improvements Program Beginning FY 1987-88, as set out in Minuted Book 27, in
the minutes of July 15, 1987, Page 13.
SCHOOL FUND BALANCE
School Fund Balance as of June 30, 1987
(Source FY 86/87 Audit, Schedule A2, p. 23)
Less: End of Year Actions
Reallocation to FY 87/88
Carry-over for FY 86/87
Stone Robinson School
$425,000
82,403
210,000
Available Balance
$855,899
717~403
$138~496
PERSONAL PROPERTY RATES
EFFECTIVE RATES (ADJUSTED TO 100 PERCENT NADA)
BASED ON 1986 RATES
COUNTIES:
1. Dinwiddie
2. Sussex
3. Fairfax
4. York
5. Rockbridge
6. Isle of Wight
7. Greenville
8. Arlington
9. Albemarle
10. Loudoun
11. Frederick
12. King William
13. Clarke
14. Goochland
5.00
4.75
4.60
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.40
4.40
4.35
4.20
4.00
4.00
(Tied for 9th)
439
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 30)
REAL ESTATE (TRUE TAX RATE)
1. Prince William 1.36
2. Fairfax 1.28
3. Stafford 1.10
4. Loudoun .99
5. Roanoke .96
6. Chesterfield .92
7. Arlington .90
8. Henrico .85
9. Charles City .77
10. New Kent .72
11 Albemarle .71
11. Northhampton .71
11. Greene .71"
(tied for llth)
Mr. Bowie offered motion for acceptance of the report. Mr. Lindstrom
seconded the motion and said he felt last year that the report was helpful in
addressing certain issues. He is not sure this is something the Board should
assign to the Audit Committee or ask at this time that the County Executive's
office prepare a report using this format on an annual basis. Mr. Bowie said
he has discussed this with the County Executive and the Only problem is that
he would give himself budget guidance. It seems to him that as long as the
Audit Committee is functioning, it would be appropriate to have the Committee
prepare the report although it would require considerable staff input. Mr.
Lindstrom then said he is not sure what acceptance of the report does to the
recommendations. Mr. Bowie said acceptance of the report is acceptance of th~
recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom withdrew his second and asked the staff for
comments.
Mr. Agnor said the staff thinks the recommendations are reasonable,
reachable and practical. He personally has no particula= problems.
Mr. Lindstrom said the implication of the report is for a tax cut and he
thinks there are things that first need to be considered .such as school needs
road improvements, etc.
Mr. Bain questioned the wording in recommendation "C" which ties togethel
the real property tax rate and the CIP. Mr. Bowie said it was not the intent
to tie those items together and they could be separated.
Mr. Way said it would certainly be a helpful tool to see what is happen-
ing and to provide an overall perspective of how things are going in the
course of a year. His understanding is that this report is strictly guidance
and not a suggestion to cut the tax rate. He also thinks this is a good idea
for general guidance as a beginning point for the various departments to have
budgetary discussions.
Mr. Bowie modified his motion to separate recommendation "C". The
recommendations are as follows:
That the $1,897,Z55 surplus from FY 86/87 be escrowed for use in
the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as determined in the next
update of the CIP.
That the above surplus be invested and that the income from that
investment also be dedicated to the CIP.
That the 72 cents Real Property Tax Rate be maintained for FY
88/89 budget planning. That the Real Property Tax Rate be
reviewed after the revised CIP and the 1988 reassessment is
complete.
That in the development of the FY 88/89 budget,: the County
Executive attempt to b~ing in a budget that will allow for a
reduction in the Personal Property Tax Rate.
That this annual reporting function become the official respon-
sibility of the Board's Audit Committee, with the report pre-
sented with the annual Audit Review.
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 31)
440
Mr. Bain seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 19. Septic Systems Setbacks from Lot Lines, discussion
of.
Mr. Horne referenced a report dated August 18, entitled "Septic System
Setback From Lot Lines". This report was originally presented to the Planning
Commission on the issue of whether to provide for more stringent regulations
on the location of septic systems. An item discussed by the Planning Commis-
sion, but not recommended, was restricting or regulating the distance between
property lines, septic systems and wells which basically would redefine the
building site to exclude required side, rear and front yards. The current
regulation is that the septic system can only be within the building site.
Mr. Lindstrom said he thought the general consensus of the Board was that
it did not want to do anything that would change the effect of minimum lot
size or buildable area. He wanted to specifically look at the area of bulk
regulations with a setback for septic field and wells 50 feet from the boun-
dary. In a previous discussion, Mr. Henley stated he would be inclined to
support the 50 feet if there was a mechanismin the Zoning Ordinance that
would allow adjoining property owners to agree to waiver that between them-
selves. That is what the Board asked staff to develop and that is what he
thought the Board was going to receive today~ This information is exactly
what the Board received before. Mr. Bowie said that also was his impression,
but he has had time to study the changes further and it confirms his previous
thoughts. Mr. Horne said he was not present,when this was discussed and did
not realize that is what was requested. Mr.iAgnor said his understanding was
that Board members wanted a briefing on the Whole concept as they did not
understand the entire section. Mr. Bowie sald this information has been
helpful to him and he appreciates its receipt.
Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see~this done, but does not want
anybody to be confused. Mr. Home said he u~derstands what is being said, but
by changing the setback for septic systems it would effectively increase lot
size. The situation would vary on a case bylcase basis, but in effect the two
acre lot size is not going to be viable any more. The two acre lot is barely
viable now in the county due to topographica~ conditions. Mr. Bowie said that
is how he read this change.
Mr. Bain said this is quite a significant change. He can go along with
some decrease, but has a problem with something of this nature because it
would be totally unrealistic.
Mr. Lindstrom said he also does not quite understand it all. He does not
think this is a way of increasing minimum lot size or imposing on developers,
but a matter of equity. He then gave an example of a neighbor putting a
septic field and well within ten feet of the property line which would cause
the other neighbor to offset from that well and septic field 90 feet on his
side of the property line. It would then cut off 90 feet of the second
neighbors lot and usable area which is his concern.
Mr. Henley asked if subdivisions are reguired to outline potential septic
field areas. Mr. Horne replied the building~site area is done through a
series of soils reports to verify that each pot has a buildable area. The
location of the septic field is not regulateR and the building site can go
right to the property line. ~
Mr. Bowie said the only problem is when. one neighbor wants to put a well
near another neighbor's septic field. It isl the exception that is going to
cause a problem. Mr. Henley said he does not have a problem putting the
restriction on everybody.
Mr. St. John said this all sounds like an injustice. There are already
provisions in the Zoning Ordinance the Commission and agent can waive some of
the site requirements with respect to septic fields. Although he feels it
441
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 32)
would be difficult to administer, he could write a waiver provision applicable
or available only when the adjoining landowner agrees. Mr. Horne said from
experience the problem does not come up too often with new subdivisions. The
problem arises when everything gets platted and the lots start selling indivi-
dually and there is a lack of coordination. Mr. Henley said he withdraws his
support of the change.
Mr. Horne said if the Board wants to continue to look at this, he can
look purely at the idea of setbacks of septic systems. There was no further
discussion and the consensus of the Board was not to move forward with this
amendment at the present time.
Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion: Enforcement - County Office Building
Parking.
Mr. Agnor said Mr. St. John transmitted a letter to the Attorney General
in November that focuses almost directly on the problem of ticketing parked
cars in handicapped zones. It is recommended that this discussion be deferred
until receipt of the Attorney General'.s response. That being the consensus of
the Board, there was no discussion.
Agenda Item No. 21. Discussion: Dog Laws.
Mr. Way commented that Board members do not have the materials with them
today and suggested deferring this to another time.
Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion: Amendment to Minimum Wage Law.
Mrs. Cooke said she received a letter, dated October 30, 1987, from
Hardee's and is concerned with a number of things in the letter, as a Board
member and as a business person. She sees it as a burden~on employers to pay
a higher rate of minimum wage which could result in the elimination of a
number of jobs. She thinks that a formal statement should be made to the
County's Federal legislators to vote against the increase. She thinks it is a
serious matter and would not like to see it passed by.
Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mrs. Cooke. He intends to respond in
opposition to the proposal and if the Board decides to make a decision he will
support it. ~
Mrs. Cooke said it might be more effective if the Board did take a
position, but she intends to respond even if the Board de~ides not too. As a
business person, she cannot afford to hire a trainee in a~ $4.65 per hour.
Smaller businesses cannot afford the increase which would.result in elimina-
tion of a lot of jobs. Mr. Henley agreed with Mrs. Cooke~and said he could
support a Board resolution. ·
Mr. Bain said he would like to look at where the CoUnty is in terms of
minimum wages. Before he would be willing to do something as a Board, he
needs more information. ~
Mr. Lindstrom said he feels this is a matter of persdnal sentiment and
thinks it is appropriate for individual Board members to ~espond. He thinks
it has a lot of implications and does not think it is in ~rder to ask the
staff for assistance.
Mrs. Cooke said if businesses cannot afford to pay the higher wage, then
it becomes a matter of unemployment in the County and the~ the Board has a
responsibility to take a stand. Right now the area enjoys a low unemployment
rate and if this happens that might not be the case. She ~ls not asking for
any action today, but would like the Board to consider some sort of action. '~
high rate of unemployment in the area would cause an increase in demand for
welfare which would be a definite Board problem.
Mr. Henley said he does not feel thestaff should have to research
information with regard to this. Mr. Way suggested that this matter be
brought back to the Board for further consideration in January, with no
additional information required by the staff.
December 9, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting)
(Page 33)
442
Mr. Agnor commented that this legislation has passed the U. S. Senate and
is already in the House of Representatives.
Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from Board
Members and the Public.
Mr. Agnor said whenever YACo asks him to serve on a committee he brings
it before the Board for its concurrence. The Virginia Municipal League has an
association of counties commission called Local Government Structures (LGS).
LGS has been working for the past year looking at the city/county problems
since Virginia is the only state which has separate cities and counties.
While this has been going on there has been a moratorium on annexation activi-
ties. The Commission is willing to defer making any recommendation to the
General Assembly until a second com~nittee meets. The second committee being
the Joint Task Force on Interlocal Coordination is the one on which he has
been asked to serve. The chief function will be to formulate a position on
annexation and the related issues which would be acceptable to both counties
and cities. There were no objection from Board members that Mr. Agnor serve
on the Joint Task Force on Interlocal Coordination.
Mr. Way announced that immediately foll6wing this meeting there will be a
Building Committee meeting in the Fourth Flo6r Conference Room. Mr. Bowie
said the Building Committee will meet in executive session, but expects to
make no announcement.
Mrs. Cooke asked if the letter receivediabout band uniforms is just from
a citizen for information. Mr. Way said yes land suggested that the letter be
referred to the Education Department
Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no ~urther business to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:47 iP.M.
443